Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/January 2020

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 Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 30 January 2020 [1].

Battle of Babylon Hill

[edit]
Nominator(s): Harrias talk 10:40, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Battle of Babylon Hill of little more than an early skirmish of the First English Civil War. Both sides were inexperienced and still learning the art of war. As such, the description of this engagement as "more muddle than battle" is fitting. Ralph Hopton was considered one of the more able of the Royalist leaders, and yet here he found himself needlessly ambushed by the enemy.

The article underwent both a GAN and then a MILHIST A-class review in October. As always, all feedback will be gratefully received. Harrias talk 10:40, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Some of the details in the infobox don't appear to be cited anywhere

Comments Support by Zawed

[edit]

My comments focus more on prose/narrative rather than on the subject matter itself given my limited knowledge of the period/topic.

Another interesting read about the English Civil War. Hope the feedback helps in making this an FA. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 22:26, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Zawed: Thanks for the review. I've responded to most of the points above, a couple will have to wait for me to have my book sources handy. Harrias talk 12:40, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Zawed: I have addressed the last few issues, let me know if there is anything else. Harrias talk 09:15, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good, have added my support. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 02:04, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Cas Liber

[edit]

Taking a look now...

  • wielding "pitchforks, dungpecks, and suchlike weapons. - can this be rephrased to remove same workds and quote marks?
  • Hopton established Babylon Hill as a suitable location to observe the town, due to hedge-lined gullies which allowed his troops to climb the hill unobserved from the town - would be nice if we could eliminate one use of the word "town" and "observe/unobserved", however an alternative is not sprining to mind....

Otherwise reads very well - nice clear English, coherent, succinct and easy to follow. Seems to be to be on track comprehensiveness- and prose-wise Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:01, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Casliber: I have made changes to each phrase, let me know what you think. Harrias talk 12:32, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: Just to explain why I have been quiet here: we did some sorting over Christmas, and I can't currently find my copy of The Battle of Babylon Hill Yeovil 1642, which much of the article is based on. Harrias talk 09:34, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I know the feeling well...I have most of my books packed up atm. Driving me nuts Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:00, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator notes

[edit]

Unfortunately this has moved well past the two-week mark without any support for promotion or much activity at all. I've placed it on the Urgents list but it will be archived in the coming days if it does not receive significant attention soon. --Laser brain (talk) 12:07, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Will the completion of the standing reviews do? Otherwise I can chime in. FunkMonk (talk) 18:33, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

[edit]

I have done a little copy editing, which you will wish to check. Revert at will.

  • "but they were forced to leave the town on 6 August" Worth, IMO, clarifying that "the town" is Wells, lest readers, not unreasonably, take it to be Marshall's Elm.
  • "Hopton established Babylon Hill as a suitable location to watch the town" Do you mean that 'Hopton established that Babylon Hill was a suitable location from which to watch the town', or that 'Hopton established himself on Babylon Hill, a suitable location to watch the town'?

I gave this a pretty thorough going over at ACR, but even so, I am surprised that this is all that I can find to pick at. I must be losing my touch! Gog the Mild (talk) 17:54, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Either that, or I'm finally learning how to write... Harrias talk 18:59, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, oh! I am so wanting to give a "humorous" response, but all of those I can think of are too open to misinterpretation. Seriously, your articles are always well written, and this one especially so. Yeah, IMO that meets all of the FA criteria 1, 2 and 4 bar 1c (sources - signed off above). Happy to support. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:40, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass

[edit]
  • Inconsistent use of alt text.

Gog the Mild (talk) 17:59, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All images are appropriately licenced, positioned, captioned and alt texted. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:06, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

[edit]
  • "The Battle of Babylon Hill was a skirmish" I think it would be helpful to give the result at the start, e.g. "The Battle of Babylon Hill was an indecisive skirmish"
  • "they spotted a group of Parliamentarian soldiers" I would take "group" to imply a small number. How about "contingent"?
    • Trimmed down to "they spotted Parliamentarian soldiers approaching"
  • "though many of their troops were routed" This sounds wrong to me. You can rout a group, not individuals. Also, according to the account below, sections of both sides were routed, not only the royalists.
    • Changed to "though sections of both forces were routed"
  • "began withdrawing their infantry" What does "their" refer to? I would say "the infantry".
  • "A Parliamentarian report from the battle described that". "described that" sounds odd. Maybe "According to a Parliamentarian account of the battle"
  • "Hopton lists that" Again odd. I suggest Hopton states that"
  • "According to Hopton, Stowell was successful in routing the approaching enemy, but his inexperienced cavalry were outnumbered and themselves routed" This sounds contradictory. If the enemy were routed, they could not outnumber the royalists.
    • And yet, that is what the sources tell us happened. "Capt. Stowell charg'd verie gallantly and routed the enemy, but withall (his troope consisting of new horse, and the Enemy being more in number) was rowted himselfe ; and Capt. Moreton, being a litle too neere him, was likewise broaken with the same shocke". Harrias talk 11:05, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In total, the Parliamentarians committed a similar number, around 350 men, to the fight" This should be in the lead as you state the number of royalists there.
  • "In a letter sent by the prominent Royalist Sir Edward Nicholas, he described that" Do you mean "to Nicholas? Also "described that" again.
    • No; have rephrased this to "In a letter written by.."
  • "Morris suggests that" As this is the first time you mention him you should give his full name.
    • Good spot; have expanded to "In his account of the battle, the historian Robert Morris.."
  • Aftermath section. You mention the retreat to Yeovil in paragraph one, but describe it in paragraph two. I would swap the paragraphs round.
  • "Hertford travelled with the infantry and artillery to Wales" Presumably they took the boats, so I would say "Hertford sailed for clarity.
  • The content of this article seems fine so far as I know with no knowledge of the subject, but the language is sometimes clumsy. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:25, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Dudley Miles: Thank you for your review; "the language is sometimes clumsy" is essentially my style, much as I strive to improve! I have responded to each point above, mostly adopting your advice directly, but sometimes with variation as noted. Harrias talk 11:05, 27 January 2020 (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) 26 January 2020 [2].

Horologium (constellation)

[edit]
Nominator(s): Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:27, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a constellation - so far I have been more or less involved in most of the 32 current featured articles on constellations. This one got a good going-over in GAN and I am throwing it up here for reviews. I will respond pronto. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:27, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Fowler&fowler

[edit]

I'm still comatose from the Christmas feast, so I can't vouch I'll be wholly cogent, but I'm troubled by this submission, by its length, or the lack thereof, but more by the lack of narrative, the kind of narrative that transmutes data in the form of lists into heuristic explanations which aid our understanding. I'd like to clarify a few things in the first three sentences of the lead first.

I agree about the lack of narrative - problem is creating overarching sentences where no sources have them veers into OR...which is also a problem. Happy for input on this. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:56, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I see that there already is a long line of similar articles, even about Lacaille's constellations, which are FAs. So there's precedent. ( I'll have to mull this over more. My worry is (and this might not be the best place to air it): there are hundreds of topics, for example, in math, physics, chemistry, ... One could narrow down a topic to a constituent that is a near-indivisible thematically, then write something that is comprehensive. It might not have any narrative. What do we do with such an article? ) Still, I think there has to be more content that we can use, especially in the history section. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:12, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the more recent ones are faint as they are from left-over stars that the ancients didn't visualise into patterns. Constellations now are polygonal tracts of sky as well. Shall I take the "faint" out? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:56, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't so much the faint that I was objecting to here, as the comma that creates an appositive. Can we say rephrase the first two sentences as: "Horologium (Latin hōrologium, from Greek ὡρολόγιον, lit. an instrument for telling the hour<cited to OED>) is a constellation of seven faintly visible stars in the southern celestial hemisphere that was first described by the French astronomer Nicolas-Louis de Lacaille in 1752 and visualized by him as a "clock with a pendulum and a seconds hand." In 1922 the constellation was redefined by the International Astronomical Union (IAU) as a region of the celestial sphere, and has since been an IAU designated constellation."?
Aha, ok. Yes that was worded very well and I will take you up on that offer. I had no idea about appositives until yesterday either. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:36, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, adopted. @Fowler&fowler: (or anyone else) you wouldn't have a page ref for the OED would you? I have an OED with the magnifying glass thingy but we are rearranging rooms and I think it is under a pile of books somewhere and can't immediately locate it... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:44, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is: horologe, noun, Oxford English Dictionary, retrieved 26 December 2019 (subscription required). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:15, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
:) I know all about the pile of books. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:18, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • What is a faint constellation? Does it mean that the least luminous star is faintly visible to the unaided human eye or that in the crowded night sky the configuration itself can be made out with a low (but positive) success rate by the human visual perception apparatus? If it is the former, then what is its value? If it is the latter, then what psycho-physics experiment measures it?
It means that its brightest stars are pretty faint, unlike (say) Orion, Ursa Major or Crux Australis. Its pattern to the unaided eye is pretty indistinct (like many of the more recent constellations). Astronomy guidebooks often call constellations like this (like Mensa, Octans, etc.) "faint" as a quasi-shorthand. So sort of the latter - it just highlights to a lay-reader that is a faint rather than distinctive pattern. For more detail, we have the Bortle scale - I have touched on it in a footnote but not linked as such. Constellations simultaneously have two meanings to the lay-observer - the pattern of their brightest stars, but more comprehensively, a polygonal area covering a piece of sky and all the items thereis as a sort of "address."Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:19, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sentence 2: It is one of the eighty-eight modern constellations designated by the International Astronomical Union.
    • This sentence makes no effort to explain why there are only 88 "modern" constellations, and why, for example, a post-modern teenager with killer eyesight will not find the 89th. (I.e. even if the 88 constellations subdivide the celestial sphere into polygons whose sides are parallel to the spherical coordinate axes, there is no guarantee that this teenager will not find a finer subdivision.)
The whole sky was mapped out into 88 constellations in 1922. It seems a bit off-topic to for discussion on that to be raised here. I did look to see if any planets were described as "one of the Solar System's eight planet" (but they aren't). Would it be better then to just omit the 88, as the main thrust is that the reader understands that this is a currently recognised constellation (not like one of the many that is no longer recognised) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:38, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The constellation is wholly visible to observers south of 23°N.
Correct, I guess feasibly if Northern Hemisphere observer with a telescope was desperately keen to see something on the constellation's southernmost limits being the point... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:38, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I understand. Let me think about a rephrase. Sorry, I made a mistake; Beta-Horologium is visible below 26 N. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:38, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Horologium constellation: showing the tangent line, or viewer's horizon, at latitude approx 23 N, which is parallel to the line of -67.04 declension, the lower declension boundary of the constellation.
I wonder if the diagram on the left will be useful in the Characteristics section. Without it, or something similar, the notion that the constellation is wholly visible below latitude 23 N might not be clear to many readers. (Or maybe it is, and I'm just underestimating their geometry skills.) It will have to be redrawn by one of the graphics people, though. Also, in that case, you might want to insert the last two sentences beginning, "The official constellation boundaries ..." after the first sentence. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:27, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
PS declension = declination; it has secondary meaning in grammar, that most people know. So, perhaps, best to use only declination. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:29, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have the stats in at the bottom of the Characteristics section and figured that the numbers themselves help explain things satisfactorily. I've not been asked in previous constellation nominations. Pondering whether diagram might be good in constellation article somehow so it doesn't get repeated 88 time...(???) Maybe just leaving the phrase out of the lead altogether? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:20, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No leaving the phrase out is not a good idea, as it aids comprehension. Does it aid it sufficiently at the level of lay knowledge? This is a tricky call. My own opinion is that it does not. We are really talking about a 3-dimensional reality. We are saying the tangent plane (i.e. the horizon) at any point of latitude less 22.96 (approx. 23 N) intersects the volume between two downward-pointing cones of apex angles (90 - 39.63) and (90 - 67.04) transversally. "Transversally" means intersecting both the inner and outer surfaces. This, of course, it too complicated an explanation. Here is one resolution: Change the sentence to: "This region on the celestial sphere is wholly visible to observers at any location below 22.96 degrees N latitude." 22.96 instead of 23 will give the reader a clue to make a connection with -67.04, as 22.96 is 90 - 67.04. I will make some tweaks in the lead directly in the interest of moving this forward. Sorry this is taking time :( If you don't like them, please revert. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:25, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My problem here is that the source has rounded to the nearest degree... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:11, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
:) I forgot the cardinal principle. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:10, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Update - I made a collapsible box to contain the diagram - can be seen on this version. Have reverted for now as I cannot get it to align on the left of the goddamn page and just sits in the centre jarring the whole thing. No-one has asked for something like this before, and am thinking it would be great on a more dynamic wiki that a hover would get it to appear. The collapisble box is the next best thing (I think). Anyway, have RL chores to do and will ask about how to left-align the collapsible box... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:06, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The dynamic wiki would really aid comprehension. The footnote is fine too. I will try to make a more accurae diagram. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:12, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have made a more accurate picture. It may take some time to show in the diagram. Also, as there already is precedent for constellations, so my objection to the short length doesn't belong here. I have changed my vote to Partial support, changeable to full support once some other changes are implemented. If you don't like the new picture, feel free to revert it. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:39, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - wrestled with a collapsing box for a bit but there is no way to left-align it nicely and it has been pointed out to me that their use is discouraged as per MOS. I guess it has got me thinknig about a more dynamic interface but that is a discussion for another place and time. Newer diagram looks good. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:19, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed my vote to a full Support. I haven't been able to read the later sections, but I managed to learn a thing or two; in particular, the definitions of ascension, which had been bugging me until I realized it is defined with respect to the sun's longitudinal plane, i.e. longitude where the sun is overhead. I've also learned something new about constellations, especially those of the southern celestial hemisphere, and the stars alpha-, beta-, and R-Horologium, and their value for astronomers both professional and amateur. This was fun for me. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:05, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
thanks muchly, @Fowler&fowler:, these articles really benefit from some prose polish.....any spare time for a neophytic look at Rigel I would be insanely grateul for, even just the lead... :) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:13, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Coming back home a little while ago, I happened to look up at the night sky, and lo and behold, there was Orion, of old, of my middle-school days, of when our dad and us would lie down on our backs with a fluorescent star atlas and count the constellations, the same Orion of Rigel and Betelguese, of the belt pointing to Sirius. My eyes are weaker, so Rigel was less blue and Betelguese less red, but they are all still there. Maybe I will look at the virtual Rigel. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:37, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass

[edit]
  • Consider adding alt text.
added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:07, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild (talk) 13:22, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All images are appropriately licenced, positioned, captioned and alt texted. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:07, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass

[edit]

The sources used are all reliable. I am unable to find any other sources which would materially add to the content of the article. The sources referred to seem to support the text cited, insofar as I have checked them. I found no unattributed close paraphrasing. I consider the sources to be current, as these things go. Everything that I would expect to be cited, is. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:22, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SC

[edit]
Lead
  • "a seconds hand": I was thrown by the s until I checked the OED (it prefers second, but also allows seconds); the OED does, however, hyphenate. I couldn't see what variant of English is used, but it may be worth checking.
Wow, I'd never given that much thought. My natural instinct is to use "seconds hand" rather than "second hand". The latter reminds me of second-hand bookshops. Also, if with 's' then hyphen looks really odd inserted there...? I need to think about this... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:56, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I was slightly surprised by the hyphen too, FWIW. - SchroCat (talk) 10:51, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
History
  • Ditto on the hyphen
see above Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:56, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Characteristics
This is tricky - we discussed this at the GAN. It has some rudimentary information so isn't as strictly DAB as some others. There is no way of determining which water snake is meant by the Ancient Greeks as no source discusses it. Only alternative is to leave unlinked (if we think that is an improvement) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:56, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's OK, if there is some basic information for people, then this should be OK. - SchroCat (talk) 10:51, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a large area of white space on my monitor. Given the length of the IB there is also some sandwiching, but I'm not sure there is a way round it.
  • Is there a reason 'Hor' is in single quotes, rather than double?
Err, no. And I just realised other people have double quotes and I have perpetuated single quotes through a bunch of constellations, which I am have now fixing fixed... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:11, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I thought we were supposed to include indications about images in the text "(illustrated in infobox)"? (I can't find the guideline, so I'm not 100% sure if that's still current)
You mean "not include"? Is already in - this was the result of an FAC of another constellation where a reviewer said it'd be helpful (and I agreed) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:11, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oops - yes, not include. The info is at MOS:SEEIMAGE - it's a guideline rather than a hard-and-fast rule, but there is a rationale for not using directions. I'll leave it to your discretion as to what to do, and it won't affect my support. - SchroCat (talk) 10:51, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ok so the guideline says "Don't refer to images as being to the left/right, above/below, etc. because image placement varies with platform (especially mobile platforms) and screen size, and is meaningless to people using screen readers." - this is fair enough. In this case, the text refers to the image in the infobox, which is in a fixed position at the top right of the article regardless of screen size or platform. I think leaving the parenthetical text s more useful in than not in the article as the description is hard to visualise and the image is in a distant part fo the article, hence a pointer is good. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:11, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Stars
  • You have some descriptions that use the definite article, and some without ("English astronomer Francis Baily" and "American astronomer Benjamin Apthorp Gould", but "The German astronomer Johann Elert Bode".
removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:11, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Refs
  • You have a few page ranges that are in the 343–57 scale; the MoS now suggests the 343–357 format, but I'll leave that to your discretion as to whether to ignore or implement.
I previously used 2-digit spans everywhere but lost where I orignally read that, and someone else told me to use the whole range...fixing in a moment.. tweaked now to all digits Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:11, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I hope these help, Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 13:05, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

thx ! Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:12, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Laser brain

[edit]
  • "He devised fourteen new constellations in previously uncharted regions of the southern celestial hemisphere, which were not visible from Europe." This statement is unclear to me. Is "devising" a constellation the same as naming one? Or do they decide which stars will be grouped into a constellation and thus "devise" it?
the newer ones are pretty obscure and their patterns are probably most diplomatically described as subjective. Hence people like Lacaille did their best to visualise patterns and then set out/demarcate constellations, so is more than just naming if that helps....? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 16:20, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Horologium also has several variable stars." I find this needs linking or context here. Even having read the lead, I didn't remember that your link to "Mira variable" means the same thing as here.
A variable star is any star that varies in brightness for any reason. I've linked it now. Tempted to write "stars that vary in brightness" but then we end up with an easter egg link....A Mira variable is a very specific kind of variable star. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 16:20, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's it from me. Overall a very good read. --Laser brain (talk) 13:18, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

thx! Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 16:20, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Praemonitus

[edit]

I made a few small changes, but otherwise it seems up to snuff FA-wise. Praemonitus (talk) 20:06, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

edits look fine, thx for support. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:45, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 24 January 2020 [3].

Bridgeport, Connecticut, Centennial half dollar

[edit]
Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 12:57, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about... a coin with P.T. Barnum on its face, which given the troubled commemorative coin market of the 1930s has led to the obvious description of buyers of this and other issues as suckers, born every minute. Given the scarcity of coin collectors these days, the "born every minute" is probably not accurate, anyway...Wehwalt (talk) 12:57, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Ceoil

[edit]

Support on prose, sourcing and comprehensiveness. The usual standard for numismatic FACs; most informative, have made a few trivial edits. Ceoil (talk) 06:50, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review and support..--Wehwalt (talk) 17:41, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Usernameunique

[edit]

Infobox

  • Thickness, but not diameter, is converted to inches
Well spotted, there was an error in the template. Fixed.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:22, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Background

  • What is a calliope/what is its relation to a circus? The calliope article leaves it unclear.
There is discussion under calliope (music). I have piped.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:41, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • to a group authorized by Congress — perhaps "to groups"?
I've recast the sentence.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:08, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Legislation

  • one of several commemorative coin bills to be considered on March 11, 1936 — What were the others?
There were about ten, plus a couple of medals and to bring back the three cent piece. I think we give the reader enough info.
  • authorizing legislation placed no prohibition on this — Should this be "the authorizing..."?
I could do "their authorizing ...". I'm not sure "the" adequately refers to several pieces of legislation. It feels like it doesn't.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:22, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • six coinage bills being considered one after the other — What were the others?
Like the above, I wonder if it's really needed. If you insist, I'll drop a footnote with them.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:58, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
On both counts I would find a footnote interesting—not only would it help integrate the articles, but it would also further illustrate one of the recurring themes of these articles, i.e., that the 1930s saw a glut of commemorative coins that flew through Congress for several years without much pushback. But totally your call.

Preparation

  • Do sketches of the originally proposed design still exist?
Yes, Taxay reproduced them and they're probably in the Numismatist. However, Kreis hasn't been dead 70 years so even though the Numismatist wasn't copyrighted at the time, I don't feel we can use them.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:08, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You might ask at the copyright desk—it seems to me as if they might be in the public domain as either a) pre-1978 works without copyright renewal, or b) works of someone for the federal government, but someone there could give you a better idea.

Design

  • Dealer B. Max Mehl, in his 1937 work on commemoratives — Any reason why this is not cited?
I've changed to the more direct cite.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:08, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Production, distribution and collecting

  • May as well cite to the auction for the exceptional specimen: link.
Did that.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:08, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  • Are 8 and 12 the same source?
No, 8 is the copy of the bill, that contains information about who introduced it and when, and to what committee it was referred. The other is the published transcript of the Senate committee hearing.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:08, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Due to changes since my comment, they’re now 8 and 13. To confirm, those are the ones you were talking about? If so, I would recommend changing the citation format somewhat so that, without having to click on the link, one is clear what documents the citations refer to.

Looks good, Wehwalt. Minor comments above. --Usernameunique (talk) 17:23, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Usernameunique Many thanks, I've either done those things or have responded.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:22, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My pleasure, Wehwalt. Adding my support. Three discretionary comments above. —Usernameunique (talk) 23:12, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I glanced at this and ended up reading all of it. I particularly enjoyed the comments on the eagle! I could find nothing to criticise in the prose or comprehensiveness. Very nicely put together, and very readable. Sarastro (talk) 17:32, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review and support.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:21, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator notes

[edit]

Looking strong, but still need an image review. @Usernameunique: Can I take your comments as having reviewed the sources for formatting and reliability? --Laser brain (talk) 12:33, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Checked the images, it seems like the only problem is that File:PT Barnum 1851-crop.jpg has a broken link. No ALT text in use, it looks like the images are pertinent and well placed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:43, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed that link. Thank you for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:21, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Laser_brain, yes, the formatting and reliability checks out. The difference between references #8 and #13 could perhaps be made more clear if there is further information such as subtitles that could be added, but that's a small matter that shouldn't stand in the way of promotion. --Usernameunique (talk) 17:46, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 22 January 2020 [4].

Randall Davidson

[edit]
Nominator(s): Tim riley talk 18:57, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a biography of the longest-serving Archbishop of Canterbury since the Reformation: he served for 25 years, from 1903 to 1928, through momentous times, and in a quiet way he was one of the foremost religious leaders of his time. The article has had an exceptionally thorough and wide-ranging peer review, with input from Cassianto, Fowler&fowler, Gog the Mild, Josh Milburn, KJP1, Noswall59, SchroCat, Smerus and Wehwalt for which I am immensely grateful. I think the article now meets the FA criteria, and I look forward to colleagues' comments here. – Tim riley talk 18:57, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Cassianto

[edit]

I never did finish, did I! Nevermind, it has certainly had the Rolls-Royce treatment since and is a stunning piece of work. CassiantoTalk 19:04, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Cassianto! Yes, I've indeed been privileged at PR. Support gratefully received. Tim riley talk 19:07, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

[edit]

Some trivia:

  • "and, after a brief spell as a curate he became chaplain and secretary" Comma after "curate"?
  • "Henry's father, grandfather, and great-grandfather were Presbyterian ministers" Link minister.
Fair enough. But note that I had to look up just what a minister was to see what what you had written meant. Knowledge of the intricacies of the various Christian hierarchies may not be as widespread as you believe.
OK, I'm persuaded. Linked. Tim riley talk 10:15, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done.
  • "he had hoped to study Greats (classics and philosophy)" Lower case g? "the less demanding subjects of Law and History" Ditto l and h? "Third Class Bachelor of Arts" And again. Followed by "degree in law and modern history". "Roman Catholic doctrine such as Benediction". "opposite the Chapter House".
  • Capitalisation has been tricky throughout this article, and I don't doubt others might not capitalise everything I have capitalised. "Greats" is always capitalised. I should think even The Guardian would capitalise it. I am persuaded about "third class bachelor of arts, though. The Chapter House is borderline, but is usually capitalised in the sources. Tim riley talk 09:35, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • " he thought too much power was in the hands of its general" Optional: Link general to William Booth.
  • I think it was more generic than just Booth – it was the nature of the general's office he was concerned about. Tim riley talk
  • Note 8: "The 26 senior diocesan bishops sat, and (2020) still sit, as Lords Spiritual as opposed to Lords Temporal.[51] Davidson succeeded to the seat on the death of James Atlay, Bishop of Hereford." Should that be 'a seat'?
  • "In 1895 Davidson accepted the offer of translation to the largely rural diocese of Winchester, which involved less arduous work" This reads as if it were the translation which was less arduous.
  • Optional: Link cope.
  • "the link between Buckingham Palace and Lambeth Palace" is, sadly, only likely to make sense to a learned few. Possibly a bracketed translation?

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:05, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • "In August 1904 Davidson accompanied by his wife, sailed to the United States" Comma after "Davidson"?
  • "241 bishops were present" One would normally avoid starting a sentence with a number. Perhaps 'It was attended by 241 bishops' or similar?
  • I have never seen an explanation of why it is sinful to start a sentence with a number. Seems to me a superstition on a par with the mythical split infinitive. I think the prose is crisper as it stands. Tim riley talk 09:35, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and reunion with other Churches" I read "other" as meaning the Catholic and Orthodox churches. Which further reading suggests is not what you intend. Possibly you could be more specific?
Do you mean that it is unclear in the source as to
"reunion with other Churches" is the actual wording in the source. Tim riley talk 10:15, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "an eight-day visit to combatant troops at the front" Are you sure that he visited "the front"? On the face of it it seems unlikely.
  • Under Lambeth Conference, 1908: "Prayer Book"; under Revision of the Book of Common Prayer: "Prayer-book".
  • I thought I'd caught all those. The form "Prayer-book" is the usual version in the contemporary sources and I have tried to standardise on that, though my personal usage would be "Prayer Book". Now amended – thank you! Tim riley talk 09:35, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "opened the door to Romish practices" Might it be mentioned to a reader what these may have been, and, more pertinently, why anyone might have objected to them. (Possibly a brief explanation of high v low church and its relationship to Catholicism earlier in the article may be appropriate?)
  • I'm not keen to repeat the examples given earlier – east-facing communion, lighted candles, making the sign of the cross, Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament and so forth. Not that Joynson-Hicks was specific. He cleverly hinted at – and never named – the Romish excesses he professed to fear. Tim riley talk 09:35, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking more of something like 'ceremonial rituals and accoutrements similar to those used by the Catholic Church, also known as the Church of Rome, which the Church of England objected to because [you're on your own there I'm afraid]'.
I see what you mean, but we're straying into WP:OR here. Everyone in the House knew what his hints were referring to (bells and smells as you say) but, as far as I can now find, none of the sources interpret them into unequivocal plain words. If I can find such a thing after a a more leisurely search I'll add it. Tim riley talk 10:15, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Not a deal breaker, IMO. I can more or less follow what is happening, but I suspect that one doesn't need to be far removed from the internal Anglican wranglings of a century ago to find it impenetrable.
  • "He had served as Archbishop of Canterbury for longer than anyone since the Reformation" Optional: Footnote pre-Reformation A'soC who did serve longer?
  • There seem to have been some in the pre-Conquest era such as St Honorius and Berhtwald; after the Conquest I can only spot Henry Chichele, Thomas Bourchier and William Warham. (This is from our WP list of Archbishops of Canterbury.) The sources I have used, even the massively detailed Bell double volume, don't go into the matter. I agree it would be nice to mention the long-serving predecessors, and I'll look out a WP:RS next time I'm at the BL. Ideal for a footnote, as you say. Tim riley talk 09:35, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and was buried with him" - 'alongside him'?
  • On top of, I should think. I wasn't looking closely when I was last at the Cathedral, a couple of years ago, but I think from the photograph in the article, the graves are not double-spreads.
My point was that, to me - and I may be alone in this - "buried with" means at the same time as. Not important if you are confident of your meaning.
Oh, I see! It's a fair point, but the dates rule out any misunderstanding. We could just leave it out if you prefer. Tim riley talk 10:15, 10 January 2020 (UTC) Or perhaps "buried in the same grave?" Tim riley talk 12:56, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My point is a fairly trivial one, so I wouldn't want to beat it to death. I like 'in the same grave', but don't insist.
  • "this particular bark of Christ" Optional: Link "bark" to barque.
From the MoS "Be conservative when linking within quotations: link only to targets that correspond to the meaning clearly intended by the quote's author."

Thank you for these points, Gog, as well as for your v. helpful input at the peer review. Much obliged. Tim riley talk 09:35, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. An impressive article. A couple of minor points above for your minor consideration. If I haven't responded then I am content with your response. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:17, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Tim. A couple of comments above purely for your consideration. Great work, I am more than happy to support this outstanding article. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:03, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Gog, thank you very much for your detailed input at PR and now here. I am much indebted to you, and hope to repay your thorough reviewing when next you want it. Tim riley talk 16:34, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nb: it is my intention to claim points in the WikiCup for this review. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:00, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Noswall59

[edit]

I may have time to review this fully, but I apologise if not—things have been rather busy offline lately. I am glad that you found Grimley's book helpful. It has just occurred to me that Roy Strong's 2005 book Coronation probably has some discussion about Davidson's roles in the 1902 and 1911 crownings. I remember Strong going into some detail on the organising committees' "behind the scenes" politics which might add something to the article (or not, I don't know). I apologise for this slipping my mind while this was at PR. Otherwise, this is looking like a fine summary of the man's life, work and thinking. —Noswall59 (talk) 20:54, 8 January 2020 (UTC).[reply]

This is the one that I mean (other booksellers being available of course...) —Noswall59 (talk) 20:56, 8 January 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Excellent! I'll put it on my list for my next visit to the British Library. I don't think anyone will object to my adding a sentence or two, if appropriate, after the current review is concluded. Tim riley talk 09:41, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Fowler&fowler

[edit]

I read this article very closely during the Peer Review, taking time to weigh its every word, phrase, clause, sentence, paragraph, and section. I have no hesitation in recommending it for promotion to a Wikipedia Featured Article. May I take this opportunity to congratulate the author. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:27, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for your valuable and detailed input at PR and for your support here. I am greatly indebted. Tim riley talk 09:42, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SC

[edit]
Lead
  • "He was the longest-serving holder of the office since the Reformation, and also the first to retire from it": the "also" brings nothing to the party.
  • The "also" is not needed grammatically I agree, but I have written and rewritten this sentence and the "also", to my mind, helps the flow and rhythm. It has, I think, the additional benefit of distancing the second part of the sentence from the first, making it clearer that he was the first ever to retire, not just the first since the Reformation. Tim riley talk 12:26, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1903, he succeeded": no need for the comma (you don't use it in this fashion elsewhere)
Early years
  • "Although high-church versus low-church controversies were rife": as these are the first mentions after the lead, best to link high-church and low-church.

Done to the end of the EL section. More to follow. – SchroCat (talk) 10:12, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for these, SC. Looking forward to more, at your convenience. Tim riley talk 12:26, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing:

Curate and chaplain
  • Do we need the Mews quote? This looks like one that could easily be re-written.
Dean
  • "unbudging". I'm not a fan of the word; would "unwavering" or "unchanging" suffice? (your call to leave as is, if you prefer).
Rochester
  • "1894–95" should be, according to the MoS, "1894–1895", in mmuch the way you have 1888–1890 above.
Winchester
  • "Purgatory" or, as our article has it, "purgatory"?
  • The sources use the capital. I think the supposed actual place is capitalised as a proper noun, but the figurative and more general use of the word ("...temporary suffering or expiation") has a lower-case p. The OED gives a pertinent example: "The doctrine of a purgatory seems innocent in itself..: it is only the absurd notion of praying or buying souls out of Purgatory, that renders it a heresy repugnant to reason". Tim riley talk 10:52, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are link for a few religions here (Roman Catholic and Baptist are in this section). Although it is advised not to link these (in MOS:OVERLINK), I think it's advisable to retain them here, given the subject.
  • Done.

Done to the end of Winchester; more soon. - SchroCat (talk) 16:41, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Canterbury
  • "In 1907, Davidson": another errant comma (there are a couple of others lower down I'll leave to you to sort)
  • Blast! I thought I'd caught all these. (Legacy of a short-lived and well-meant effort by another editor to improve the article with AmE commas.) I'll have another comb-through to find any further stragglers. Tim riley talk 10:59, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Domestic affairs
  • "and was succeeded by George V": this final sentence needs a citation
Kikuyu controversy 1913–14
  • "1913–14" (in title and first sentence): again, the MoS now suggests 1913–1914 is the way to go (another ridiculous change foisted without much of a discussion outside a small set of devotees, but we're supposed to pay the MoS some lip service at least)
  • This is true, although it does make the Contents table look a bit odd with the following:
5.2 Domestic affairs, 1909–1911
5.3 Kikuyu controversy 1913–14
5.4 First World War, 1914–1918
Feel free to leave it as it is: I'll leave the decision to you over what to do with the rather silly decisions of the "Guardians of the MoS"®! - SchroCat (talk) 11:05, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You're right: the headers do clash a bit with each other. I've changed the Kikuyu one to 4+4 digits, but left the 4+2 form in the text à la MoS. Inconsistent, admittedly, but what can you do given the MoS's prescription.(Rather silly, as you say: I can't recall seeing the 4+4 prescription applied anywhere else but Wikipedia, and I'm always uneasy when we're out of step with the rest of the world.) Tim riley talk 13:14, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
First World War
  • "and even considered resigning[100] But, despite": a missing full stop, or was it something else?
  • It was indeed a missing full stop. Now stopped.

Done to the end of the war, for now. As a general point, you may just want to cast you eye over your commas in lists: some are serial, some are not (and the serial are not in places where there is confusion ("put to Parliament in 1894, 1895, 1911, and 1912", as an example)). Best to make consistent, where possible. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:47, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Welsh
  • Any need for the accent in "élite"? The OED eschews the use...
Strike
  • You have "co-operation" here, but "cooperate" a bit further up
  • "John Reith, general manager of the BBC": the general manager?
  • I'm happy with or without the definite article here, and have added it. (I have so far lost a little bet I had with myself that someone would boggle at "general manager" and try to change it to the metachronistic "director general".) Tim riley talk 12:31, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "fearing reprisals from the government": it's odd he feared reprisals, as he allowed the TUC their say and tried to get a Labour broadcast in too. Maybe he was coming under increasing pressure by this stage.
  • I don't know the details of the BBC and the General Strike, but the sources are clear so far as Davidson's proposed broadcast is concerned. KJP1 may know – indeed will certainly know – more about the wider question than I do. Tim riley talk 12:31, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's my lot. A fine article – certainly up there with that on Lang, which is exceptionally good. – SchroCat (talk) 11:29, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, SC. Your comparison with the Lang article means a lot to me, for obvious reasons. Tim riley talk 12:31, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Wehwalt

[edit]

Support Had my say at the peer review, seems fine.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:34, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Wehwalt, both for support here and for your input at peer review, for which I was, and am, most grateful. Tim riley talk 10:21, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from KJP1

[edit]

Just booking my spot in what's an already crowded field. Pleased to pick up the Source review unless a more ecclesiastically-minded reviewer has their sights on it. KJP1 (talk) 19:38, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

KJ, all comments gratefully received. A source review would be a bonus, especially from one who knows the period as well as you. Tim riley talk 19:44, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I also made a few suggestions at PR but the article was fully FA standard without them. Pleased to Support. KJP1 (talk) 23:07, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, KJ. You made so many helpful suggestions for sources at PR that I threatened you with being co-nom here. I am exceedingly grateful for your input, and for your support here. Tim riley talk 08:54, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Images

[edit]
ALT seems OK to me, regarding use isn't one file of Tait sufficient? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:21, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Only one of Tait included, plus one of his son. Tim riley talk
Thank you for the review, Jo-Jo-Eumerus. Is there anything above that I need to action to make the images acceptable? Tim riley talk 21:01, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The provenance and broken link issues should probably be addressed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 21:39, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Scans of originals now noted. No idea about the broken link. I should have known better than to use an image from Commons: they invariably cause grief at FAC. Can delete the image and do without in the info-box if you insist. Tim riley talk 22:09, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's more a problem with files that directly link to the source file rather than Commons. I don't think the broken link is a serious issue. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:50, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent. Thank you so much for the review. Tim riley talk 12:01, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Given that the Clerk of the Closet article states someone can retain the office after leaving his see, I'd like to see a source for the 1903 end date
  • Source for "Appointed Clerk of the Closet immediately after his consecration, he remained in close touch with Queen Victoria"?
  • I'd suggest moving the archive link in your web sources to immediately before the retrieval date
  • Done.
  • FN56 should have full details for the original publication as well as the republication
  • I'm afraid they aren't available. This impression of the Book of Common Prayer (1662 version) was printed by John Baskerville, but no publisher is mentioned. The two functions often overlapped in those days but I really do not know whether that was so in this case. I have my own copy of the Prayer Book to hand, (printed in the 1960s) which I could cite instead if wanted, but I thought a link to an online source would be helpful to those who haven't a BCP on their shelves. Tim riley talk 18:23, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent in whether page ranges are abbreviated
  • FN125: what source is this referring to?
  • Changed. (It was agreed at PR that "Barber" was a more appropriate citation than "Taylor", though it isn't as straightforward as chapter author -v- book editor, and I clearly omitted to change the ref.) Tim riley talk 18:23, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN140 doesn't match other Times refs
  • FN144 should include doi, although I'm not sure why you're using {{cite journal}} in the Sources section and not here?
  • I'm not familiar with doi, and haven't used it before. Is it now a requirement for FA? WP:CITE says it is optional. Added, anyway. I could remove the template from the Quinault reference if you prefer. (The length of that article is the reason why it is sequestered under "Journal" – at 16 pages it needs a specific page number in the references.) Tim riley talk 18:23, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further reading should be a separate section rather than subsection
  • Begbie OCLC goes to a different work
  • Jacobs: looks like Magee is an illustrator rather than a coauthor?
  • I should say Martell's work, published by Durham University, meets the second criterion in the list at WP:SCHOLARSHIP. It is, incidentally, cited by Dan Cruickshank of Glasgow University in his The Theology and Ecclesiology of the Prayer Book Crisis, 1906–1928, which I have not read. The quotations are verifiable in William Bridgeman, Philip Williamson ed., The Modernisation of Conservative Politics - The Diaries and Letters of William Bridgeman, 1904–1935, The Historians' Press, 1988, p. 212, I am told, though I have not seen it. Tim riley talk 18:23, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria - I can certainly vouch for the quote. I have a copy of Bridgeman in front of me now. The full cite reads: “The Archbishop thought, ‘he absolutely muffed it ... a poor speech with no knowledge and no fire’. Bridgeman himself called it ‘the worst speech in his life’.” Philip Williamson is a respected historian of the Baldwin-era Conservative Party and, although this may be less of a recommendation, he taught me! KJP1 (talk) 19:09, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Smerus

[edit]

I made my meagre comments at PR, but am very glad to support this excellent article for FA.--Smerus (talk) 19:20, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, Smerus, for support here and for your input at PR. Gratefully received. Tim riley talk 08:31, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from JM

[edit]

I read this closely and had a shufty for further sources when it was at PR. I'm happy with Tim's respones, and particularly happy that he managed to dig up (and incorporate) the sources I identified. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:26, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, JM, for support here and for your input at PR. I enjoyed following up your suggested sources, and the article is the better for it. I am much indebted, and as ever, I hope you will feel free to ping me to repay the debt at any future PR you have up. Tim riley talk 21:44, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 22 January 2020 [5].

Samuel Mulledy

[edit]
Nominator(s): Ergo Sum 03:06, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a Catholic priest who had a less-than-stellar track record as a Jesuit. He became the president of Georgetown University, but was relieved after just a few months and then was booted from the Jesuit order. He drifted around and then was re-admitted on his death bed. Ergo Sum 03:06, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Coffeeandcrumbs

[edit]

I am not sure if I have the time for a full review but I do want to offer what I can:

@Coffeeandcrumbs: I appreciate whatever comments you can provide. If you're able to do a review of the whole article, that'd be great. Ergo Sum 22:57, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt

[edit]

An interesting read:

Sources. Should the Gramatowski title be in title case like the others?
  • Given the briefness of the section of president of Georgetown College, it might be worth mentioning (having looked at the source) that while he was president the college attended Polk's inauguration and marched in the procession to honor Andrew Jackson on his death. By the dates, those happened during his tenure.
  • I would think that you could mine Dooley for a few more details, again, given that the article is relatively brief. Father Quarter's opinion of his assistant sounds worth repeating. And it sounds like he overcame his alcoholism there, and possibly details of his funeral.
That's it for now.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:53, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Wehwalt: Thank you for your comments. I believe I've responded to each. Ergo Sum 23:49, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Wehwalt (talk) 00:23, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Epicgenius

[edit]

(I must note that I am planning to claim WikiCup points for these comments.) On first read, this seems to be a decent article, but short. I will leave more detailed comments later. epicgenius (talk) 18:41, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • who was a prominent 19th-century Jesuit in the United States and who was also president of Georgetown. - I think you can eliminate both instances of "who was". This makes the sentence unnecessarily wordy.
  • proved to be a distinguished student - I feel that this may be slightly vague. Did he have good grades?
  • He sought to be relieved of the position after only a few months. - Do you know why he decided to quit? I also find the phrase "sought to" slightly offputting. You can probably say, simply, that he quit.
    • I mean, technically, he wasn't allowed to quit; he had to get permission from the Jesuit superior. That's why I phrase it that way. I cannot find a reason why he quit, but I imagine it was probably related to early alcoholism. Ergo Sum 20:27, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mulledy then became an alcoholic, and was expelled from the Society of Jesus in 1850 - probably an unnecessary comma.
  • Samuel A. Mulledy[2] was born on March 27, 1811, - Not a problem in itself. Is the reference there to support his full name being "Samuel A. Mulledy"?
  • His brother, Thomas F. Mulledy, was 17 years older than him, - He only had one sibling?

More to come later. epicgenius (talk) 18:45, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • some of his tuition he paid in kind, in the form of two horses - I think this can be rephrased because it is awkward. E.g. "He paid some of his tuition in kind,"... Are the horses the only payment he made in kind?
  • He also studied in Nice in 1840, which fell within the Jesuit province of Turin. - Should "in 1840" be at the beginning of the sentence?
  • Generally you can mention Mulledy's name more often (first or last, either way), rather than beginning sentences with "He". E.g. He then returned from Europe can be replaced with "Mulledy then returned"...
  • Speaking of commas, Mulledy then returned from Europe, and was appointed on November 1, 1841 doesn't need a comma, either.
  • He was young for a holder of the position - Out of interest, any younger people held this position?
  • From 1847 to 1848, he was a professor dogmatic theology at Georgetown, and taught rhetoric thereafter
    1. it's missing a word - "professor of dogmatic theology"
    1. this phrasing may make it confusing with regards to when/where he taught rhetoric. Would that be after 1848 at Georgetown? If so you may want to say something like: "At Georgetown, he was a professor of dogmatic theology from 1847 to 1848, and taught rhetoric thereafter".
  • He then was assigned to the Church of Sts. Peter and Paul in South Boston and St. Mary's Church in Yonkers, New York, in 1859 and 1860 - Respectively or concurrently?
  • Mulledy was well liked by the congregation there, "well-liked" is an adverbial form so it can be hyphenated.
  • asthma, as well as an enlarged aorta in 1865 - His preexisting asthma, or was he diagnosed with that and the enlarged aorta in 1865?
  • Archbishop John McCloskey decided to transfer administration of the parish to the Jesuits,[35] which was done at Mulledy's request - you probably don't need the phrase "which was done".

These are the rest of my comments for now. Otherwise I don't see any obstacle to this page becoming yet another priest-related FA. epicgenius (talk) 21:04, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Cas Liber

[edit]
  • Support - have read this through. It is a small article, but I can't see any prose issues itching to be corrected, nor (judging by this page) fixable gaps in narrative. hence I am tentatively supporting it but am a neophyte in the area. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:36, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]
After a deeper look, I am almost certain this is about Thomas and you don't have any sources for Samuel going to Nice. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 17:42, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You are right, that was my reading the Latin source too quickly. I've corrected the error. Ergo Sum 19:58, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I will be back to finish up later. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 14:24, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Coffeeandcrumbs: Thank you for this thorough source review. It's much appreciated. Ergo Sum 19:58, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's it for me. You already have my support. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 20:45, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Ergo Sum 21:58, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator notes

[edit]

Requesting a source and image review. --Laser brain (talk) 13:02, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Somewhat of a short article. Image-wise it seems like both use and license are OK here. Only one of them has ALT text. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:26, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Both images have alt text. Ergo Sum 15:33, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Laser brain: would it be acceptable for me to do a source review as well. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 10:26, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Coffeeandcrumbs: Absolutely. --Laser brain (talk) 14:39, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 22 January 2020 [6].

Ersatz Yorck-class battlecruiser

[edit]
Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 18:12, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article covers a planned class of German battlecruiser that was cancelled late in World War I - they were originally to have been Mackensen-class battlecruisers, but were redesigned in response to the latest British Renown-class battlecruisers. Never built due to Germany's shifting industrial priorities, they nevertheless provided the starting point when the German Navy began work on what became the Scharnhorst class in the mid-1930s. This article was thoroughly overhauled earlier this year and passed a Milhist A-class review in February, so it should be in good shape. Thanks to all who take the time to review it. Parsecboy (talk) 18:12, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

CommentsSupport by CPA-5

[edit]
  • Pipe German to the German Empire.
    • Done
  • governed the building program of the German navy during World War I Link the German Navy I also believe navy should be capitalised.
    • Done
  • had a displacement of 34,000 to 38,000 metric tons (33,000 to 37,000 long tons) Link tonnes and long tons.
    • Done
  • estimated to have been able to steam for 5,500 nautical miles (10,200 km; 6,300 mi) Link nmi.
    • Done
  • largely been diverted to support the U-boat campaign U-boat campaign is a proper noun.
    • Fixed
  • a concept Wilhlem II had been pushing for years Typo here.
    • Good catch
  • denotes that the gun quick firing Quick firing needs a hyphen.
    • I don't think it does there - you generally only hyphenate when the two words form a compound adjective that directly describes a noun (the same as "X class" vs "X-class ship")
  • in four Drh LC/1913 twin gun turrets; this was identical to the main armament Twin gun needs a hyphen.
    • Fixed
  • Link long tons, tonnes and full load in the infobox.
    • Done

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 15:10, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks CPA. Parsecboy (talk) 15:23, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Llammakey

[edit]
  • battlecruiser should be linked at its first appearance in the first paragraph of development
    • Good catch
  • The improved field of view statement after the trunked funnels in the first paragraph of the design section is unclear if you mean the conning tower or the mast, especially since you just spoke about the spotting tops.
    • The mast - hopefully clearer now
  • I would hyphenate single ended and double ended boilers
    • Fixed
  • In armor, link Derfflinger-class ships
No problem. Changed to support. Llammakey (talk) 14:52, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Tirronan

[edit]
  • No mention of horizontal protection even the lack of such should be mentioned, otherwise I have no issues.

Image review

[edit]

Coordinator notes

[edit]

Unfortunately this is nearing the one-month mark and hasn't seen much attention overall. I've added it to the Urgents list but otherwise it will be archived in the coming days. --Laser brain (talk) 13:00, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I left a couple of notes on relevant wikiprojects - hopefully that can drum up a few reviewers. Parsecboy (talk) 13:37, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Harrias

[edit]

Note: I am participating in the WikiCup.

  • {{lang}} for Kaiserliche Marine, rather than just italics please. (Check for later examples too, I spotted Reichsmarineamt, Grossadmiral, Vizeadmiral, grosskampfschiff Konteradmiral.)
    • Ugh, I still need to go through and fix a lot of articles with this problem - they should all be fixed here
  • "..the Mackensens, ..." Is it really right to not italicise the plural 's' here? It looks very odd.
    • You can do it either way - I've tended to see the non-italicized variant, so that's what I've used (see for instance here)
  • "..of the three to have construction begin," This sounds a little laboured to me; maybe "..of the three to have begun construction,"?
    • Works for me
  • "..were initially to have been members of the Mackensen class, and initial funding.." close repetition of "initial".
    • The first "initially" can probably just go
  • "..that hewed closer.." "hewed" is quite an AmEng-centric term. While I appreciate that this article is written in AmEng, is there a more accessible word that can be used?
    • Reworded
  • "Capelle stated that the last three Mackensens—Ersatz Yorck, Ersatz Scharnhorst, and Ersatz Gneisenau—and Ersatz Friedrich Carl if work had not proceeded too far along, and that they should be reordered as a completely new design, GK6, which he submitted." This doesn't seem to make grammatical sense to me? Possibly remove "and that they"?
    • Probably something that got rewritten once too many times
  • "Since the ships' propulsion system.." This might be an ENGVAR thing, but shouldn't "propulsion system" be pluralised here?
    • Good catch
  • "After 1917, work on the ship only took place in order to keep dockyard workers occupied.[2] The ships were never built, primarily because the shipyard capacity available that late in the war.." This feels like a contradiction: the first sentence says they worked on it, essentially, because they had nothing better to do, while the second sentence suggest there wasn't enough capacity to work on it?
    • I can see how you got there if you're only considering manpower, but there were a couple of things going on. The shipyard facilities could only build so many vessels at a time, since there were only so many slipways. And completing the hull would allow the yard to launch it, thus clearing the slipway for other projects There were also only so many support structures (which is to say, the subsidiary production organization that included the workshops that assembled ships' engines, armor plate factories, etc.) - so if, for example, Krupp doesn't have the production capacity to complete guns for these ships on top of the colossal demands the German Army at that point in the war, the ship won't be completed, regardless of whether everything else in the logistical chain would support it.
  • "GK3021 and GK3022 types" What are these?
    • Other latewar design studies, two of quite a few - I don't know that a separate article is worthwhile on them since they were purely academic, with no realistic proposition of being built.
  • "..the design formed the starting point for the design work.." The second "design" probably isn't needed.
    • Agreed
  • One thing I found a bit confusing was that in the Development section, is states "Capelle stated that the last three Mackensens—Ersatz Yorck, Ersatz Scharnhorst, and Ersatz Gneisenau—and Ersatz Friedrich Carl if work had not proceeded too far along". This is the only mention of Ersatz Friedrich Carl, I assume it just never got ordered at all?
    • It's somewhat common to have conflicting names for ships that weren't built - I think Staff is referring to one of the four Mackensens as Ersatz Friedrich Carl, but I don't have the book at hand to confirm. Groner refers to the last Mackensen as "Ersatz A", which doesn't comport with German contract naming practices. I'll check with Staff later today.
      • If there is some information which could go in a clarifying footnote, that would be ideal. Harrias talk 11:05, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Staff refers to the fourth Mackensen as "A/Ersatz Friedrich Carl", which makes sense to me. The Germans ordered their ships either as replacements for older vessels (so Ersatz [ship name]) or as additions to the fleet's numerical strength (denoted with a single letter) - combining the two as "Ersatz A" doesn't make sense - I can only assume it was a typographical error or something. Parsecboy (talk) 13:30, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • Okay, I see. Reading Mackensen-class battlecruiser (which refers to it as Ersatz A), it makes a bit more sense. Could something be noted that Ersatz Friedrich Carl/Ersatz A/Fürst Bismarck was not modified as an Ersatz Yorck class, and that she was cancelled as a Mackensen-class battlecruiser? Otherwise, people are going to be left wondering. Harrias talk 14:48, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
            • That's a good idea - and as an aside, I need to go back and update the Mackensen article with Staff and Dodson (but that's a lengthy backlog and there are a lot of older FAs that need more significant work!) Parsecboy (talk) 15:16, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
              • As another aside I went back and looked at Groner, and on page 57, he refers to the vessel as "Ersatz Friedrich Carl (A)" and then on page 58 as "Ersatz A", which seems to be a mistake. Parsecboy (talk) 12:37, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Generally very interesting, and only really minor fixes: nice work. Harrias talk 15:30, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Harrias. Parsecboy (talk) 18:24, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Great work, more than happy to support this. Harrias talk 08:46, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by From Hill To Shore

[edit]

This is my first time participating in FA, so feel free to make liberal use of WP:TROUT if I overstep.

  • Is there a reason why we translate Grossadmiral and Vizeadmiral but not Konteradmiral? I don't know the literal translation but our articles seem to compare it to rear admiral.
    • Nope - an oversight on my part
  • Is the following the correct word usage? I have not had to talk about increasing displacement before but this doesn't parse well to my layman's eyes. the bulk of the displace growth
    • Should have been "displacement"
  • Following changes above, you are now referring to plural ships and plural systems. Should it be "they were" here? Since the ships' propulsion systems had already been ordered, it was kept
    • Good catch
  • In the General characteristics section there is a second reference to metric tons. All other mentions in the article after the first one just use t. I am guessing that it is an oversight but happy to consider if there is a reason for it.
    • They should all be standardized now
  • Again in the General characteristics section, there is a comparison between "standard weight" and "full load." As the previously linked Displacement (ship) gives a definition for full load, there is an implication that we are using "standard" displacement as the comparison. However, the second term wasn't defined until 1922. Is there some other definition for "standard weight"? Either a link or a footnote to clarify whether we are using an anachronistic comparison would be useful.
    • Changed to "designed" to avoid confusion
  • Armament section: The 15 cm and 8.8 cm guns use the conversion template and link to their respective articles. Is there a reason why the 38 cm ones don't have either the link or conversion template? The 38 cm guns are linked in the infobox but I couldn't spot another link in the article.
    • The 38cm figure is converted earlier in the article, so it doesn't need to be repeated. Added a link
  • Armament section: is there a reason why the footnote directly follows the word "guns"? I may be thinking of an old MOS rule I read many years ago but I thought that references and footnotes should follow the next punctuation mark, in this case the semi-colon.
    • Fixed
  • I can't find an article about Drh LC/1913 twin-gun turrets but shouldn't we link to Gun turret? The link is in the infobox but this is the first appearance in the prose and I expect that some readers would want to know more about Drh LC turrets. Alternatively, a redirect from Drh LC/1913 to the Gun turrets article may be preferred. It not only links the unusual term to a more descriptive article but flags up through "what links here" that we need to add some detail on German turrets to the target article.
    • Linked to gun turret - I may at some point get around to developing the related gun articles, which is probably the best place to discuss specific turret types.
  • a common practice for German naval weapons later during the war. This might just be my personal taste, so feel free to disagree, but the use of "later" there doesn't look right. I'd normally use, "during the latter part of the war."
    • That works for me
  • Armament section: the first paragraph makes a comparison to the Bayern-class, making the following sentences a little confusing as to whether we are talking about the intended design of the Ersatz Yorck-class or the practical implementation on the Bayern-class. I suspect that a mixture of the two is used. It may be beneficial to separate out descriptions of the design and descriptions of the implementation into separate paragraphs.
    • They were the same - both classes received (or would have received) the same Drh LC/1913 turrets - I don't really see a benefit to splitting the paragraph, as the performance of the guns and shells wouldn't have changed between the two classes
      • The key problem I have with the paragraph is that we switch from were to be in the first sentence (subjunctive) to were, originally allowed and had (definite) in the rest of the paragraph. It just doesn't flow quite right for me. It isn't clear on reading whether we are referring to the design of the Ersatz Yorck or the implementation on the Bayern. Perhaps instead of The turrets were arranged in two superfiring pairs, one forward and the other aft. we could say In both designs the turrets were arranged in two superfiring pairs, one forward and the other aft. That should probably correct the flow as it indicates that we are still talking about the subjunctive Ersatz Yorck but also bridges to the definite in relation to Bayern. We then come back to Ersatz Yorck in the discussion of ammunition.
        • That works for me.
  • Armament section: we refer to the H8 torpedo. There doesn't seem to be an article at the moment but there are some specifications for it at List of torpedoes by name. Is it worth adding a link to there?
    • I think a redlink is in order - another editor has been working on a lot of the gun and torpedo articles, and will likely get to it at some point (or I will)
  • This may be a result of my ignorance of FA, but is there a reason why some measurements use the conversion template and others are included with manual conversions? I've not checked any of the manual ones to see if the correct values have been used.
    • Not really - I originally wrote this article more than a decade ago and didn't use the templates - apparently not all of them were redone in the rewrites since then
      • I've gone ahead and implemented the auto-conversion wherever a manual conversion was in the article. I think I caught them all. There were some changes to the converted numbers; some were due to rounding while others were more substantial (possibly indicating an error in the manual calculation). From Hill To Shore (talk)

I've only read up to the Armament section so far but will return to this tomorrow. From Hill To Shore (talk) 00:17, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing:
  • Armor section: the sides were 300 mm thick and the roof was 130 mm (5.1 in) thick. The rear conning tower was less well armored; its sides were only 200 mm (7.9 in) thick and the roof was covered with 50 mm (2 in) of armor plate. The main battery gun turrets were also heavily armored: the turret sides were 270 mm (11 in) thick and the roofs were 110 mm (4.3 in) thick. The 15 cm guns had 150 mm worth of armor plating in the casemates; the guns themselves had 70 mm (2.8 in) thick shields to protect their crews from shell splinters. - that has quite a large number of repeats of the word thick in a small space. I'd advise dropping a few. For example, you could say the sides were 300 mm thick and the roof was 130 mm (5.1 in). It is clear that both measurements are of thickness but you remove a duplicated word.
    • Trimmed most of these
  • Construction and cancellation section: the the midship section links you to the top of section A of the glossary in reference to "amidships" but there is also the term midships in the same glossary under section M. This could be confusing as readers will pop up at section A looking for a word that appears later in section M. According to the glossary, Amidships is the middle compared to port and starboard, while Midships is the the middle compared to bow and stern. Are we using the right word but linking to the wrong section, or is it the right section but wrong word?
    • It's somewhat complicated - while there is probably a distinction to the saltiest of sea dogs, "admidships" and "midships" are used interchangeably by most people (Dictionary.com provides both definitions for amidships and midships as a variant of the former). There's a way to use an anchor to take readers directly to the word in question, rather than the top of the section - let me fiddle with the glossary and get that to work correctly.
      • I've gone ahead with a temporary fix of having the midship link pointing to midships. That is sufficient for me to give support here but feel free to implement the more advanced anchoring method. From Hill To Shore (talk)
  • Construction and cancellation section: Is footnote c in the right place? It looks like it could relate to either the second or fourth sentence but has little bearing on the fifth or sixth sentences.
    • Good point
  • References: An ISBN check of Grießmer, Axel shows that we are only using a small portion of the title. Is there a reason for this? The full subheading may be a bit big but the primary heading includes the period of coverage.
    • Added - a lot of articles to fix for that ;)
  • References: I would advise applying "origyear=First published 1980" to Herwig, Holger per Template:Cite_book#Date.
    • Added

I have no access to the text of the sources so I will leave it to others to verify the cited text. Other than that my review is complete. From Hill To Shore (talk) 22:12, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again. Parsecboy (talk) 12:56, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone ahead and made a few changes in line with your comments above. I'm now happy to give my support. Well done. From Hill To Shore (talk) 13:49, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from CaptainEek

[edit]

Howdy hello! A darn good job for sure, and I always find ships fascinating (they don't call me the captain for naught). With that in mind, some notes:

  • I feel like the fact that they planned but not realized should be baked into the first sentence of the lead. The third paragraph of the lead could then just begin by noting the reasons they weren't completed.
    • Good idea
  • Why is battlecrusier linked in the first development paragraph, but battleship isn't?
    • Fixed
  • "which led to questions in the RMA over the three ships" Why?
    • In a nutshell, Tirpitz exercised a a great degree of control over ship design during his tenure, and with him gone, individuals with different views had more of an ability to influence new ships
  • "GK1, GK2, and GK3" Any particular reason for the naming scheme?
    • GK stood for Grosse Kreuzer (large cruiser), which is what the Germans called their battlecruisers at the time - I didn't include it since I didn't think readers would care about an arcane naming scheme (especially since it would require explaining what "Grosse Kreuzer" means), but I can work something in if you think it's worthwhile.
      • Well, I wondered, I think a quick note could be helpful.
        • Added a note on that
  • You list "General Department", but a few sentences earlier said "General Navy Department". Are they the same or different? If the same, standardize the naming
    • Done
  • Why mention armor in the general characteristics if you have an entire section on armor? On my first read-through, the out of place mention of armor there left me with a lot of questions. Having it in two different places seems disjointed to me.
    • I'm not sure what you're talking about - the general characteristics section only talks about the dimensions and construction of the hull and the projected crew.
      • Going back through, I realized I misread that. Nvm :)
  • "The guns were expected to fire around 1,400 shells before they needed to be replaced." That seems...unusual. Is that typical for medium caliber naval guns of the era? Do any of the sources mention that being unusual, or give commentary on that statistic? Did the whole gun need replacing, or did its barrel simply need to be re-machined?
    • That's fairly standard - most naval guns of the era were built-up guns that had rifled liners that would be replaced periodically (see the "A tube" in this diagram - you can see the same thing in practice here)
      • Ah, thanks for the explanation. Perhaps you should mention in-text that it was a built-up gun, if you have a source to back up the claim? Then you can say something like "Being a built-up gun, it would last 1400 rounds before replacement"
  • "Hexanite" shouldn't be capitalized
    • Fixed
  • Having the battleships portal render above the footnotes section creates some odd looking whitespace. Perhaps that could be moved to under the footnotes section so that it renders still at the top-right but doesn't create odd whitespace? Or perhaps move it down the page further?
    • I think this has been fixed

All in all, a top notch job with just a few nitpicks. Please ping me once you've implemented things or if you have any questions. Smooth sailing, CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 06:01, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing the article, @CaptainEek:. Parsecboy (talk) 15:08, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Parsecboy: Good fixes! I have replied to a few points above CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 18:58, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 22 January 2020 [7].

Henry Clifford, 10th Baron Clifford

[edit]
Nominator(s): ——SN54129 14:23, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Another in a series of bold bad barons—yes, I'm typecasting myself!—this time the son of "Butcher Clifford" of Shakespearean fame. This chap was less a butcher and more a shepherd, who went from disgraced son of a traitor to a clapper of cannons, an astrologer and a commander at the Battle of Flodden; in between all this came two wives, many mistresses, mutual accusations of adultery and a lawsuit accusing him of denying his wife her conjugal rights.
Oh yes, and he was a loyal servant of the King occasionally as well.
Any commentary and suggestions welcome for the article's improvement. Cheers. Festive greetings to all who look in! ——SN54129 14:23, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Tim riley

[edit]

There's a lot of this article, and I'll need two or three goes at it. These are my comments down to the end of "Patronage, alliances and local relations"

  • Lead
  • "the King's son, Prince Arthur" – not sure why the blue link takes us not to Arthur but to his younger brother.
Corrected.
  • Background
  • "The Clifford family, who were originally from Normandy …The family was elevated to the peerage" – singular or plural? Either is fine, but on the whole I'd stick to one or the other throughout.
Avoided the first use, with The Clifford family, originally from Normandy...he family was elevated.... Perhaps reads a little better, tightened?
Fine, I'd say. Tim riley talk 14:57, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This title also held the minor baronies" – do titles hold things? Seems slightly awkward phrasing.
Changed to and also held the minor baronies...
  • "never to receive an earldom" – a nice line, but I don't think the quotation marks are wanted here: nobody is going to accuse you of plagiarism as the authorship is clearly acknowledged.
Right, thanks. Unquoted.
  • "Wars of the Roses——broke" – that's a helluva parenthetic dash
!!! Halved.
  • "Clifford's father John, died" – needs a comma before John as well as after.
Done.
  • Family and early life
  • "Margaret, argues the medievalist A. G. Dickens, as sole heiress to her father Henry, brought Clifford's father a "questionable claim" to the title Lord Vescy, as well as extensive lands in the East Riding." – a rather tortuous sentence. Smoother if you move Dickens to the front: "In the view of the medievalist A. G. Dickens …."
Thanks for the suggestion; I've adopted it.
  • "he was moved to either to Yorkshire, or Cumberland "about Threlkeld, where his father-in-law's estate was, and sometimes in the borders of Scotland"" – this seems an unhappy amalgam of unquoted and quoted. As it stands it seems to say that Threkeld was sometimes in Cumbria and sometimes in the borders of Scotland. (I know Threlkeld well and can (WP:OR) assert that it is on the A66 just before Keswick.)
How about a rewording: Whenever his mother believed him likely to be discovered he would be moved. Precisely where to is unknown, but Yorkshire or Cumberland are possible; for example, Clifford's father-in-law had estates in Threlkeld.
Continuing your WP:OR, do you know if the Shepherd Lord story is reflected there still? Pub, street names, for example?
That seems to me just what is wanted. Nothing leaps to mind from personal observation about pub or street names etc. Tim riley talk 14:57, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Clifford was alleged to have been monikered" – oh, come on! This is an encyclopedia article, not a Wodehouse novel.
Ho ho! Bloody tricky this one. How about cutting the reference to Bosworth etc (which is repeated later in more detail) and going with This supposedly gave Clifford the soubriquet "shepherd lord".?
Better, I think. Tim riley talk 14:57, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other reviewers may disagree with me, but I gradually got the feeling during this section that you were throwing everything but the kitchen sink into the various takes on Clifford's supposed secret upbringing. This section amounts to more than 10% of the whole article. I wouldn't mind having it boiled down a bit, but am perfectly prepared to be voted down.
I see your point. Although I would phrase it just like that, to some extent, yes, I wanted to thoroughly present the breadth of scholarly argument, so avoiding WP:UNDUE. If you look at the article history prior to my November rewrite, the Shepherd Lord myth was almost the sole focus of other editors' contributions; this way, hopefully, I've not given anyone the chance to complain!
Oh, I see! We've all been there in one way or another when overhauling an old article for FA. It's difficult to judge how much to prune, and one doesn't want to tread on toes. All the same, if other reviewers express views similar to mine you'll have a sort of mandate to wield the pruning shears further. It's your call, in the end, and 10% of the article or not, it isn't something on which I'd oppose promotion to FA. Tim riley talk 14:57, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Inheritance and estates
  • "centred around Cumberland" – there are those (of whom I am not one) who get in a right old state about "centred around". Foolishly over-literal, I think, but still it saves grief if one avoids provoking them and writes "centred on" instead.
I'll bear that one in mind for the future too!
  • "both Nevilles were slain at the Battle of Barnet" – how splendidly Old Testament! Very picturesque, but I think a plain "killed" would be preferable.
Done.
  • "at this time, as, on 16 March 1472 Edward granted him a royal pardon" – one comma too many or one too few.
Lost the second comma.
  • "This was despite Clifford's brother Thomas attempting" – there are those (and this time I am one) who would insist on a traditional gerundive construction here – "Thomas's attempting", but I quite see that this could cause a pile-up of possessives. Perhaps "despite the attempt(s) by Clifford's brother Thomas…"
(More or less) done—what d'you think of This was despite an attempt by Clifford's brother Thomas to raise an—albeit unsuccessful—pro-Lancastrian rebellion in Hartlepool?
Ideal, me judice. Tim riley talk 14:57, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "She was buried in Londesborough Church, under what Dickens calls an "attractive brass setting forth her titles"." – I don't doubt it, but is it really relevant to this article?
Unfortunately, probably not; if she ever gets her own article, it can be recycled.
  • Accession of Henry Tudor
  • "the second city of the kingdom" – is that in the sources? I thought Norwich was the second city in those days, but I'm probably wrong.
Struck, "second city": the important point is its regional pre-eminence.
  • Career in the North
  • "This may well have been prescient, suggests Summerson, as in 1513 he attempted to lay claim to the city's troops for his own army." – nobody is really going to misunderstand you but the "he" here is Clifford, not Summerson, and it would be as well to use the name and not the pronoun.
Done.
  • "The medievalist David Grummitt argues" and in the next para "argues Summerson" – a bit too argumentative? (Seven "argues" in the whole article.) Suggesting, commenting, remarking etc are all available.
Reduced to two argues, one of which is an impersonal use.
  • "the Dean of York Minster" – is this the idiomatic form? Of course the Dean was in charge of the Minster, but I think "Dean of York" is the normal form.
Done.

That's all for now. More anon. Tim riley talk 18:33, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Concluding batch from Tim
  • Later years
  • "wherefrom most of his extant charters and letters are signed" – a touch of the antique about "wherefrom", don't you think? "from where" would do the job more normally.
It must be my inner-Wodehouse attempting to break out again. Done.
  • Personal life
  • "Anne's chaplain began negotiated this" – "negotiating", presumably.
Bloody silly mistake. Thanks!
  • "numerable mistresses – "numerable" is a new one on me, and I suggest a less unexpected adjective such as "many".
I haven't made it up  :) but you're correct of course, to keep the language as non-technical as possible. Can we go with "a number of mistresses", as "many" suggests we know a lot of names, whereas actually we don't, if you see what I mean?
No, but let it pass. Tim riley talk 14:57, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Death
  • "His widow Florence later remarried" – non-restrictive clause: needs commas round "Florence" (otherwise it's restrictive and he had more than one widow).
Excellent, thanks very much.
  • "deliberately intended to be as extravagant as possible" – the adverb seems superfluous: can something be undeliberately intended?
Done.
  • Cultural depictions
  • "Wordsworth also envisions" – what a hideous verb! It is admittedly in the OED, but in my opinion should not be allowed out of it.
Ha, I agree. It was a real pain trying to express what Wordsworth thought, exactly; how about "imagines"?
That'll do me. Much less painful, thank you. Tim riley talk 14:57, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "suggests scholar Curtis Bradford" – clunky false title.
Done.
  • "The life and career of Henry Clifford was fictionalised and set to a libretto by Isaac Albéniz for his opera Henry Clifford" – this reads as though Albéniz wrote the words. In fact the libretto was by Francis Burdett Money-Coutts; Albéniz wrote the music.
You can tell I'm out of my comfort zone with this. Does The life and career of Henry Clifford was fictionalised by Isaac Albéniz and Francis Money-Coutts—the former writing the music, the latter the libretto—in their opera Henry Clifford, which premiered in 1895, work? although it's now quite a long sentence, annoyingly.
The work sank without trace after its initial run. You can safely prune the sentence, if you prefer, on the lines of "Isaac Albéniz's opera Henry Clifford (1895) presents a fictionalised version of Clifford's life and career".
  • Afterthought: I'm not sure about this, but should "the life and career" have a plural verb, rather than a singular, as here? (cf "fish and chips is a classic dish" –v– "fish and chips are a classic dish" - when does a double noun become singular?) Tim riley talk 22:42, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is an excellent point; I'm afraid I have no idea. I considered "life and career" to be collective, but have no substantive reasoning behind.
With any luck some other reviewers may express a view. I'll be interested, if so. Tim riley talk 14:57, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notes
  • Note 3 – "Other examples from therein are" – perhaps just "from there"?
  • Note 10 – "informing him that due to the patronage of a London merchant" – "due to" is accepted in AmE as a compound preposition on a par with "owing to", but in BrE it is not universally so regarded. "Owing to" or, better, just "because of" is safer
  • Note 12 – "Lander describes the King's treatment of Clifford during this episode "brutal"" – missing an "as"?
All notes agreed and actioned per your suggestions.

That's all from me. I'll look in again when you've had time to consider these points. Tim riley talk 19:38, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support. The article seems comprehensive and balanced; it is well structured and in good readable prose, with admirable illustrations. I have suggested a bit of pruning to one section, but whether pruned or not the article seems to me to meet the FA criteria. Tim riley talk 14:57, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Updated that source link, Nikkimaria, thanks very much! ——SN54129 13:48, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt

[edit]
  • "Battle of Bosworth" Is it better termed the Battle of Bosworth Field?
Agreed, done.
Also in body under "Accession of Henry Tudor"
  • "Henry's victory meant that he needed loyal men to control the North of England for him, and Clifford's career as a loyal Tudor servant began. " loyal/loyal. (with another loyal end of paragraph) Some variety?
I dropped the first "loyal", better? I don't think it's lost accuracy. third "loyal becomes "trustworthy".
  • "Clifford was not always successful in this. Nor did his actions always make him popular. " I might merge these.
Good idea, done.
  • You are inconsistent, even in the lede, as to capitalisation of king "the King"
Fixed one.
  • "Although Clifford rarely attended the royal court himself, he sent his son to be raised with the King's son, Prince Arthur. However, Clifford later complained that young Henry not only lived above his station but consorted with men of bad influence; Clifford also accused his son of regularly beating up his father's servants on his return to Yorkshire." I'm not sure I see the justification for the "However," to say not9ing of the fact that having "Although" and "However" start successive sentences is something like watching a tennis match, back and forth.
right; how about "Clifford rarely attended the royal court himself, but sent..."?
  • Shouldn't Henry VIII be linked on first use?
Linked in lead.
  • I would rephrase the final lede paragraph to avoid the need to have consecutive sentences start with "Clifford"
Done.
  • "Young Henry son inherited the title as 10th Baron Clifford as well as a large fortune and estate, " Awkward in the first few words.
Bizarre extra word removed! Cheers.
  • "By this period, the King, Henry VI, was politically weak and was occasionally incapacitated and unable to rule effectively." Which period (or reign) was this? When he was a minor? I'd be more specific.
I've tied it to Clifford's birthdate (which, conveniently, it was).
  • " a number of battles were fought over the next few years, in which both Lancastrians and Yorkists won victories.[6]" I don't see the point of the last part of the sentence ("in which" and after) unless it's just a coatrack for the links. Can something a bit more useful be said? In most wars with staying power, both sides win victories.
I found that tricky, as it goes—it was essential to mention the WotR, but too tempting to add lots of—frankly irrelevant—detail from well before Clifford's operative years. How about, By 1461 a number of battles had been fought between nobles loyal to the Lancastrian King and those of the Yorkists, led by Richard, Duke of York, who had claimed the throne in 1460?
  • "and buried in a common burial pit." This makes it sound beneath his rank, or possibly dishonourable. Would the sources support an addition after "buried" of "with his men" or "with fellow soldiers" or similar?
I think you've got it with your first point—Cokayne indeed says "with some of his men", or something, so that can legitimately be clarified.
  • "After what is now considered the biggest and possibly bloodiest battle ever to take place on English soil,[9][10]" what about "believed to be" for the "now considered"? Now considered implies a change and thus is a bit of a distraction.
Done.
More soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:15, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for your suggestions Wehwalt, all, I think, adopted in one way or another. Any other criticisms are welcome, in your own time. Have a good holiday! ——SN54129 13:44, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Anne clearly believed that Edward IV sought revenge for the murder of his younger brother the Edmund, Earl of Rutland at the Battle of Wakefield in 1460, which placed young Clifford's life in danger." Surplus "the" before "Edmund" .
Removed
  • "and, says Malay, "recalls the romantic tale" of the shepherd's family. " Why of the shepherd's family in particular?
Removed unnecessary duplication and tightened the sentence.
  • "Accession of Henry Tudor" Would it not be better (easier on the reader) to have "Accession of Henry VII"?
Absolutely, done.
  • "As part of his efforts to secure the region, Clifford wrote under his own authority 24 October 1486 to the city of York—at the time, the capital of the north—ordering them not sell arms or armour to non-residents .[47]" Odd place to put the date, note also the rogue space before the full stop.
I've reworded the sentence, and in doind so caught the roge space (On 24 October 1486, Clifford wrote to the city of York)
  • "He was knighted on 9 November the same year.[16]" I would change "the same year" to "1485" as "same" really refers to "during his first parliament" and it is not clear from the text if that was entirely in 1485.
Done.
  • "Summerson suggests that Henry had little choice in restoring Clifford to his traditional regional position, as Northern England had been firmly Yorkist, first under the Nevilles and then under Gloucester, for over 20 years, the latter making Yorkshire his powerbase.[1]" I would move up "for over 20 years" to after "Yorkist" without a comma between them.
Good idea, actioned.
  • "The former had been one Gloucester's most important headquarters.[50] " There's an "of" missing, I suspect. Also, you refer to Gloucester by title thrice in two sentences.
H'mmm, catch. How about he former had been one of Richard of Gloucester's most important headquarters. After Richard took the throne, he granted it...?
  • " Clifford tailed it to Braham" a bit informal?
Perhaps! Plain old "followed", then?
  • "they served "our ful gode and gracious lorde the duc of Gloucestre" under the previous regime.[62]" The Duke of Gloucester was Richard III, if I read my dramatic personae correctly, but he was also the immediately previous regime. I imagine the previous regime spoken of is Edward IV, and I would say so.
Reworded.
  • "successfully besieging and capturing Norham Castle from the Scots.[36]" I would cut "successfully" as redundant. If they've captured it, they were successful.
Indeed! Done.
  • "of the 14-year-old Prince Arthur, and managed by the Archbishop of York, Thomas Savage in the early years of the 16th century.[1]" Arthur did not stay 14, or even alive, through the "early years of the 16th century", other than 15 months of it.
Good point, which I've made now, and also added a short footnote explaining Arthur died soon after.
You didn't do the note properly.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:23, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
D'oh! Thanks for that, fixed.
More soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:59, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks again Wehwalt! Your comments hopefully addressed here. Cheers! ——SN54129 14:05, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and took the opportunity to rebuild and repair castles and other properties as he did so." It may be an Engvar thing, but I would omit "so".
I don't know about Engvar, tbh, but nothing wrong with shortening a sentence.
  • "Quo Warranto" I would lower case.
Done.
  • "Matrimony does not seem to have been peaceful," seems an odd way of putting it, I might say "The relationship" or "Their relationship" instead of "Matrimony".
Yes, good point, "relationship".
  • "Lady Margaret" there are several Margarets mentioned, it is unclear who is being referred to.
Done (the King's ma).
  • "Clifford had a number of illegitimate children by a number of mistresses," too many numbers. Several?
Done.
  • "including at least two sons named Thomas and Anthony.[101]" multiple sons or multiple Thomases? I might cut out the "at least"
Right!
  • "tythes" Should this be "tithes"?
Yes—I was taken in by the redirect!
  • "the north". You are consistent on this phrase, except for one use as a section heading.
Lower-cased the section heading.
  • " Charlotte Mary Yonge compared Clifford in his shepherd hut to the roaming of the deposed King Henry VI" Why is this past tense when you've generally made such descriptions be in the present tense?
Yes, I was deliberately trying to keep all commentary in the present tense! Sorted.
  • Should note 12 end with a full stop?
Indeed it should.
That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:53, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again Wehwalt—your suggestions actioned here. (Incl. that refnote from yeserday). ——SN54129 13:13, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I apologies for the tardiness of my reply, Wehwalt—many thanks, again, for looking in, and a happy new year to you! Cheers, ——SN54129 14:37, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass

[edit]

Booking a spot. Which I will get around to some time. Feel free to nag. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:16, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Nit-picking i: Arnold "pp. 116–138"; Bearne "11–16". Consistency would be preferred.
Indeed it would, but for some reason {{cite book|pages=}} calls pp= and {{cite journal|pages=}} does not.
Does it now? No doubt there is a sound reason for it.
Possibly; but for an alternative view of the citation templates' unofficial guardians, see this mother of all threads at a relatively recent WP:AN...
  • Coleridge: "Or" → 'or'.
Done.
  • Malay 2017, could NE be given in full.
Is this something new, then?
I was unaware that the US Postal Service's codes for states had ever been an acceptable disambiguator; but then, there are many things I am unaware of. Certainly, it seems a stretch to expect a non-US reader to guess what "NE" indicates.
Ah...I think I saw a discussion taking place on it recently, but can't find it now, if you know where I'm talking about. In any case, It's probably a good idea to fill out Nebraska, so I'll do that now.
  • The Political Function of History: The Past and Future of Noble Familes I assume that should be 'Families'? (I realise that it is spelt "Familes" on page v, but see, eg, note 54, page 85; or Google Scholar.)
Shaun Tyas has really gone downhill! Bet he gone raimed on that one.
I have no doubt that he blamed his copy editor.
Touché!

Spot checks to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 00:28, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why?
Because you can't write things like "Florence sued her husband in ... court for the restitution of conjugal rights" and not expect a source reviewer not to want to find out more! I mean, how did she expect the court to enforce a judgement? Was there a special class of bailiff? When source reviewing I usually, but not always, check some of the sourcing.

PS In the main article, could "fought at Flodden" be linked to Battle of Flodden? Gog the Mild (talk) 00:35, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I removed the hatnote as in fact only a section of the section discussed Flodeen, and now linked inline. Many thanks as ever Gog the Mild. Compliments of the season to ye and yours. ——SN54129 14:04, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]


The sources used are all reliable. I am unable to find any other sources which would materially add to the content of the article. The sources referred to seem to support the text cited, insofar as I have checked them; and provided me with several chortles along the way. I found no unattributed close paraphrasing. I consider the sources to be current, as these things go; and where not, to only be used judiciously to cite straight forward facts. Everything that I would expect to be cited, is. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:22, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanking you, Gog the Mild, all the best. ——SN54129 15:00, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator notes

[edit]

This hasn't seen any activity in recent weeks and needs more review to push it over. I've added it to the Urgents list but otherwise it will be archived in the coming days. --Laser brain (talk) 12:57, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Laser brain: Hopefully some recent kind-hearted reviewers and/or commentators have assuaged your concerns :) ——SN54129 18:31, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SC

[edit]

I'll add some comments here shortly. - SchroCat (talk) 15:14, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. An excellent piece (on something I had no idea about before, so this is a review on prose rather than anything else). I made a couple of minor changes to caps and spelling, but this was all I would see to change to the article. An excellent article. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 11:43, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much for catching those typos, SchroCat, and for looking in. Always appreciated! ——SN54129 11:59, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

[edit]
I surrender!  ;)

Just flagging up that I am part way through this and should be reporting back shortly. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:41, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Despair ye not, I shall attempt to make my list of niggles and trivia shorter than the article. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:08, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have done a little copy editing as I went. Revert at will.

  • "believed that Edward IV sought revenge for the murder of his younger brother Edmund, Earl of Rutland at the Battle of Wakefield in 1460, which placed young Clifford's life in danger" Should Edmund's death not be discussed in the section on Clifford senior? Ie, next to the image depicting it? That would preserve the chronological flow and help explain the degree of danger Clifford junior was supposedly in when the shepherd lord tale is first trotted out, rather than part way through.
    • Excellent point. So I've moved it to his father's section, where I've also expanded—just a little—the circumstances of Rutland's death to indicate to the reader the supposed heinousness to the event.
  • "may well have disappeared from his father's enemies" I am really not sure what this means. 'kept a low profile' or similar'?
    • Well, that's it. It's the kind of thing I was thinkng of, but is "low-profile" encyclopaedic? Anyway, have used it until told otherwise...
  • "and retaining among, the local gentry" What this means could perhaps do with a word or two of explanation for the average reader.
    • Another footnote! Done, plus CGW quote.
  • Note 6 is either incomplete or ungrammatical. (And Earl, not earl.)
    • True dat. Recast completely in an attempt to appear slightly competent.
  • Note 23 doesn't work as it is. (Try reading it without the "priest-secretary to the Earl of Northumberland".)
    • See above!

Apart from this trivia it is in cracking shape. IMO it meets criteria 1, 2 and 4 well. It has a reasonable balance of breadth and focus, and the tale trips along well. Good stuff.

Gog the Mild (talk) 15:48, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers Grog, much appreciated—I'll be dealing with these tomorrow, touch wood. ——SN54129 19:21, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very for the review and the kind words Gog the Mild (not Grog—that must have been anticipation of the Friday night  :) apologies), and also thanks for your copyedits yesterday. Your suggestions all implemented fully (I think) here. Cheers! ——SN54129 13:10, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild you did not flag Wikicup participation for this review, unless I missed it? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:45, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@SandyGeorgia: You are quite right. I forgot to add it. Thank you for picking it up. I have withdrawn this review from my WikiCup contributions. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:13, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: Why do you have to withdraw it? It's not controversial, you added it here before the FAC closed, and I'm just checking so the Coords know that has been done. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:56, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@SandyGeorgia: Did I misunderstand? I am aware that the rule states "You must mention in your review that you are planning to claim WikiCup points for the review" which seems to make clear that the mention should be in advance of any claim and which I carelessly overlooked. If you feel that a points claim would be permissible in spite of this oversight then I would, obviously, be happy to reinstate the claim (and note that here) . Gog the Mild (talk) 00:33, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild:, IMO (FWIW), the intent is that the Coords know about your WikiCup participation before making any decision to promote/archive, so they can account for that as needed. In the spirit of the thing, it seems to me that you should be able to claim your points. Especially since there is no controversy here. If the FAC had closed already, it would be a different thing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:40, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nb: it is my intention to claim points in the WikiCup for this review. Gog the Mild (talk) 00:46, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Epicgenius

[edit]

I only have a couple minor issues:

  • Popular belief later held that as a boy of seven, - Does the source say that this belief was a popular legend at the time? Genuine question.
My understanding is that the story of the shepherds, etc, itself didn't appear until the 16th C. with Edward Hall, although there was a definite fear of the Yorkst regime at the time. Do I need to tweak somehow? If you are the WP:READER, I need you to understand, not just me  :)
No, I understand it now, with your commentary. epicgenius (talk) 21:30, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • There seem to be some quote inconsistencies: the 'shepherd lord' story vs. the story was "apocryphal"
That's two things: firstly, in Wikipedia's voice, saying that such a story existed, and secondly, that in spite of that, McFarlane calls the story "apocryphal"—hence it's in quotes rather than our voice. Make sense?
Oh, OK. That makes sense, but I was thinking some readers (like me) might not pick up something like that. epicgenius (talk) 21:30, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Epicgenius: I think this is an extremely good point if you don't mind me saying. I've tweaked the sentence slightly; how do you feel about More recently, the historian K. B. McFarlane has gone further, arguing that it was probably "apocryphal"...? Clearer, hopefully? ——SN54129 12:20, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Serial Number 54129: Yes, that's much better. epicgenius (talk) 14:50, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sunday, 10 June - I'm wondering about the use of the word "Sunday". Is the day of the week important to the story line?
No, not at all, and per consistency, I don't think I do it elsewhere in the article. Basically, Epicg., I have so little detail in articles like this that whenever I come across that level of detail I feel the need to put it in. Showing off that we actually know :) Anyway, removed per your suggestion.
  • Brougham Castle became one of Clifford's favoured residences - I might be a clueless American, but aren't Brough Castle and Brougham Castle two different things? This appears to be the first location in the article where Brougham is mentioned.
H'mmm. Well, I'll see your clueless American and bid a clueless Brit, who can't tell the diference between two places though they're 20 miles apart! In my defence, Brougham is mentioned further up, where he encounters rebels; but Brough Castle is where the "great christmas" was held, mentioed in the "Patronage" section. Although to confuse the issue even further, there is also a Brougham Castle, and Clifford seems to have made it his main residence after 1521. I've added this bit to the footnote.
  • I don't think "Personality and interests" belongs under "Death". Shouldn't it be under "Personal life"?
Good point, done.

These are all my comments for now. epicgenius (talk) 14:47, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for looking in, epicgenius your suggestions are greatly appreciated. I've queried a couple of them, but only for your second opinion? Cheers! ——SN54129 15:41, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Serial Number 54129: No problem. I don't have any other issues with this article. Support since everything above is now resolved, or answered. epicgenius (talk) 21:30, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notes from SandyGeorgia

[edit]
  • (c. 1454–23 April 1523) when the dates around the dash have spaces, the dash has spaces (MOS:DATERANGE)
  • In her day, Awadewit (FA writer, RIP) would have pitched a fit that File:William Larkin Anne Clifford, Countess of Dorset.jpg has her eyes looking off the page instead of in to the text. I am unsure if we are still enforcing that, but Adrienne would have had you move that image to the right of the page rather than left.
  • MOS:CAPTION full sentences in image captions should end with punctuation. (Sample: Brougham Castle became one of Clifford's favoured residence)

That's all I saw on a very quick glance. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:54, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks SandyGeorgia, I appreciate you bringing your experience to the table. Although it's always a shame to see an RIP  :( I never even knew about the spaced-dash-where-spaces-exist rule—so I've learned something there. I've implemented all your advice; Lady Anne now looks inwards (I admit I've seen that mentioned before but I suspect it's one of those things that many overlook!). I think, also, I've caught the captions that are sentences (one other anyway). Thanks again, ——SN54129
Looks good, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:30, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, one more I saw when I was looking at the new image placement: WP:ACCESSIBILITY says to never place images at the bottom of a section. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:37, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oops indeed, I think I just did that when I rearranged the images just now! But have put everything inside their sections; can't see any sandwiching problems, but if necessary I could always pull one of the castle images, although of course, I'd rather not have to. ——SN54129 12:55, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Laser_brain via FACBot (talk) 22 January 2020 [8].

1958 US–UK Mutual Defence Agreement

[edit]
Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:48, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is an unusual article, which grew organically from humble beginnings. I overhauled it in 2017. It wasn't my intention that it could be a featured article someday, but in its current form I think that it might be. I'd like to draw your attention to the pic of Eisenhower laying the cornerstone for the AEC's headquarters in Germantown, Maryland. The AEC decided to relocate there so it would be safe when Washington, DC, was razed by an atomic blast. Somebody thought that it would be cool if Eisenhower laid the foundation stone with a trowel made from radioactive uranium that had been in the first nuclear reactor, Chicago Pile-1. (With a wooden handle made from one of the benches at Stagg Field.) The Secret Service did not agree, so it is not the one he is using in the picture. Today the radioactive trowel is in the Smithsonian. [9] Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:48, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentSupport by PM

[edit]

I looked at this closely during its Milhist ACR, so only have pretty minor points here:

  • in the lead, suggest "shocked the American public with the launch of Sputnik"
  • in the lead, suggest "for the use by the Royal Air Force"
  • suggest "Many of Britain's top scientists participated in the Manhattan Project" and pipe the article link to "participated in the Manhattan Project"
  • the sentence beginning "By the end of 1947..." doesn't make sense to me. If the uranium was stockpiled in the UK, why is it relevant that the McMahon Act didn't allow it to be exported from the US?
  • "the uranium needed to fuel it over for ten years"
  • "The S5W had a Nnuclear reactor core"

That's all I could find. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:28, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:51, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nice job, supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:40, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5

[edit]

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 11:53, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes the 1956 crisis in Egypte. Well what I can tell is MOS:MILTERMS says accepted names of wars should be always captalised. But I'm not sure the Sputnik crisis should be also captalised because it is not following MOS miliary rules it could be because a proper noun should be capitalised. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 11:26, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]
  • Experienced and trusted nominator, spotchecks not carried out.
  • All links are live and working according to the tool.
  • Be consistent in how the author name is formatted; a couple of occasions use Last, First and others use First Last.
  • Similarly, be consistent in formatting for Hansard between refs #78 and #81.
  • The external links section could do with appropriate formatting.

Generally very good, not much to nit pick here. Harrias talk 17:02, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All points addressed in a series of changes [10] Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:37, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Great, all good. Harrias talk 20:23, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass

[edit]
  • Quebec Conference image. Suggest amending to 'Seated (from the left) are... '. Why a mix of commas and semi colons?

Gog the Mild (talk) 13:01, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All images are appropriately licenced, positioned and captioned. Gog the Mild (talk) 01:13, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt

[edit]

Gave it a read over. Just a couple of things:

  • "The 1958 US–UK Mutual Defence Agreement was signed by Dulles and Samuel Hood, the British Minister in Washington, on 3 July,[76] and approved by Congress on 30 July.[77]" The whole Congress or just the Senate (since it is apparently a treaty).
    The source says "It sailed through the JCAE hearings. Once the full Congress approved of it on July 30, 1958, the the Anglo-American nuclear partnership was fact." This is because it required the amendment of the McMahon Act, hence both houses. [11] Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:59, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there anything on public opinion/protest that is worth saying. This was born in part out of US public reaction to Sputnik, so was the reaction positive? Or of legislative opposition, either of the original agreement or the renewals?
    There was no legislative opposition. Renewals seem to have been handled by the administration. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:59, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Canada seems to have been a part of the earlier agreements, but at some step it seems to vanish, though you do mention it as a nation that made its own agreement with the US. Is there something worth saying about why it dropped out.
    It didn't drop out; the 1948 Modus Vivendi remained in force with regard to Canada, and was not superseded by the 1958 US–UK Mutual Defence Agreement, which did not apply to Canada. Canada acquired nuclear weapons in 1963. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:59, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Reads well. I don't see any other problems.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:26, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by JennyOz

[edit]

Hi Hawkeye7, HNY! just a few minor comments...

Regards, JennyOz (talk) 11:12, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this. All points have been addressed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@JennyOz: Should I expect further comments from you? --Laser brain (talk) 13:41, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Has not been active for a fortnight, and like myself may have suffered a climate-related disaster. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:15, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

[edit]
  • " the United States was far larger than Britain both militarily and economically" "was far larger" sounds a bit odd - as if the situation has changed. May be "was (and is) far larger"
    Okay. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:04, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "At the Quadrant Conference in August 1943, the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, Winston Churchill and the President of the United States, Franklin Roosevelt, signed the Quebec Agreement," Presumably also Mackenzie King as it also covered Canada, and you should say so.
    Mackenzie King did not sign it, only Churchill and Roosevelt. [12] Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:04, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Its control of "restricted data" prevented the United States' allies from receiving any information on pain of death." This sounds odd. "on pain of death" must refer to one or more individuals passing the information, not threatening the allies receiving it as you imply. Also "any information" is far too vague and broad and needs clarification.
    Re-worded to: "Technical co-operation was ended by the United States Atomic Energy Act of 1946 (McMahon Act), which forbade passing "restricted data" to the United States' allies under pain of death." Here "any information" is replaced by "restricted data". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:04, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "With the 1956 presidential election approaching, Eisenhower was forced to back down." To back down how? To cancel the 1956 agreement?
    Yes. Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:04, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "British timing was good." What timing?
    Changed to "The successful development of British thermonuclear weapons came at an opportune time to renew negotiations with the United States." Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:04, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "According to Baroness Warsi, the Senior Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs" This implies that Warsi is still in office, but she was in 2012-14. Maybe "According to Baroness Warsi in [year], who was then the Senior Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs".
    How did you know that? Changed to: "In July 2014 Baroness Warsi, the Senior Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs from 2012 to 2014, stated that the government's position was" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:04, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SC

[edit]
  • Support. Just one comment on this:
    • Is there any reason why Modus Vivendi is capitalised? It this the name of something specific? If so, then it should be delinked (or piped to somewhere else), as the link goes to the phrase, which should be in lower case

That's a minor point to deal with, so shouldn't stand in the way of supporting the excellent article. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:15, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 22 January 2020 [14].

Island of stability

[edit]
Nominator(s): ComplexRational (talk) 14:42, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the theoretical island of stability, a hypothetical set of superheavy nuclides (isotopes of the heaviest known chemical elements) that may be longer-lived than those currently known. This concept has guided research in the field of nuclear physics for decades, with various calculations corroborating predictions and numerous experiments designed to seek these nuclides. Although the island itself has not yet been discovered, experimental evidence strongly suggests its existence and that we are approaching the "shores".

After almost a year of work, a GAN in April passed by HaEr48, and a peer review in July-November by R8R (who contributed to the featured articles dubnium and tennessine, which partly lie within the same scope), I feel that this article is ready to be considered for featured status. Based on the reviews, I believe that it is complete and understandable despite the technical subject. All feedback necessary to complete the home stretch is welcome, so thank you in advance. Cheers, ComplexRational (talk) 14:42, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support by R8R

[edit]

I first encountered the article at the peer review. At first glance, I liked the article very much and it only improved since then. I gave many comments during the review at PR and now that they are resolved, I believe the article is in a very good shape. I'll be happy to support its promotion but I'd like to give the article one last glance before then.--R8R (talk) 13:30, 10 November 2019 (UTC) My comments have been addressed, I am happy to support.--R8R (talk) 18:00, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note a is better off split into two, with the "other observationally stable nuclides can be unstable" part better placed in a separate note after "252 nuclides are observed to be stable (having never been observed to decay)";
Split done.
Done, but I reworded it to avoid having et al. at the end of the sentence.
  • "IUPAC defines the limit of nuclear existence at a half-life of 10−14 seconds" -- we haven't had this acronym so far, it's better to simply spell it out;
Done.
  • "Heiner Meldner" -- I was about to suggest the usual nationality-profession introduction, but then I saw that the name had already been introduced. I think it would be better to refer to the man simply by his last name then;
Done.
Done.
  • "A 2018 study" -- it would be great to attribute that study to someone.
Now attributed to both the institution and first author.

There's no major issue that I was able to find.--R8R (talk) 15:10, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All fixed, with slight modifications and adjustments for flow. ComplexRational (talk) 19:16, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

[edit]

The sources appear to be comprehensive and scholarly, meeting the FA criteria for quality/reliability. All links to sources are working, and formats appear consistent and MoS-compliant. The one issue I have is with problems of verification; in a number of cases, where the source document is quite lengthy, page numbers are either not given, are too wide to be useful, or in the odd case, incomprehensible. Here are a few examples:

  • Ref 1: No p. refs given – the source has 30 pages
  • Ref 2: The page range as presented is hard to decipher. I take it to mean "1250013-1 – 1250013-20", a 20-page range.
  • Ref 17: page given as 03002, which is not a page number in this multi-page document
  • Ref 18: No p. ref given – source has 40 pages
  • Ref 19: Page no. 14201 is inspecific.

That's as far as I checked, but I imagine there are further examples – in fact, I jumped ahead and looked up the "Perspectives" document from the 2016 NUSTAR meeting (Ref 75). The document is 48 pages long, no p. refs provided. Specific page references, or short p. ranges, are essential for verification purposes.

I rechecked the references and adjusted the page ranges for as many as I could find, including all five examples above.
However, some are not as easy to verify because the page numbers in the open-access version (e.g. arXiv) may not be identical to the journal publication. I hope this is sufficient (those will also most likely be the pages checked by those interested in verifying). ComplexRational (talk) 19:44, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have since fixed or specified a few additional instances. ComplexRational (talk) 01:22, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, congratulations on a well-sourced and well-presented article. Brianboulton (talk) 16:02, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Brianboulton: Do you have any further comments or questions pertaining to sources? After these initial comments, I rechecked and made small corrections to as many refs as I could find; I now await additional feedback. ComplexRational (talk) 14:25, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sources now fine-no further issues. Good work. Brianboulton (talk) 19:38, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your review. ComplexRational (talk) 20:04, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by HaEr48 (Support)

[edit]

I reviewed this article at GAR and I'm happy that now it's at FAC after a peer review and a lot of improvements. I want to thank the nominator and authors in advance for working on this topic. My review will be mostly from clarity and comprehensibility to a non-specialist audience. I'm not an expert so feel free to point out of I'm missing something obvious.

  • The first sentence reads "In nuclear physics, the island of stability is a predicted set of superheavy nuclides that may have considerably longer half-lives than known superheavy nuclides": I think "nuclide" is a rather hard word for a lay person - is it possible to explain the concept using a different word, or to gloss a short definition in this sentence.
I substituted it with the more commonly used isotope, but there isn't much more that I can/should do in the lead than linking these terms.
  • Is isotope a synonym for nuclide, or is it interchangeable in the context of the first paragraph?
Almost, but not quite. Nuclide can refer to any combination of protons and neutrons (e.g. superheavy nuclides), whereas isotopes are variants of a predetermined element with different numbers of neutrons (e.g. isotopes of hassium). When originally writing and reviewing, I did my best to ensure that their uses are precise; they should not be blindly interchanged, but they can be if the appropriate
  • the predicted closed neutron shell at N = 184: can something be linked here to improve comprehensibility? "Shell"? "Neutron shell"? "Closed neutron shell"?
Done – I did not originally do this because the link points to nuclear shell model, which is linked directly not much further down.
  • confer additional stability towards fission, while also leading to longer half-lives towards alpha decay: Do "stability" and "longer half-lives" mean different things here? Or could we also more briefly say: "confer additional stability towards fission and alpha decay"?
Done – For the lead, a merge is suitable; I have done that. Later sections deal with the finer points.
  • the successful synthesis of superheavy elements up to oganesson (Z = 118) in recent years : can we put a number for "recent years"? Since 2000? Since 2010? To make sure that the article won't be stale 20 years from now.
Not done – I'm open to ideas, but a few wordings I tried were quite clunky. Most discoveries were from the late 1960s onward, though no new element has been synthesized in the last 10 years; years are too precise, decades are clunky, and the "late (latter half of the) 20th century" is inaccurate.
  • "Nevertheless, the successful synthesis of superheavy elements up to oganesson (Z = 118) in recent years demonstrates … " I assume the reason these synthesized elements don't count as the "island of stability" is because the lower number of neutrons. Is it possible to mention the maximum range of N that have been synthesized?
Partly done – This is correct, so I added the maximum number of neutrons reached (177), but the nuclide with both Z = 118 and N = 177 has not definitively been synthesized (the two heaviest known are Z = 117, N = 177 and Z = 118, N = 176). Does the current wording present this ambiguity?
How about something like: "the successful synthesis of superheavy nuclides up to atomic number 118 (oganesson) and up to 177 neutrons"? I'll defer to you regarding which is better. HaEr48 (talk) 18:19, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Introduction: Just to start, I want to say I like how the basic terms are laid out here
  • while the approximately 3300 known nuclides: You haven't described what a nuclide is
Done – Added link and parenthetical definition as a (species of) atomic nucleus.
  • with stability generally decreasing in heavier elements: If being "stable" is defined (in the same paragraph) as "never been observed to decay", what does it mean for stability to be "decreasing"? Isn't it just a yes or no attribute? Or if there is a definition of stability outside the yes or no question, please include it in this intro
It's not exactly a boolean quality, so I added a parenthetical definition relating stability to half-lives. I also added another footnote to clarify the meaning of decreasing stability.
  • "The lower the barrier and the masses of the constituents": What "constituents" are we talking about here? The nucleons?
This refers to fragments into which a nucleus can fission. I reworded and linked this.
  • In heavier nuclei, larger numbers of neutrons are needed to reduce repulsion and confer additional stability: Is this because neutrons are also involved in strong force? If so, suggest explicitly mentioning
Partly done – I noted that neutrons are uncharged (thus they do not repel other particles), but explicitly mentioning this here is not really necessary. The links should be sufficient; the strong force indeed affects neutrons just as it affects protons.
  • " an upper limit was estimated around element 104" do we know who estimated this?
Not done – The source describes it as a view of the scientific community at the time, not an individual's or a group's theory.
  • "and later, it seemed that element 108 might be the limit" Do we know the year of this estimate?
Yes, we do – I added from the source: it's around early 1960s, but no exact date is given.

More to come as I am still reading. HaEr48 (talk) 17:13, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@HaEr48: I reviewed these first points, and made several changes. I feel that most of this does provide extra context, but a few details are too off-topic, so I believe that short parenthetical definitions combined with links should be sufficient. I await your additional feedback. Cheers, ComplexRational (talk) 00:01, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The possible existence of superheavy elements with atomic numbers well beyond that of uranium" : why is uranium used as the comparison ? e.g. as opposed to the last element of actinides (according to the definition given in Superheavy element, actinides are the limit of "superheavy elements").
Done – I noted why this is relevant – until 1940, U was the heaviest known element.
  • "In the late 1960s, more sophisticated shell models by American physicist William Myers and Polish physicist Władysław Świątecki, and by German physicist Heiner Meldner, taking into account Coulomb repulsion, changed the prediction for the next proton magic number from 126 to 114" …
    • why is Myers and Świątecki grouped in one clause but Meldner is mentioned in a different clause? Shouldn't it be "by Myers, Świątecki, and Meldner" in one clause?
    • does "taking into account Coulomb repulsion" belong to the more sophisticated model or to the prediction change?
    • Who proposed the prediction change?
    • Maybe this sentence can be split which would probably clarify my questions above?
The tricky part is introducing Myers and Świątecki who are of different nationalities but were co-authors, and distinguishing their work from Meldner's independent work. Does the rewording answer any of your questions?
  • " led to the emergence of the macroscopic-microscopic method which takes into consideration…" Do we know what the method is for? Is it a modelling method? Prediction method?
Done – It's a nuclear mass model.
  • any nuclei reachable via such fusion-evaporation reactions: but "fusion-evaporation reactions" hasn't been explained before.
Done in response to the point below.
  • I feel like a brief description of the strategy of these experiments should be added in/around the paragraph #2 of "Discoveries", so that readers have context when you explain the problems with these experiments
Done.
  • "resulting in the synthesis of only a few short-lived atoms of the heaviest elements in each experiment" if these few short-lived atom could not be detected, how did we know that this was the case?
In the 1970s (the focal period of this paragraph), the decay properties of these elements were not yet known. I changed 'would' to 'might' in previous sentence to emphasize that this was speculative; we now know that they are short-lived but still detectable.
  • "Despite these failures, new superheavy elements were synthesized every few years in various laboratories through light-ion bombardment and cold fusion reactions." I don't understand this. If we're saying the searches failed, how come the superheavy elements did get synthesized? Or, should it start with "eventually" rather than "despite these failures"?
I distinguished unsuccessful searches for long-lived nuclei (far beyond what was then known) and simultaneous discovery of shorter-lived nuclei of elements with lower Z. I hope it is easier to follow now.
  • Link "light-ion bombardment" and "cold fusion reactions"?
Partly done – I found a suitable link for the former, but the only reference for the latter is a disambiguation page entry. As it is distinct from cold fusion (theorized to occur at room temperature), I might have to label this with a note instead of linking. How does this sound?
Addendum: in response to an earlier comment, there is now some more context for cold fusion.
If you could label it with a note it would be great, but given that context was given in the preceding passage I think it's optional now. HaEr48 (talk) 18:19, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Deformed nuclei" section: if heavy nuclei are always deformed, and this shifts the magic numbers, why does the original magic numbers and the island of stability around N=184 still matter?
Done – I explicitly mentioned now that the island of stability is a phenomenon in spherical nuclei; the distinction between spherical and deformed, and their respective roles, should be a bit clearer now.
It is a bit clearer, but I still don't fully understand. Are these heavier nuclei sometimes spherical or sometimes deformed? Does it depend on something? To me, this sentence "superheavy elements do not have perfectly spherical nuclei" seems to imply that they're always deformed, and that would mean the spherical numbers would not matter anymore. But this is not the case, so what am I missing? HaEr48 (talk) 18:27, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Still more to come. HaEr48 (talk) 17:07, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I still am working on the other comments (fusion-evaporation and a few more historical details); I have to recheck the sources and compile something. Before (or even while) reading the rest of the article, could you please let me know if I have answered your questions, or if some comments need further attention? ComplexRational (talk) 02:49, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have addressed all of the above comments; I'm ready to continue. ComplexRational (talk) 17:36, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@ComplexRational: Thank you so much for your response. Most of them clarified the questions that I have, for a few of them I just have some follow up comments that I marked in blue. I'll continue with the rest. HaEr48 (talk) 18:27, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Paragraph #3 of "Predicted decay properties": May I suggest adding one or two introductory sentences about beta decay and what it means to atomic number and number of neutron. I know probably anyone learned it at one point in high school or uni, but IMO a refresher wouldn't hurt here and will help understanding what follows.
Done.
  • "at an abundance of 10−12 relative to lead,[53] although [several factors] may inhibit their production in r-process nucleosynthesis: "
    • Does the 10-12 predicted abundance already take into account those inhibiting factors, or does the value need to be adjusted even lower to account for it?
Done – It's explicitly 10−12 in the source, but I rearranged this paragraph to make this less ambiguous.
    • Can we have a sense of how small this abundance is, e.g. can it reach the earth and be detected by experiment?
Done – I noted that the source mentions a possibility of detection in cosmic rays.
  • neutron-induced or beta-delayed fission will become the primary reaction channels: do we have appropriate links for "neutron-induced" and "beta-delayed"? Maybe what a "neutron-induced fission" means can be inferred from what it sounds like, but not sure about beta-delayed. If no link exists, maybe short definition in parenthesis?
Done – No article or section links exist, so I added a short definition.
  • a 2013 experiment, a group of Russian physicists led by Aleksandr Bagulya.. Curious that we know that there are exactly 3 nuclei, but we don't know their atomic numbers. Is there a simple explanation for we know the amount but not the atomic number. If it is simple, suggest adding the explanation in text.
    • how is it possible to know the age of individual nuclei? (but maybe this is outside the scope of the article)
Not done – Not really within the scope of the article; it is partially explained how we know the number (but that too is borderline irrelevant to this article), but not why the other values are so uncertain.
  • it may be useful to describe in "Synthesis problems" briefly what "cross sections" means or what the value imply, e.g. in the first place when you mention "this reaction has low cross sections" you could add something like "therefore lowering the expected yield" (or whatever is more appropriate)
Done – but in an earlier section where the term is first mentioned.
  • What do you think about renaming the "Synthesis problems" section into "Possible syntheses and their problems"? Because the section also describe the possible strategies for synthesis rather than just the problems. I'll defer to you though
Done – I like it better this way actually.
  • may also undergo electron capture in addition to alpha decay: might it be a good idea to add "(turning a proton into a neutron)" after "electron capture"? To explicitly say what it means for neutron:proton ratio.
Done.
  • higher neutron flux (~1000 times greater) : 1000 times greater than what?
Done – The comparison was to current reactors.
  • properties of superheavy nuclei near the beta-stability line remain unexplored: what does "unexplored" mean here? Not yet observed?
Done – I rewrote the ending of this paragraph to explicitly state that no such nuclei are known and their properties are not consistently predicted.
  • a shift away from mass equilibrium in the products: Is there a link for "mass equilbrium"?
Not done – No link available; the term is used in RS but I can't find a mention anywhere on WP.
Follow up – What does it mean then? Is it possible to add a short definition or note? HaEr48 (talk) 14:31, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done – Not sure if this is ideal, but I expanded the parenthetical content to clarify. ComplexRational (talk) 15:50, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • " weaker proton shell or subshell closures" AFAIK we haven't mentioned subshell before. Is it possible to add a link?
Removed – I don't need to even mention subshells here; the sources mainly describe them as weaker shell closures anyway.
Removed – This wording was not great to begin with, so I rewrote these two sentences.
  • heavier nuclei would lie beyond a fission threshold: is it possible to explain what "fission threshold" mean here? Limit before fission happens too rapidly?
Done – Does the short addition in that sentence explain it? (It is indeed a limit before fission happens too rapidly.)
Yes, that helps, thanks. HaEr48 (talk) 14:31, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • a greater binding energy per baryon: greater than what?
Done – Greater than that of nuclear matter; I added a mention of this, but it is implied in the next clause.
  • Can we include the source of data used in File:Island of Stability.svg? (either in commons or in captions)
Not done – I can't track the source down, and the author is inactive. Would it then be necessary to remove this image from the article?
  • What's the difference between the left and right diagram in File:Next proton shell.svg ?
Partly done – I added a superficial distinction, namely that it depends on the model and energy levels within. A fuller explanation would require careful extraction from the source, and similar captions for the same image (e.g. in unbinilium) use technical terms that would not be understandable to the average reader, even with links.
Follow up – it still isn't obvious why there are two from reading the caption. May I suggest moving the superficial explanation to the first sentence, e.g. "Diagram showing energy levels of known and predicted proton shells (left and right show two different models)" or something like that. We just need to explain why there are two without delving into the detailed explanation. 14:31, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
Done – This is simple and clear enough, thank you. ComplexRational (talk) 15:50, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • In File:Nuclear chart from KTUY model.png, I think it's useful to note that no color means short-lived isotopes. Otherwise I don't know what visual shape to look for regarding "Regions of increased stability are visible around ... "
Done.

I'm done with reading now. I'll probably still make small suggestions here and there as I re-read it. Thank you so much for your work in this excellent article. HaEr48 (talk) 16:26, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your feedback, HaEr48, and thank you again for emphasizing the importance of general readability. I addressed everything I could; this involved rewriting a few sentences and adding a few additional references, and I removed a few weaker bits that were better presentable in another way. Please take another look to ensure that no bits are missing, and that the prose still reads well top-to-bottom after this overhaul. ComplexRational (talk) 22:03, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comments (stuff I forgot to write before, rather than new issues after the overhaul):

  • "Many physicists believe that the half-lives of these nuclei are relatively short, on the order of minutes or days. Some theoretical calculations indicate that their half-lives may be long, on the order of 100 years, or possibly as long as 109 years.": Do we know which one of these opposing predictions are more commonly accepted?
Not really. While most of the more recent sources give values on the order of 100-1000 years, they are not all in agreement and no one is universally accepted. I think it's better (and more neutral) to leave it as is.
  • 30 orders of magnitude greater than those of nuclei unaffected by the shell closure: just for my own understanding, this means 10^30 greater, correct?
Yes, that's correct. To make it clear for everyone, I linked orders of magnitude (time) at its first occurrence further up the page.
  • "For example, the neutron-deficient isotope 284Fl (with N = 170) undergoes fission with a half-life of 2.5 milliseconds, and is thought to be one of the most neutron-deficient nuclides stabilized by shell effects." I don't get which property this is an example of. The previous sentence is about neutron shell closure increasing fission half-lives, but this example seems to be about a nuclide without filled neutron shell and with short half-lives?
It's an example for comparison: in this paragraph, nuclides at the shell closure, moving further away (where half-lives decrease), and finally beyond the point that fission barriers vanish completely. Also note that the cited source makes almost this exact statement; I feel its described implications makes it worthy of inclusion.
  • "one of the most neutron-deficient nuclides stabilized by shell effects": is the stabilization (despite the neutron deficiency) because of the number of protons?
It's mostly the effects of the neutron shell closure (less so the proton shell closure); I made note of this.
I'm still rereading the rest. But so far it looks great. HaEr48 (talk) 15:44, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I made one change to address the last two bullet points; I hope the meaning is more straightforward now. ComplexRational (talk) 22:56, 20 November 2019 (UTC).[reply]
  • Support I think this article meets the FA criteria. It is certainly well-written, well-referenced and well-researched. I am not an expert in the area but the explanation appears coherent as well as consistent with the limited things I know about the topic. I have done all I could above to suggest changes that can make the article more accessible without being dumbed down too much, and I am happy with the nominator's responses. Thank you for this amazing work. HaEr48 (talk) 02:20, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Cas Liber

[edit]

Taking a look now....

  • Nuclides with a magic number of each are referred to as "doubly magic" and are more stable than nearby nuclides as a result of greater binding energies. - would adding a couple of examples here help?
Done – I added three fairly well-known examples.
  • Does having "Z=" and "A=" add any extra meaning over saying "Atomic number of..." and "Atomic mass of" ? I feel the latter is more accessible.
After introducing these symbols and their meaning in § Introduction, I feel the text flows better with these symbols. This is the wording used in many of the sources, and I envision that writing this out every time could be rather clunky without making their meaning clearer.
That's cool. It's a long time since I have looked at material on this topic, and if that's the way it's presented and understandable then I am persuaded Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:22, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise impresses as comprehensive and prose does best job as possible straddling accessibility vs accuracy. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:36, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Casliber: Thank you for your review; it was indeed helpful. ComplexRational (talk) 15:46, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia

[edit]

The lead of this article was absolutely a pleasure to read ... I did not have time to delve much further, but did quickly notice a few minor things ...

  • he is credited with the first usage of the term "superheavy element" in a 1958 paper published alongside Frederick Werner ... alongside ? Can't it just be with ?
Done
  • the diagram in the lead took me some time to sort ... I finally figured out that the boxes referenced in the caption were the tiny things that look like grid lines, I think? If that is correct, is there a way to make that more clear?
The one thing I found I could clarify is that all nuclei (not only the predicted ones) are shaded. I'm not sure if there's anything cleared than "boxed", though.
  • Do another check for WP:NBSP (see my samples).
Done — I hope I got them all.

Sorry, that's all I had time for, very nice work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:30, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SandyGeorgia: Thank you for these comments. I hope my answers are satisfactory. ComplexRational (talk) 22:13, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Good enough! Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:21, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Spot check for paraphrasing
[edit]
The top match from Earwig’s copyvio detector turns up nothing of concern: [15].

The two sources I spotchecked reveal careful re-phrasing in the author's own words; these spotchecks do not turn up copyvio/close paraphrasing issues. Some of the text, though, is well above my pay grade, so I ask @R8R, Double sharp, and ComplexRational: to check these samples (below) for source--> text conformity:

  • 1. Karpov 2012, [16]
  • Article: The shell closure at N = 184 is predicted to result in longer partial half-lives for alpha decay and spontaneous fission.
  • Source: The fully microscopic approaches predict the proton shell closure at Z = 120,14 Z = 126,15 or Z = 114,120,126 (see Ref. 16) depending on the chosen nucleon–nucleon interaction in meson field theory. The neutron magic number N = 184 is almost firmly predicted by different theoretical models.
  • Article: In the center of the island, there may be competition between alpha decay and spontaneous fission, though the exact ratio is strongly model dependent.
  • Source: Above my pay grade, asking others to provide the supporting text.
@SandyGeorgia: Here is the source text, from page 15:
Finally, the most stable nuclei (which should be β-stable) undergo α-decay or/and SF. This consideration of the decay modes sequence is rather natural and model independent. It explains the area of β+-decay found here. However, the size of this area depends on the nuclear masses and nuclear structure.
ComplexRational (talk) 15:14, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article: … the nuclide 306Ubb is still predicted to have a short half-life with respect to alpha decay.
  • Search of source does not produce 306Ubb; asking others to produce supporting text.
This was attributed to the depiction of 306Ubb in the charts on p. 12 as outside the 1 µs "boundary" – this value is significant as it demarcates the current limits of detection (as mentioned in the article). I added another source that more explicitly predicts a short half-life for this nucleus (a table entry on p. 53 of the pdf), but it should be noted that exact predictions vary considerably among different sources. ComplexRational (talk) 19:38, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2. Bernis 1977, [17]
  • Article: In the late 1960s, more sophisticated shell models were formulated by American physicist William Myers and Polish physicist Władysław Świątecki, and independently by German physicist Heiner Meldner. With these models, taking into account Coulomb repulsion, Meldner predicted that the next proton magic number may be 114 instead of 126.[31] ... Myers and Świątecki also proposed that some superheavy nuclei would be longer-lived as a consequence of higher fission barriers. Further improvements in the nuclear shell model by Soviet physicist Vilen Strutinsky led to the emergence of the macroscopic-microscopic method, a nuclear mass model that takes into consideration both smooth trends characteristic of the liquid drop model and local fluctuations such as shell effects. This approach enabled Swedish physicist Sven Nilsson et al., as well as other groups, to make the first detailed calculations of the stability of nuclei within the island.[31] With the emergence of this model, Strutinsky, Nilsson, and other groups argued for the existence of the doubly magic nuclide 298Fl (Z = 114, N = 184), rather than 310Ubh (Z = 126, N = 184) which was predicted to be doubly magic as early as 1957.[31]
  • Source: The modern widespread interest in superheavy elements began in Berkeley in 1965 as a result of two independent developments.1 The first of these was the estimate by Myers and Swiatecki that the fission barrier of a superheavy nucleus should be several MeV high, and the second was the suggestion by Meldner that the next closed proton shell after 82 is 114. It had always been assumed before, in analogy with the case for neutrons, that 126 would be the next closed proton shell. … The repulsive Coulomb force, which becomes increasingly important for heavier nuclei, is responsible for shifting the proton shell closure from 126 to 114.
  • Source: In 1966 Strutinsky developed an improved method for calculating the potential energy of a nucleus as a function of its shape,4 and he and his co-workers used this method to calculate the fission barriers of several superheavy nuclei. 5 … Strutinsky's method is a two-part approach, with the smooth trends of the potential energy taken from a macroscopic model and the local fluctuations from a microscopic model. A macroscopic approach such as the liquid-drop model describes quantitatively such smooth trends of the nuclear potential energy but not the local fluctuations, whereas a microscopic approach, such as the single-particle model, describes the local fluctuations but not the smooth trends. So, why not synthesize the two? This combined macroscopicmicroscopic method should then hopefully reproduce both the smooth trends and the local fluctuations. This method is described in detail in Ref. 3.
  • Source: Subsequently, Nilsson and his co-workers applied Strutinsky's method to a modified harmonic-oscillator single-particle potential to make the first systematic survey of the expected stability of superheavy nuclei.6 Since then, several other groups have made detailed calculations with improved computational techniques and with improved single-particle potentials. The status of such calculations is reviewed in Refs. 3 and 7.
  • Source: As early as 1957, for example, Scharff-Goldhaber2 had suggested the possibility of another region of relative stability at the doubly magic nucleus U~126.
I recommend that a physics editor spotcheck a few more sources for source --> text conformity, but I do not believe any additional paraphrasing checks are warranted-- skilled writer. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:25, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Headbomb, Ruslik0, and MaoGo: I am pinging the three of you I know from the Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics/Members. Happy New Year, and Felicidades para el 2020, MaoGo! This Featured article candidate has cleared most of its hurdles, but needs a wee bit of help to bring it over the line to Featured article. It is customary to do an extra-rigorous review on first-time FAC nominators, to make sure that the text accurately represents the sources, and that there are no copyvio or close paraphrasing issues. (Subsequent nominations from the same writers don't need to be so rigorously checked.)
I have checked already for copyvio and feel confident to say there is no such problem in the writing here. I have spotchecked a few of the online sources, as you can see just above the post here, but a bit more spotchecking to make sure that the article text accurately reflects the sources is needed.
If any of you have just a few moments to spare, I think you will enjoy the article, and it shouldn't take too much effort to pick a few random samples from the sources and make sure that source-to-text integrity is there. Thanks (and saludos!) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:36, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Further spotcheck on hard print sources
[edit]

Setting this section up to continue. ComplexRational, my plan then, is to randomly select some text cited to sources to which I have no access, and ask you to provide quoted text from the source supporting the text in the article. Are there any of the hard-print sources that you do not have at hand (having, for example, returned them to a library) so I can avoid those? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:11, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ComplexRational: did you see my question above? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:36, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I missed it earlier. I do not have the books by Emsley, Podgorsak, Satake, or Ebbing, so best we avoid those. Most of the other references are linked, so I either have them downloaded or can find another copy at the original source. ComplexRational (talk) 23:16, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ComplexRational: did you see my samples below? I need for you to fill in the text from the sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:13, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@SandyGeorgia: I'll get them later today – I won't have much time until this evening to do a thorough analysis. ComplexRational (talk) 15:42, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here are three random samples; if you can add the supporting text please. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:00, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia Done. ComplexRational (talk) 03:21, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hoffman 2000, p. 426
  • Article says: Because the produced nuclei underwent alpha decay rather than fission, and the half-lives were several orders of magnitude longer than predicted, this event was seen as a "textbook example" of a decay chain characteristic of the island of stability, providing strong evidence for the existence of the island of stability in this region.
  • Source says (unabridged): Thus, at long last, more than 30 years after predictions of the Island of Superheavy Elements in the mid-60s, we have, indeed, reached and even gone beyond the "magic" region around Z = 114 and N = 184! When this book was finished, just before Glenn Seaborg left for the Boston ACS meeting, where he suffered his terrible stroke on 24 August 1998, we assumed that all that was left to do was the final proofreading. Then came this fantastic climax to the search for the superheavy elements, a search that had been a prime goal for a large number of scientists, especially for Glenn. We only regret that he is not here to witness it with us.
It began in January 1999 with an alert that a Dubna/LLNL collaboration working at Dubna had observed a single decay chain in the bombardment of 244Pu with 48Ca that they felt could only be attributed to element 114! A first glance at their findings seemed to indicate that, indeed, they had made the long-awaited discovery. Their reported chain of three α-emitters, 30-s, 9.71-MeV 289114 decaying to 15-min, 8.67-MeV 285112 decaying to 1.6-min, 8.83-MeV 281110 decaying to 17-min 277108 which spontaneously fissioned, was a textbook example of what was expected for a SHE decay.
No paraphrasing problem, but which numbers am I looking at to back the "several orders of magnitude longer than predicted"? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:13, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that the "minutes" are supposed to be the evidence given that the mean halflife of e.g known Copernicium isotopes is far less than a second, although if it is that it probably needs an explainer. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:51, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This also references a statement from Oganessian, 1999: The lifetimes of the new isotopes, in particular 285112 and 281110, appear to be approximately 106 times longer than those of the known nuclei 277112 and 273110. I added this second inline citation. ComplexRational (talk) 22:52, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@SandyGeorgia: There was one other prediction of SHE stability by Oganessian that I added a few days ago. The prose now reflects both aspects. Can I expect any more comments, as the coordinators have not yet taken any action? ComplexRational (talk) 03:12, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think we have well established that you paraphrase well :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:17, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Blatt, J. M.; Weisskopf, V. F. (2012). Theoretical nuclear physics. Dover Publications. pp. 7–9.
  • Article says: If a nucleus can be split into two parts that have a lower total energy (a consequence of the mass defect resulting from greater binding energy), it is unstable. The nucleus can hold together for a finite time because there is a potential barrier opposing the split, but this barrier can be crossed by quantum tunneling. The lower the barrier and the masses of the fragments, the greater the probability per unit time of a split.
  • Source says (abridged): Some nuclei are unstable against a split into two (or more) parts. Such instability occurs if the binding energy of a nucleus A is smaller than the sum of the binding energies of the two separated parts B and C. Then arises the question how the two parts B and C can hold together, even temporarily, to form the nucleus A.
If the two constituents B and C are brought together from infinite distance, the potential energy increases, mainly because of the Coulomb repulsion between two positive charges.
If the energy reaches a point higher than E∞, but lower than the highest point of the curve, the nucleus A is unstable with respect to the split into B and C; the two parts B and C are held together temporarily by a potential barrier and form an unstable nucleus A.
The probability II (per unit time for the penetration) decreases with an increase in the height of the barrier and with an increase in the masses of the penetrating parts.
Nicely boiled down to two sentences! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:15, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sarriguren, P. (2019). "Microscopic calculations of weak decays in superheavy nuclei". Physical Review C. 100 (1): 014309–1—014309–12.
  • Article says: The possible role of beta decay is highly uncertain, as some isotopes of these elements (such as 290Fl and 293Mc) are predicted to have shorter partial half-lives for alpha decay; this would reduce competition and result in alpha decay remaining the dominant decay channel, unless additional stability towards alpha decay exists in superdeformed isomers of these nuclides.
  • Source says (unabridged): Thus, Tα half-lives of the order of 10 s are expected in 290Fl, from 1 to 10 s in 293Mc, from 0.1 to 1 s in 294Lv, and from 0.01 to 1 s in 295Ts. These values are always lower than the corresponding Tβ+/EC half-lives, and therefore β+/EC would be much slower than α decay in these nuclei, not competing with them. Only the β+/EC from superdeformed shapes with Tβ+/EC half-lives around 10-100 s could have a chance to compete with α decay.
What exactly may need a rework? ComplexRational (talk) 22:52, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To the Coords, I think we have ourselves here an editor with an astonishing ability to paraphrase technical concepts, and no evidence of even the slightest close paraphrasing or copyvio issue. It is unfortunate that we have not found a single topic expert (who had not previously worked on the article) to weigh in here (which means I can't support, because I only support articles that I thoroughly understand), but I think we should not hold up this nomination waiting for independent editors from the Physics Project to show up. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:16, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: Comments? ComplexRational (talk) 15:32, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Double sharp

[edit]

I gave the article a read through. It's an excellent read and there's nothing that jumps out to me at the moment, so you have my support too! Double sharp (talk) 05:37, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coord notes

[edit]

Hi ComplexRational, a couple more things:

  • There are several duplicate links in the article so pls rationalise -- you can install and run this tool to highlight the dups.
Done.
  • More importantly, I gather this will be your first FA if successful so as well as the source review conducted above I'd like to see a spotcheck of sources for accurate use and avoidance of plagiarism or close paraphrasing; if one of the reviewers above would like to undertake, that's great, otherwise you can request the check at the top of WT:FAC.
Requested here.
Pinging @R8R, HaEr48, Casliber, SandyGeorgia, and Double sharp: if any of them would like to assist with this spotcheck, in which case a separate review may not be required. ComplexRational (talk) 14:02, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:29, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And thanks to you as well for these comments. ComplexRational (talk) 13:59, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I can do this ... perhaps today. I will spotcheck sources available online; if anyone else wants to spotcheck some that I cannot access online, that would be helpful. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:11, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pinged three more editors above; will do more if no one shows. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:38, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@SandyGeorgia: Nothing yet AFAIK from them three (even though they have edited since then). Would you like to wait a bit longer, or should we just work through these examples ourselves? ComplexRational (talk) 15:54, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, as I'm seeing everywhere, FAC just doesn't command the attention it once did :( Let's work through them ourselves. (I apologize that I am being torn many directions at the moment, with a potential arbcase looming, but please be patient with me as I have my hands full.) I will sometime today put up some samples, then, and if I need help verifying, ask you for same. Don't hesitate to ping me if I forget :( :( Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:25, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand, perhaps those editors have pinging disabled? (Another reason I hate this darn newfangled pingie thingie :) Do you think it would be intrusive if I posted to their talk after I have pinged? Don't want to do something that might bring an angry reviewer to your FAC :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:27, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would advise against it; I have seen them respond to pings before in other areas, so if echo indeed is working, it may seem like badgering. Thanks for asking, and don't rush (I've been quite busy myself and am actively doing two reviews outside FAC). ComplexRational (talk) 17:02, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]

JJE

[edit]

So, interesting topic, let's see if I can provide any useful comment (for disclosure, the nom of this article is working with me on Talk:Coropuna which is my own future nomination). I see that some of the sources in here aren't used in the article (aside from these which don't treat with nuclear physics, of course); I take that these aren't significant omissions? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:44, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from the fact that those not already in the article seem paywalled (i.e. I cannot read them), the abstracts suggest that they may be loosely related but are instead focused on the properties of nuclides intermediate between the stable "continent" and the island of stability. Maybe worth another article, but it doesn't fit with anything in this one, so I don't believe these omissions are significant. ComplexRational (talk) 22:34, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing that out. It was actually on slide 30; I fixed this in the file description. ComplexRational (talk) 15:41, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:55, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. A close call, I think. I would be inclined to say that they are not copyrightable -- as a rule graphs can be and are often drawn by computer rather than manually. These certainly could be drawn by computer. Choice of color is not, I think, enough to give a copyright. I'll be interested to see what my colleagues say. .     Jim . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:54, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I was also wondering about this – before uploading File:Nuclear chart from KTUY model.png, I discussed this with Double sharp who uploaded File:Superheavy decay modes predicted.png as PD for insufficient creativity. I would agree with this, as only raw data is depicted ("facts that were discovered"), which is not copyrightable. ComplexRational (talk) 15:41, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Utopes

[edit]

I don't plan on reading through the whole article at this time, but I wanted to leave my cursory comments at the least. This article would highly benefit through the use of subheaders and paragraph breaks. This article is structured like an academic paper, and while there isn't anything wrong with that, it's not easily readable. The paragraphs are touching 12 sentences in just one paragraph, but this number is treating semicolons as though they were periods, because this number can be easily manipulated with punctuation insertion and removal. Basically, I would like to see more subheadings at current paragraph breaks, and see paragraph breaks in general for those with at least 9 sentences. While this wouldn't change the content, it makes the article much more consumable. (I understand that articles on technical subjects exist. However, even these are able to be separated into more refined subtopics and allow for easier navigation and readability.) Utopes (talk) 04:30, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Utopes: I added a few extra paragraph breaks, but they only really help when there is a clear transition of focus. Do you believe any more should be added? ComplexRational (talk) 15:46, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Good. A potential subheader could be warranted at "Predicted Decay Properties" but I'm not sure myself what to put in there. I added another paragraph break, but I'm satisfied with how the article has been split up. I'm still neutral about the FA aspect. Utopes (talk) 00:04, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Utopes: Should I expect further comments from you? --Laser brain (talk) 14:25, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Laser brain:, I don't plan on leaving any more comments. I just had an issue with the spacing of the article, which was fixed. The content being FA worthy was covered aptly by other editors. Utopes (talk) 23:10, 17 January 2020 (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) 18 January 2020 [20].

1927 FA Cup Final

[edit]
Nominator(s): Kosack (talk) 21:15, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing my work on Cardiff City F.C. related articles comes perhaps the biggest success in the club's history. Its only major trophy in the English football system and the only time a team from outside England has claimed the FA Cup in its 100+ year history. This was originally taken to GA in 2016 by Miyagawa who seems to have left the site. So, I have picked this up, done some fine tuning and expanding where possible and believe it has enough to become a featured article. I look forward to any comments. Kosack (talk) 21:15, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Comments –

  • "the Football Association Challenge Cup better known as the FA Cup" reads oddly to me. This is a situation where putting "better known as the FA Cup" inside parentheses would probably make for a better read than what's there now.
  • Cardiff City: The stray apostrophe in "goalkeeper's" (by the Farquharson penalty save) should be removed.
  • Arsenal: "with was then followed by the only goal of the game came shortly afterwards...". A cleaner version would be "and the only goal of the game came shortly afterwards" or similar. In general, the first five words of this are throwing off the grammar more than anything.
  • Post match: "saying that the superiority of Cardiff's defence that led them to victory." This would read better as "defence had led them to victory."
  • Cardiff captain Keenor later commented his view of the goal". This needs "on" before "his". Giants2008 (Talk) 22:35, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Giants2008: Thanks very much for taking a look, I've addressed the points you raised above. Let me know if there's anything else. Kosack (talk) 07:29, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Brianboulton

[edit]

I've only read the lead, and there are quite a few prose issues that need attention. Thus:

  • Opening sentence: "The 1927 FA Cup Final was an association football match between Cardiff City and Arsenal on 23 April 1927 at the original Wembley Stadium (then called Empire Stadium)." Needs a comma after "Arsenal", followed by "which took place". - Done
  • It should read "(then called the Empire Stadium)" - Done
  • "Both teams required a single replay in different rounds to progress, but otherwise won each of their games." Why is this sentence necessary? People who don't know football won't understand the first part, and the second part is a statement of the obvious. - Removed
  • "Both sides played a mixture of home and away games on their route to the final, but Arsenal were not required to play outside London after the initial fourth round match." I'd say this is pretty inconsquential detail, not really ledeworthy. - Removed
  • "Additional trains were put on to transport Cardiff's fans to Wembley, and police reinforcements to keep fans at bay who had been sold fake tickets". Incomplete as it stands; perhaps add something like "were deployed" after "police reinforcements". - Done
  • Inconsistent capitalisation, e.g. "FA Cup Final" in the opening lead sentence, and "FA Cup final" and "cup final" later on.
This is in line with the two other FA class cup final articles, 1923 and 1956. I think it's capitalised when using the actual title of the final but not when referring to the final in general. Kosack (talk) 13:15, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It was the first FA Cup final broadcast on the radio" – you've already said this, in the first paragraph.
Removed first use. Kosack (talk) 13:15, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "having seen more than 300,000 applications for tickets" is clunky, and grammatically dubious. Suggest replace "having seen" with "from". - Done
  • "Both teams had opportunities to score, but the only goal of the game was credited to Hughie Ferguson after the ball slipped out of the hands of goalkeeper Dan Lewis, and he knocked the ball into the net with his elbow." Suggest preface with "During the match...", replace "both teams" with "each team", and "and he knocked" with "who knocked". Also, for clarity I'd say "Cardiff's Hughie Ferguson" and "Arsenal's goalkeeper". - Done
  • "wool" → "woollen" - Done
  • "Arsenal went on to win the trophy in 1930". Relevance? (Arsenal have won the cup at least a dozen times since 1927) - Removed

Brianboulton (talk) 12:46, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Brianboulton:, I've addressed the issues above and added a comment. Kosack (talk) 13:15, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the lead reads much better now – I've made a few more tweaks and corrected the odd typo (you can check these out). I see from the article's talk page that the origin of the "square one" phrase is disputed, so you might make your lead statement somewhat more equivocal, by replacing "which has been credited with coining the phrase" with "which according to some sources was the origin of the phrase" (I see you've hedged your bets a bit in the main text). I doubt I'll have time to check out the rest of the prose, but I wish you good luck with this nomination – your dedication to the affairs of Cardiff FC is admirable! Brianboulton (talk) 16:50, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking a look Brian. I've amended the "back to square one" sentence as per your suggestion also. Kosack (talk) 19:05, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by Kaiser matias

[edit]

Note that I read it from a Canadian English perspective, so please let me know if any comments made are simply due to language differences.

  • Like the image of the programme included in the infobox, adds a nice touch.
  • "...at the original Wembley Stadium (then called the Empire Stadium)." This is more personal preference I think, but wouldn't it make more sense to note the contemporary name of the stadium, and then put the later name in brackets: something like "at the Empire Stadium (the original Wembley Stadium)."
  • "The match was watched by 91,206 in the stadium, from more than 300,000 applications for tickets..." This may be a English variant issue, but it feels odd to me. It would seem more natural to note the larger number first, so for example: "There were more than 300,000 applications for tickets, with 91,206 attending the match in the stadium..."
  • "Afterwards, he blamed his new woollen jersey, saying that it was greasy." This could be improved I think: "Lewis later blamed his new wollen jersey, saying it was greasy."
  • "Newspaper reports indicated that they were the better team..." Little unclear of who was the better team: Cardiff City or Darlington?
  • "In the semi-finals Cardiff were drawn against Reading; with FA Cup semi-finals being held at neutral venues,[10] the match was played at Molineux Stadium in Wolverhampton. Reading had reached the semi-final for the first time in their history." This whole section could be worded better: "In the semi-finals Cardiff were drawn against Reading, who had reached the semi-final for the first time. FA Cup semi-finals were being held at neutral venues, so the match was played at Molineux Stadium in Wolverhampton."

Will add more later. Kaiser matias (talk) 17:24, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look Kaiser Matias, I've addressed the points above so far. Let me know when you have more. Kosack (talk) 18:22, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Some more:

  • "...also meeting First Division opposition with a tie against Sheffield United at Bramall Lane." Could be "also meeting a First Division opponent..." Furthermore, you note it was a tie in the prose, and that each team had 3 goals, but the summary on the side has a score of 3–2 for Arsenal. Am I just reading incorrectly, or is something not adding up?
  • "The first as the result of a scramble which ended with Jimmy Brain heading the ball into the net for Arsenal." Change: "The first was the result of a scramble..."
  • "...and two years earlier in 1925, they were defeated finalists." Simplify the latter half: "they were defeated in the final."
  • "Arsenal manager Herbert Chapman held a press conference prior to the final on 21 April..." To avoid ambiguitity: "Chapman held a press conference on 21 April, prior to the final..." (it otherwise sounds like the final was on 21 April).
  • "... as well as the officials; the referee William F. Bunnell from Preston, and the linesmen G.E. Watson from Kent and M. Brewitt from Lincoln." I'd switch the semi-colon to a colon.
  • "...acquired the match ball after the game and donated it to the Church." By "the Church" was it any particular physical church, or a specific denomination as a whole? It sounds like the latter, but is a little unclear, and as Farquharson was Irish, it could be one of several different ones.
  • "...saying that the wool was greasy and allowed the ball to slip from his grip." Was there any reason why the wool would be greasy? Just from wear and tear of previous matches? Not that this has to go into the article, I'm more curious myself.
  • "Cardiff reached the FA Cup Final once more in 2018; where they lost by one goal to nil against Portsmouth." You can either replace the semi-colon with a comma, or just delete the "where". As it stands it doesn't work grammatically.

Other than that should be good. For someone who isn't too familiar with football, especially the history like this, I found it easy enough to follow along with, so that's a good sign. Kaiser matias (talk) 17:52, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Kaiser matias: Thanks again, I've addressed the points above and added comments where necessary. Let me know if there's anymore. Kosack (talk) 18:32, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Great, happy with the replies here, and with the way it looks now. Kaiser matias (talk) 19:09, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review: pass

[edit]
  • Experienced and trusted nominator, spotchecks not carried out.
  • The link to ref #9 "'Darling of the Gods' Tom Farquharson, Irish footballing migrant" doesn't work; is it possible to find an archived version?
  • Consider linking the newspapers where pages exist. Western Daily Press, for example.
  • Ref #15 "Past Cup-Winners Disapear" is that your typo, or the sources?
  • Really picky point: your long references have full-stops, could you include them in your short references too?
  • Also, refs #19 and #20 use "Name (YYYY): p. xx" while otherwise the articles uses the more traditional "Name YYYY, p. xx".
  • What makes 11v11.com a reliable source?
  • Ref #41 "Rothmans Football Yearbook" add editor details.
  • Ref #60 "Herbert Chapman - Overview" needs to be a spaced endash, per our MOS, irrespective of the source formatting.

That's it, nothing major. Harrias talk 16:16, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Harrias:, thanks very much for taking a look. I've addressed all of the issues raised above and replied where necessary. Kosack (talk) 19:50, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
All good. Harrias talk 11:33, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Cas Liber

[edit]

Reading again now....

Curtis went on a run for Cardiff, who passed it forward near the box to Ferguson. = Cardiff didn't pass it forward..." Curtis went on a run for Cardiff before passing it forward near the box to Ferguson."?

Otherwise looking good on comprehensiveness and prose. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:07, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Casliber: Thanks for taking a look, I've amended the point above. Kosack (talk) 12:37, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Lee Vilenski

[edit]
Lede
Rest of article
Sorry, forgot to come back to it. I'll support. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 00:19, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Laser brain

[edit]

I have only a few minutes this morning so I thought I'd dip into this from the perspective of an American who's relatively unfamiliar with football. I found the lead tough to parse:

  • I know that Cardiff is in Wales, but are we prepared to make that assumption of our general readership? If not, the ponderous path is encountering "by a team based outside England" and having to go back, click the "Cardiff City" link which is actually an easter-egg link to Cardiff City F.C. and parse the lead for location... it's a bit messy.
  • I've added a mention of Cardiff being from Wales ahead of the outside England sentence. Piping the club link is not really an easter-egg link though, this has been the standard way of displaying football club names on Wiki for a decade and has gone through FAC numerous times in the past. Kosack (talk) 19:18, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The second paragraph is difficult to understand. They progressed through five rounds, but entered in the third round? Does that mean they made it to the eighth round? Or that they skipped the first two of a total of five rounds? If it's the latter, I wouldn't really say they "progressed through" those rounds.
  • As members of the top division, Cardiff and Arsenal did not enter until the third round. They then won five further rounds to reach the final. I've reworded this to hopefully be clearer now. Kosack (talk) 19:18, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Additional trains were put on to transport Cardiff's fans to Wembley" This is a pretty jarring transition from the previous paragraph.
  • "each team had opportunities to score" What's considered an opportunity to score in football? I'm familiar with concepts like shots-on-goal in ice hockey or red-zone in American football that are quantifiable but what are we saying here?
    I've removed that if it's too nondescript. Kosack (talk) 19:18, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm hope to read the rest tonight but thus far this doesn't strike me as a particularly accessible article to a general audience. --Laser brain (talk) 15:11, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A few additional comments—I feel this is almost ready:

  • "In the fifth round, Cardiff were drawn away against Bolton Wanderers" I presume this means they were considered to be the "away" team for the purpose of the match, but I think this is too much jargon. Similarly, "Arsenal were drawn away in the third round" and so on. Is there something we can wikilink? Or explain the significance?
  • You've sometimes written "half time" and "half-time" - Fixed
  • "First a header by Brain, then another by Buchan which the goalkeeper could only clear after it had crossed the line." This isn't a complete sentence. - Reworded

Provisional support pending the few last items. --Laser brain (talk) 12:45, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I've done some copy-editing, which can be freely reverted if I've messed anything up. It seems nicely done. Just a couple of minor points. Sarastro (talk) 21:53, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Newspaper reports indicated that Cardiff were the better team, and had it not been for the success of Darlington's defence then they would have won by greater than the two goal margin they achieved": This is cited to one match report, which does say that Cardiff were the better team, but we cannot use one such report to suggest that multiple newspapers said this.
  • "The English Cup": While this is doubtless true, it is referenced to a story in which quotes the reminiscences of an 86-year-old fan in 2008. I'd like a stronger reference than this.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 15 January 2020 [21].

Battle of Lagos

[edit]
Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk) 12:21, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Franco-Anglo naval battle from the age of sail. One where Clausewitz's friction was working overtime and few things went right for either side. I am attempting to break away from late-medieval articles, so greatly expanded this article in October and put it through ACR. I am hoping that it is now ready for FAC, so haul up your jolly rogers and I'll stand by to repel boarders. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:21, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by RetiredDuke

[edit]

Hello Gog, great to see this article here. For the sake of comprehensiveness, I wonder if the fact that this battle occurred in neutral Portuguese territorial waters had a significant impact on the future course of the Seven Years War and consequences to Portugal, since the article seems a bit brief in that regard. The following sources mention the breach in Portugal's neutrality as a reason that the country became involved in war with Spain and France later on:

  • "The Boscawen incident, which caused so much trouble and eventually in 1762 was to be one of the pretexts used by Spain to declare war on Portugal..."[1]
  • "Britain ultimately had to pay a price for Boscawen again disregarding the rules of neutrality... Portugal became entangled against her wishes in the diplomacy of the Franco-British war and eventually became a reluctant participant in the war itself..."[2]
  • "... in the memorial by which... the crowns of France and Spain ordered Portugal to declare against England. The grounds of that memorial - ... the disregard of Portuguese neutrality..."; "recalling the deliberate violation of her neutrality by the fleet under Boscawen... Portugal would not be allowed to continue a neutrality she could not enforce... The allies declared war and invaded Portugal." - A. T. Mahan, The Influence of Sea Power Upon History, 1660-1783
  1. ^ Alan David Francis. Portugal 1715-1808: joanine, pombaline and rococo Portugal as seen by British diplomats and traders – via Google Books. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |1= and |2= (help)
  2. ^ Jonathan R. Dull. The French Navy and the Seven Years' War – via Google Books. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)

Cheers, RetiredDuke (talk) 21:20, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi RetiredDuke, thanks for that insightful comment and the helpful sources. I am away from my paper sources at the moment, so could you give me a couple of days to be reunited with them before I come back to you on this. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:59, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, there's no rush. RetiredDuke (talk) 21:02, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi RetiredDuke. Apologies for the prolonged delay in responding - it kept slipping my mind. Researching this a bit, there seems to be agreement that Boscawen's action was not a reason for France and Spain declaring war on Portugal, but was one of the pretexts they cited when they decided to do so. So it does seem reasonable to make some mention of it. How would you feel about 'Three years later, the Spanish and French governments used this breach of neutrality as one of their pretexts for declaring war on and invading Portugal.', immediately after "Boscawen's violation of Portuguese neutrality was fully supported by his government, which placated the Portuguese by persuading them that it was an inadvertent result of Boscawen's general chase order."? Gog the Mild (talk) 17:28, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No worries Gog the Mild, glad you could look into it. I had no great expansion on my mind when I made that query, just curious if a person with all the right sources on hand could point to any kind of scholarly consensus or agreement about that connection, without veering into the realm of WP:OR. Your proposed sentence is clear and concise and ties up that loose end nicely.
Taking now on the article as a whole, I found it to be well-written, engaging and well-researched. The next query comes from someone who does not know much about British military history (or French for that matter), so apologies if I'm being obtuse in any way.
- Could the idea behind this sentence be slightly expanded upon? "Meanwhile, Britain's war effort up to early 1756 had been a failure." - I do not know enough about the Seven Years' War to immediately tell what could be considered a failure to Britain in this context. (Does it mean that Britain was unable to help Prussia during their invasion? Or unable to repel the French offensive?) Whereas the French shortcomings were described in more detail just before.
It's a small point that does not affect my support for this article's promotion. Cheers, RetiredDuke (talk) 00:18, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi RetiredDuke. If you are indicating that you support the article's promotion, I would be grateful if you could clarify that by amending your section header. Regarding the history of Britain's war effort up to early 1756, it is, as is often the case, one of those which is a bit of a slippery slope, with no obvious cut-off point. I could mention: the Braddock Expedition's defeat and the Siege of Fort William Henry in America; Britain's abandonment by her long term ally Austria; Britain's naval defeat at the Battle of Minorca which led to her executing her own losing admiral and the fall of her Mediterranean stronghold, Minorca; the calamitous defeat at the Battle of Hastenbeck in their European possession, Hanover; the British government falling apart after 6 months and it taking three months to patch together a new coalition; the fall of Calcutta in India, followed by the ignominy of the Black Hole of Calcutta; a crippling shortage of sailors; and let's not even consider the economy. You get the idea. I was and am reluctant to cherry pick a couple of these, and even on review prefer a summary-style it "had been a failure". But I'm not wedded to either so short a summary nor those precise words, if you have suggestions. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:44, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Well I read the article carefully and that was the only instance where I became a bit lost, since I'm not familiar with what Britain had been doing up to that point and what exactly was meant by "failure". I take the point that it would be rather difficult to summarize all of those individual setbacks. Support given above. RetiredDuke (talk) 21:38, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@RetiredDuke: Ah, but now you have me thinking. (Always a dangerous thing.) How about if I added 'with setbacks in Europe, North America, India and at sea'? Gog the Mild (talk) 22:04, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: Sounds good, I think. It gives an idea of the extent of Britain's war effort and that things were not going favourably for them in general. RetiredDuke (talk) 22:33, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:47, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Tim riley

[edit]

I enjoyed this article. A splendid read and highly informative. A few minor points on drafting:

  • Lead
  • I wonder if it might be an idea to give a pronunciation guide for "Lagos"? It's something like la-goosh, not what the eye might expect. You can copy and paste from the Lagos, Portugal article if you agree.
Can I ask why we would want to give the Portuguese pronunciation of a battle between the British and the French, neither of whom would pronounce it in the Portuguese fashion? It would be easy enough for me to do, but there is no evidence to suggest that 18th-century Englishmen pronounced it differently than thee or me would. And if they did, I am writing for a 20th-century English speaking audience, who I would hope would pronounce it Lay-goss.
Well, I think a 20th- (or even 21st-) century English speaking audience would simply be wrong to call it Lay-goss, but it's your prose, and I'm not going to make this any sort of sticking point. I'd be interested to see if any other reviewer has views. Tim riley talk 22:04, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Background
  • "Secretary of State for the Navy, Nicolas René Berryer… secretary of state for the southern department (foreign minister), William Pitt" – inconsistent capitalisation.
Mea culpa.
  • "significant handicap in a combat situation" – two points here: "significant" and "situation". As to the former, what did it signify? See Plain Words: "This is a good and useful word, but it has a special flavour of its own and it should not be thoughtlessly used as a mere variant of important, considerable, appreciable…". And I struggle to see how "in a combat situation" differs from "in combat".
Both changed.
  • "acted as a strong disincentive to service" – just "were" rather than "acted as" perhaps?
Fair point. Done.
  • Prelude
    • "refurbishment was underway" – according to the OED "under way" is two words
Ah. "underway" is a noun. Ah well.
  • Battle
  • "Boscawen ordered that there be no return fire" – have I missed an earlier explanation of why he might have done so? Seems odd, and one wonders why he did.
No, you haven't. Yes, it is. I am pretty sure why he did so, but as the sources simply report the fact I cannot OR in what is almost certainly the explanation. It seems necessary to report the fact, even if it leaves a reader dissatisfied.
Gosh! But fair enough. (You might share your OR thoughts here, though, out of interest.) Tim riley talk 22:04, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The first broadside, fired as one discharge, from cold guns, double shotted, loaded exactly and at leisure was deadlier than subsequent ones; and captains would attempt to save it for a close range strike against their primary targets. Boscawen seems to have taken this to obsessive lengths. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:35, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Good. Thanks for that. Well worth knowing, however unprovable. Tim riley talk 22:49, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The naval historian Nicholas Tracey claims…" – I'd be cautious with "claims". It carries overtones of disbelief. "Maintains", "suggests", "observes" and many other more neutral options might be safer.
Changed to "suggests". Although the Wiktionary definition seems to fit well "A new statement of something one believes to be the truth, usually when the statement has yet to be verified or without valid evidence provided."
  • Aftermath
  • "The three captured French ships went on to serve in the British navy as HMS Centaur, Modeste and Temeraire." – I did just wonder if that was the Temeraire, the one famously portrayed by Turner. I see from here that it wasn't, and as I imagine the name will ring bells in very many readers' heads it might be wise to add an explanatory footnote to the effect that this Temeraire was followed in the Royal Navy by a second in 1793 which is Turner's one.
Done. (I rarely receive requests to inform readers what is not the case.)
  • Sources
  • "A mixture of 10- and 13-digit ISBNs prompts at least one frequent FAC reviewer to demand 13-digits throughout. The necessary gizmo is here, if wanted.
I prefer to adhere to Wikipedia policy and use the ISBN which is actually printed in the volume I consult.
  • "Dull, Jonathan R. (2009). The Age Of The Ship Of The Line" – is this really the capitalisation used in the title?
Oh dear. How tactful. It doesn't matter. All titles should be in Wikipedian title case. Changed
  • Barnsley" – is in South Yorkshire in one source and just Yorkshire in another.
Well spotted. Standardised.

On to FA! Tim riley talk 17:20, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Tim. That was remarkably swift, and as thorough as usual. Much appreciated. Your points all addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:18, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support. The article seems to me comprehensive and balanced. It is well and widely referenced and nicely illustrated, and is a cracking read. Meets the FA criteria in my view. Tim riley talk 22:04, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Tim for your kind words, and for the support. By best guess, or a potted version of, as to the withholding of fire is above. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:35, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
  • Suggest scaling up the Boscawen image
Done.
  • Why use the Namur image for the infobox rather than the complete Battle of Lagos from which it is derived? The article after all is about the battle, not the ship
Because the image of the full battle appeared to me to be an indecipherable mess at infobox image size. However, replaced as suggested.
  • File:Vaisseau_le_Redoutable_74_canons_a_la_bataille_de_Minorque_1756.jpg: when/where was this first published?
According to the Bibliothèque nationale de France sometime before 1825, by an unknown artist. The Bibliothèque nationale de France also states that it is in the public domain.
Hm, I'm looking at the source link provided but don't see 1825 listed - am I missing it, or are you looking at a different link? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:13, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: Click on the large i in the top left and scroll down to "Relation : Appartient à : [Recueil. Collection Michel Hennin. Estampes relatives à l'Histoire de France. Tome 172, Pièces comprises entre les numéros 331 et 14303, période : 1643-1824]". Gog the Mild (talk) 00:04, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria (talk) 16:21, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nikkimaria, thanks for picking up this review so promptly. Your points above addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:42, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by Factotem - Support on sourcing

[edit]

General

  • The dates are somewhat confusing. The infobox states 18–19 August, but the lead begins the third paragraph with the statement, "The British caught up with the French on the 17th and fierce fighting ensued...". I think you could also usefully restate the date in the first sentence of the Battle section.
For some reason I slipped a day with several dates in the infobox. Many thanks for picking up this embarrassment.
Date restated. But not in the first sentence - this would be clumsy without recasting the paragraph. See what you think.

Unsourced statements:

  • Infobox states 10 British frigates, which is the quantity listed in the OOB, but the article states 12 (Prelude section)
10 took part in the battle, as stated in the infobox and restated and sourced in the OoB. The Prelude states "he also had 12 frigates" in the context of "In May 1759 Edward Boscawen took command of the British fleet in the Mediterranean". Ie, two of the frigates in the fleet were not present at the battle. The article states that "He ordered the first two of his frigates to be ready for sea to patrol to the east". La Clue evaded them and was in the Atlantic when spotted by Gibraltar, so I assume that this accounts for the discrepancy. But no source explicitly states this, hence the two unaccounted for.
  • Infobox states 193 British wounded, but article states 196 (Aftermath section)
Apologies. That's me not adequately checking the figure in the infobox when I picked up the article. Corrected.
  • Two of the three footnotes are unsourced. The last one explains only a convention used in the article and is fine. The second footnote, about The Fighting Temeraire painting is, IMO, not necessary.
I added the footnote about the painting at the request of reviewer Tim riley, doing so on my phone over Christmas, and squinting at it I messed up the formatting. The reference was there, but not showing in the text. If you are suggesting that the article would be the better for not having the The Fighting Temeraire footnote I would agree. But Tim is usually a good judge of these things and I don't feel that strongly about it. Perhaps the two of you could reach consensus?
I'm not comfortable with having any unsourced statements of fact, especially at FA. For me, that footnote is an unnecessary detail; removing it does not in any way degrade our understanding of the subject of the article. Anyone who is curious is just a click away from the ship's own article, from which it is just another click to learn that it is not the same ship as featured in the painting. Finally, if we're going to disambiguate this name, why not any of the others that were also used on multiple different ships? I would prefer the footnote to go. Let's see if Tim wishes to defend it. Factotem (talk) 23:02, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Tim riley:? The note is at least sourced now, but I still think it's an unnecessary detail that does not belong. I am, however, reviewing on sourcing only, so it does not affect my opinion on that. Factotem (talk) 10:19, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Turner's picture was voted Britain's favourite painting in a poll organised by the BBC a few years ago. I think so many readers, in Britain at any rate, will see the name "Temeraire" and wonder if this is the Temeraire that it would be helpful to explain that it isn't. But if there's a consensus agin me I shall withdraw gracefully. Tim riley talk 10:37, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Technical checks:

  • Ref #52 (Troude 1867, p. 373, 385.) p->pp
D'oh! Fixed.
  • You use an ISBN10 ref for Kemp's The Oxford Companion to Ships and the Sea when all other ISBNs in the Sources section are ISBN13. The Worldcat entry for this work gives an ISBN13 of 978-0192820846. This is a nitpick I've seen in previous source reviews. For myself, I'm not fussed.
  • Worldcat's listing of editions of Longmate's Island Fortress: The Defence of Great Britain, 1603–1945 does not list any as being published by Harper Collins. The ISBN link you provide indicates that the edition you used was published by Grafton. Can you check please?
It is Grafton of course. As there is no source from Harper Collins, so it can't even be a cut and paste error, I am unsure how I messed that up.
  • The ISBN provided for McLynn's 1759: the Year Britain Became Master of the World links to a 2008 edition published by Vantage, according to Worldcat, rather than the 2005 edition published by Pimlico as stated in the Sources section. Can you check please?
This goes from bad to worse. I was actually holding the volume in question as I read that. (I had just checked the number of wounded.) Turning it over, it says "Vintage" (not Vantage) clearly enough on the spine. On the title page, part way down, it states "Pimlico edition 2005" by way of publishing history and I unhappily took that as referring to this edition. Corrected.
  • Mahon's surname is repeated in the Sources section
Corrected.
  • There appears to be two different titles for Kléber's work. You list Imperial Island: A History of Britain and Its Empire, 1660–1837, but this Worldcat entry indicates that the ISBN ref you provide relates to a work titled Imperial island : a history of Britain and its empire, 1688-1837. Note that Worldcat lists both titles, but does not provide an ISBN ref for the 1660 version that I looked up. Can you check please?
That one drove me half mad. I believe that WorldCat is in error. One can just about make out that the cover illustration states 1660. The WorldCat blurb starts "This is a lively, new textbook for US students on British history from the Stuart Restoration of 1660 ... " And I finally tracked down a Google Books title page with a title and ISBN matching that I have provided - here.
  • A search for ISBN 0713884118, provided for Rodger's The Command of the Ocean gives no results in both Worldcat and Gbooks
My typo - it should be 0713994118. Corrected. (I have previously copied and pasted this into other articles which I shall have to find and change.)
  • The ISSN ref you provide for Willis's The Battle of Lagos, 1759 appears to refer to the journal rather than the specific article. Can you add the DOI ref please (doi=10.1353/jmh.0.0366 should do it)?
Added.
  • The Worldcat listing for Rif's British Warships in the Age of Sail 1714-1792: Design, Construction, Careers and Fates indicates Seaforth Publishing to be based in St. Paul, Minnesota, not Barnsley, South Yorkshire, as stated in the Sources section
Yesss. But. I am happy to bow to your superior knowledge, but this title page states that it was published in GB by Seaforth, an imprint of P&S of Barnsley; and is merely distributed in the USA, and that by MBI.

External link checker: no issues reported

More to come Factotem (talk) 12:21, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Quality of sources:

  • I'm always a little concerned when I see very old sources used. In this case, 10 out of 100 cites are to 19th-century works, but they are all accompanied by another cite or relate to the OOB, so I'm not concerned that such ancient sources are being relied upon to any inappropriate degree;
Me too. But they were the only ones I could find with that sort of detail, and like you I reassured myself that I was only using them unsupported for straight forwardly factual information.
  • Had to research MacDonald and Jane's a little (and can you check the listing in the sourcing section? It appears to be misspelt with an accent on the s rather than the possessive 's' Worldcat and Gbooks list it as), but all publishers appear to be of appropriate quality;
I didn't realise that it was possible to get a French-style accent by mistyping an apostrophe. Well spotted. Corrected.
  • Sixty percent of the cites are to three works focussed on the subject or time period by authors with solid academic credentials, so no issues there, other than to point out that Sam Willis can be linked.
I read his article and thought that I had. I have not done too well with this bibliography.
I was surprised at the lack of other detailed examinations of this battle. One of only three large naval battles in the Seven Years' War. I assume that Byng's disgrace three years earlier and Quiberon Bay three months after Lagos hog the limelight.

In short, no issues with the reliability of the sources used. Factotem (talk) 21:35, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Still more to come. Factotem (talk) 21:35, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comprehensiveness:

  • I searched Google Books for "Battle of Lagos" but found only the sources used in the article, the advice to consult Sam Willis's work for a detailed narrative of the battle, and nothing to suggest the article is not based on a full survey of all relevant sources.
  • A similar search on JSTOR did not reveal anything more concerning than Rémy (according to the article bibliography) Monaque is Rémi (according to the JSTOR listing) Monaque
Yes. It seems clear enough - [file:///C:/Users/Simon/AppData/Local/Packages/Microsoft.MicrosoftEdge_8wekyb3d8bbwe/TempState/Downloads/naval-leadership-in-the-atlantic-world.%20(1).pdf]. Just me goofing again.

In other words, all good on the comprehensiveness front as far as I can ascertain. Factotem (talk) 22:08, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I feel no need to complete any spot checks against the source. If you address the general, unsourced and technical issues identified above I see no reason not to support on sourcing. Factotem (talk) 22:08, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Factotem. I have some idea of the time and effort involved in a thorough review like that and I much appreciate it. All of your points above addressed, at least one with a query. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:53, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Wehwalt

[edit]

Support Interesting account of a battle I had not heard of. A few points:

  • "It left port amidst great confusion, with most ships not having their refurbishments completed, and many delayed and sailing in a second squadron." Possibly "sailed" for "sailing"?
I don't think that this works following "and many delayed". Tim, would you mind offering your Solomonic grammatical judgement on this? (PS Or I could rephrase as 'and many were delayed and sailed in a second squadron'?)
What about "with many delayed and sailing in a second squadron"?--Wehwalt (talk) 22:17, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Wehwalt: done. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:34, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "By the beginning of 1759 neither alliance had the advantage, in either the land or sea campaigns, and both were having serious problems financing the war." I might cut the first comma.
The idea idea is to section out, by a pair of commas, "in either the land or sea campaigns". If you don't think that it works, I could recast the sentence?
Let it stand.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:17, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • " From June 1757 it came under the control of the assertive new secretary of state for the southern department (foreign minister)," I realise there is something of a campaign to lower case things, but this seems lower than I'd expect.
I may be missing the point (I often do) but having just checked, the casing seems to be in accordance with MOS:JOBTITLES. I would not wish to defend the casing used, other than to note that I understood a compliance with the MOS in this respect to be necessary to pass FAC.
  • "as HMS Centaur,[53] Modeste[54] and Temeraire.[note 2][43]|group=note}}" some formatting issue here.
Whoops. Thank you. Fixed.
Nicely done.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:11, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Wehwalt, thanks for stopping by and thanks for the support even before I have addressed your comments. All had me thinking, but I am inclined not to go with your first three. See what you think of my reasoning above. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:08, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Kablammo

[edit]

The article is clear and concise, without unnecessary detail.

You may wish to add Mahan's judgment on the action's importance: "The destruction or dispersal of the Toulon fleet stopped the invasion of England", at page 300 of the cited book. Kablammo (talk) 21:33, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kablammo Thanks for the read through, the copy edit and the support. Re Mahan, I am inclined not to: his opinion is rather dated; and more recent and more specialist treatments explicitly state that La Clue's fleet was not aimed at supporting the invasion and its destruction had little effect one way or another. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:54, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support by CPA-5

[edit]

I couldn't find anything eles - all of my comments are addressed in the ARC. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 10:53, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 15 January 2020 [22].

Cactus wren

[edit]
Nominator(s): Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 22:47, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The cactus wren is a hardy desert bird of the southwestern United States and northern Mexico, able to live without water and through the hottest of summers. As the state bird of Arizona, it is an icon of the Sonoran Desert. I brought the article up to GA earlier this year, and am excited to present it as my first FAC. FAC recommends a mentor for first time noms, and the illustrious Casliber has been kind enough to fill that role for me. The article has received a thorough peer review, and a copyedit by GOCE. Smooth sailing, Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 22:47, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comment from Tim riley

[edit]

Just booking my place. The article looks v. impressive and I've read through once without finding anything to grumble about. But as I know nothing about birds beyond tips from Elizabeth David or Julia Child I'd prefer to wait till more expert reviewers have had their say. – Tim riley talk 14:32, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

After a second read-through of the article and a perusal of the comments below, I am happy to add my support. The only quibble I have been able to come up with after a determined attempt is to question if the blue link for "sidewalk" isn't perhaps a touch of WP:OVERLINK (I speak as an Englishman, who calls the things "pavements", but "sidewalk" is a pretty familiar word). That really is neither here nor there, and the article is a good read (easily understood by a non-expert like me), evidently comprehensive, gorgeously illustrated and impressively referenced. Meets the FA criteria, in my view. – Tim riley talk 15:40, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Jim

[edit]

First read through Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:33, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 04:00, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The wren has… They are brown with black and white spots as markings
I see your concern here. However, I am going to opt not to change it at the moment, as I suspect the lead is going to get heavily re-written, thanks to Fowler&Fowler's very in-depth comments on the lead. I may ask for a second read-through of the lead once I have taken F&F's suggestions. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 07:37, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 04:00, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The chest is whiter... Their song
I take it you wanted standardization here, thus have opted to change "the" to "their". Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 07:37, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • prolate spheroidal isn't exactly reader friendly, pipe it through rugby ball or similar
more to come Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:54, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Jimfbleak Thanks for the review! Originally I had it piped to Ball (gridiron football) with the label "American football". That has been a point of some contention, and has been changed around several times. The current wording was created by Gog the Mild during their copyedit, I would be interested on their take on it as well before changing it. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 16:30, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@CaptainEek and Jimfbleak: I chose prolate spheroid as the best of a poor selection. As the Cap'n says, it previously used "American football", which is accurate but would mean nothing to most readers. Similarly "rugby ball" excludes possibly a majority of readers. "Prolate spheroid" is technically correct, and seemed appropriate for a technical article. One downside is that it is equally inaccessible to almost all readers. But then so are many of the terms in this article. I would have no concerns about a switch to either of the other suggestions. Neither would be my first choice, but I don't see this as an issue with a 'right' answer. Happy to address any follow up questions, especially if I have missed the point. Or to contribute further to deciding which choice to go with, if you think that may be useful. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:47, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thinking about it, is Jim suggesting prolate spheroidal? If so, that seems quite clever to me. Gog the Mild (talk) 00:44, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Too clever for me, I'd be happy with anything that was less technical, American football, rugby ball etc Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:35, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have changed it back to American football. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:39, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first cactus wren was described —really? I think you mean the first description of a cactus wren
 Done Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 04:00, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The cactus wren was placed in the genus Helodytes... but they placed it back in Campylorhynchus— repeated placed
 Done Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 04:00, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • frequent use of cactus as nesting sites —shouldn't it be cacti?
Ya know, I'm not exactly sure, but I've made the change anyway. They're called cactus wrens, not cacti wrens, but then again I don't really understand octopus/octopi so I'm not the best person to ask :) Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 04:00, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Anders Anderson and Anne Anderson— Anders and Anne Anderson seems more natural
Right you are Mr. Anderson. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 04:00, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Guttatus should be italicised as a foreign-language word, similar affinis etc
 Done Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 04:00, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • rectrices—link
The first mention is already linked (in the subspecies secton). Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 04:00, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • the cactus wren looks similar to other wrens in its genus, their identification
 Done Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 07:37, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1,000 feet (300 m). should be metric to US, add parameter order=flip''
 Done Thats a very clever little technique, thank you! Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:32, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1.3 ha (0.013 km2) to 1.9 ha (0.019 km2). should be metric to US, not metric to metric
I have converted to yd2, as converting to feet or miles gave some wacky numbers. If anyone has a better suggestion, lemme know. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:32, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
{{convert|1.3|ha|acre}} gives 1.3 hectares (3.2 acres) Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:02, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, thats the unit I was thinking of. Thats why I prefer metric :) I have swapped it over. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 07:21, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • link ''Rio Grande ''
 Done Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:39, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • ''3 ft (0.9 m) off the ground,[12] and are usually less than 10 ft (3.0 m) off the ground, but have been recorded as high as 30 ft (9.1 m). '' and back to US to metric again...
 Done Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:32, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • link clutch, brood, termite, nectar
 Done Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:39, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Parasites and diseases? I found this and BNA mentions feather mites
  • 6 inches (20 cm)... were well over 100 feet (30 m}... sigh...
 Done Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:32, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • ref 9 needs binomial italicised
 Done Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:39, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • see last para of this
I am in the process of adding a paragraph using this and the above source. It will take me a bit to sift through them. Thanks for finding these! Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 08:00, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have written a paragraph about parasites, if you could read it over that would be good. Of the two sources, only the 2012 California one had usable content. The Irish naturalist article was still interesting, and applicable to wrens as a family, and I have added it to the further reading. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 00:36, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Like the parasites, changed to support above now Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:21, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]

All images are are correctly licensed and appropriate. The only thing you might consider is perhaps having a habitat shot to show the landscape they are found in, just a suggestion though Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:45, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have added File:2010 Sonoran Desert 04.jpg to the habitat section. In the process I moved the image of a wren atop a saguaro to the status section. Let me know if thats too many images, or if they should be reordered. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:47, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Sainsf

[edit]

I reviewed this for GA criteria. Glad to see this at FAC, and how much it has improved since then. Here are my comments on this one again, mostly things I may have missed out on earlier, or which matter for an FA but not for a GA:

Thanks for the double review! Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:06, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The cactus wren's common name comes from I feel we could just go with "The common name" as we have not mentioned any other names. In fact it may give the impression that there is one apart from "cactus wren". The The bird's common name comes from... used in "Taxonomy and systematics" sounds fine.
  • Agree with Jim about the "prolate spheroidal" term. Can we keep the term but relate it with the rugby ball or something as an example, in brackets next to it? As in the Reproduction section?
I have changed it back to American football at the moment, but would be open to doing other things. I think a discussion on the talk page from reviewers might be useful, as there are several different ideas. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:06, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. I won't strike this one out as other opinions might help in improving this, but it won't affect my !vote for this nom. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 06:22, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The cactus wren's common name comes from its frequent use ... Their prolate spheroidal-shaped nests Keep it as either singular or plural, or switch to "their" in the first line maybe.
Have fixed the lead. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:06, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe "exotic grasses" could be wikilinked? Not sure if it is too a common term.
I can't think of a good thing to wikilink here. There is no exotic grass page, and introduced species is already linked at the start of the sentence. Suggestions welcome. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:06, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • ornithologists described the cactus wren multiple times as different species, and as late as 1898. I am a bit confused here. What was as late as 1898? The incorrect descriptions? Or did the others start describing it as late as 1898?
I have changed the wording to hopefully clarify, please take another look. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:06, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The cactus wren was placed in the genus Helodytes by the American Ornithologists' Union in 1894, but they returned it to Campylorhynchus in 1947. Do we know why it was placed in the first genus and then shifted to the other?
I'm afraid not, as early taxonomy is often a void. I could guess any number of reasons, but none of the sources I have mention why. Its likely that only the people who changed the taxonomy in the 1800's know, and they are long dead. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:06, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could the names in the cladogram not begin with just C. instead of Campylorhynchus repeated everywhere?
 Done Piped a lotta links. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:06, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Subspecies are missing from the infobox
 Done Didn't even know you could add them, but now I do! Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 01:02, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You should add the authors and years too, do it like in the synonyms. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 06:22, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A great suggestion! I have filled in the taxon data, courtesy of ITIS. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 07:21, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thyrothorus guttatus Gould 1836 in synonyms. Comma missing before the year (2 more cases right after that)
 Done Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 01:02, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • If possible wikilink the names of those who described the subspecies.
 Done Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 01:02, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry I can't find where you've linked them, could you give me the diff maybe? Sainsf (talk · contribs) 06:22, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I had done it in the infobox. I have now also done so in the body, where possible. Some of the more obscure ornithologists don't have articles and probably shouldn't. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 07:21, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

More to come. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 09:56, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Maybe say right before you start the subspecies list that you are enlisting all proposed subspecies? Going straight to the list when we were discussing the dispute about the subspecies seems a bit incomplete to me, personally.
Added Below are all proposed subspecies Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 01:02, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Guttatus is Latin and means "speckled". Maybe sounds more concise if we say "Latin for "speckled"." May be used for affinis and a few other cases later too.
 Done All cases have been dealt with, except for one on C. b. seri, as I thought it flowed better. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 01:02, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Affinis "allied" or "related" in Latin Typo? Sainsf (talk · contribs) 06:22, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, good catch. Fixed. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 07:21, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The American Ornithological Society classifies all California subspecies Should it be "Californian" instead?
 Done Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 01:02, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could use wikilink for "scapulars". "Rump" is actually linked in the next section.
 Done Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 01:02, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Californian ornithologist Walter Pierce Bryant, (1861–1905) Stray comma?
 Done Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 01:02, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The exact meaning of the subspecies name is unclear, it may be Should probably be a semicolon and not a comma
 Done Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 01:02, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • A distinctive white supercilium (eyebrow) run from the bill Runs?
 Done Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 01:02, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other distinctive features of juvenile include I think you mean "juveniles"
 Done Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 01:02, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • the most northern breeding population "northernmost" sounds better to me
 Done Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 01:02, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is found only in the extreme southwestern part of Utah. You mean "in Utah it is found only in the extreme southwest"? Both lines differ in meaning.
 Done Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 01:02, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Heavy seasonal rainfall can extend breeding: young have been recorded in nests as late as August The cited example probably has the impact it should have on the reader only after he/she learns when eggs are typically laid. Probably shift it to the part where you discuss it?
I have moved the egg info to lower in the section. I have also gone back to Anderson & Anderson, and expanded upon the egg laying season. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 01:02, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • A tube like entrance, about 15 cm (6 in) long I guess it should be tubelike, similar to pouchlike
 Done Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 02:11, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • with Anderson and Anderson reporting an average time of 2.7 days Maybe "the Andersons" works better. The ornithologists Anderson & Anderson noted a minimum... Here you use a different way to mention them, consistency would be good.
I have standardized it as "Anderson & Anderson", but would be amenable to changing it to "the Andersons" if you feel that is better. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 02:11, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Striking this out; I am fine with any option as long as it is consistent. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 06:22, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Up to six broods may be attempted in a year, but it is rare for more three to survive Did you mean "more than three"?
 Done Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 02:11, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • A link for "microclimate" would be good
 Done Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 02:11, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should the facts on social behavior be included in Feeding? Not exactly where I would search f Probably can be an intro part to the Behavior and ecology section with more info to substantiate? Also I feel a bit of this should be in the lead.
I have moved the social paragraph to the head as a sort of intro. I also added one sentence on living in pairs/family groups into the lead. Let me know if more is needed, or perhaps I should do something different. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 02:11, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nests built in cactus provide a degree of protection to young, yet even in cactus, young wrens are Could use a semicolon and not a comma before "yet"
 Done Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 02:11, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • interspecies nest distances Should it be "interspecific" instead?
 Done Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 02:11, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I expected "Threats" to describe threats like habitat loss.. maybe it should be named something related to interspecific interactions?
That was based on the WP:BIRD approach to headings. They do give an option between "Threats" or "Survival" however, so I have changed it to "Survival". Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 02:11, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looking at "Status", maybe Californian populations have become increasingly fragmented due to habitat destruction is redundant and not really fitting in "Distribution and habitat".
Removed. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 02:11, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Miscellaneous:

  • The article could use an "External links" section at the end containing the links to other wiki sites (like Commons and all) plus useful species accounts elsewhere on the web. Just a feature I've seen in most FAs.
I'll admit I hadn't added one, as I personally do not much like external links. I might need some help doing that, as I'm not sure what I'd add. Most of the websites I thought were quite good are already used as sources. If you could provide an example of a model section from a bird FA, I'd appreciate. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 02:11, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I remember this one. Note that it is optional, just adds good stuff to the article. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 06:22, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
For the time being, I'm going to opt not to have an EL section. The links to commons/wikispecies are already at the bottom of the article in fancy little boxes. Beyond that, I just couldn't find any super useful EL. I will keep hunting, but there's honestly not tons of great web content on the wren. Most of my best sources were books. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 07:21, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The images are nice but could use more interesting captions. Maybe say which subspecies it is (if we know for sure) in the pic in Subspecies, or use a good pic where the subspecies is known for sure. The image in Description could additionally say "Note the white speckles against the brown background" or in Feeding the caption can be the wren feeds on insects such as what is shown in the pic. It's a general FAC suggestion I have often come across.
I had kept it short because I was under the impression that long captions were much frowned upon. I have jazzed them up a bit. For the one in the taxonomy section, I have used A & A's guide to subspecies, combined with rangemaps, to say that the bird is C.b. couesi. That strikes me as WP:OR however, so may need to be undone. However, not a single image I've seen has been identified down to subspecies, or at least not that could be used on Wikipedia. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 02:11, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would say it's better to remove the OR part then. And maybe locations can be omitted to shorten things, like in the caption "Near the entrance of a nest in a cholla cactus, at the Desert Botanical Garden in Phoenix, Arizona. Despite the prickly thorns, this wren's plumage remains in good condition." That is if the location is not exactly necessary for the image. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 06:22, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Done I have reworked the captions again, and re-ordered some images. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 07:21, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure how relevant the nest pic is under Description. One would expect more focus on physical features in pics there, if you have many to choose from.
I have updated caption to discuss feather condition, making it fit better. I have also added another image, so that the first one is just of the bird. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 02:11, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per WP:CAPFRAG , if the caption is a sentence fragment it should not end with a period; but if any complete sentence occurs in a caption, then all sentences, and any sentence fragments, in that caption should end with a period.
 Done Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 07:21, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's all from me. Cheers, Sainsf (talk · contribs) 11:00, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all the helpful feedback. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 02:11, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, you are really fast in your response :) Great job for someone's first FAC! Sainsf (talk · contribs) 06:22, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have signed up for WikiCup 2020, and I plan to add this review to my submissions. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 05:05, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FunkMonk

[edit]
One adittional comment, there are many very similar images, how about spicing it up a bit by replacing some with more unusual poses, such as:[23][24] FunkMonk (talk) 17:29, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The second image is quite exceptional and I have added it. Good find! And thanks again for the peer review. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 02:58, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Fowler&fowler

[edit]

Welcome to your first FAC! I am trying to experiment with a critique written from the POV of a newcomer and focusing on the lead. For that reason, I have not read the rest of the article. Nor have I read other reviews. There may be existing conventions in WP Ornithology, so feel free to tell me when my suggestions clash with them. There may also be MOS conventions on using wikilinks instead of descriptors, whether single words or phrases, so please tell me.

  • The cactus wren (Campylorhynchus brunneicapillus) is a species of wren that is endemic to parts of the Southwestern United States and northern and central Mexico.
    • Would it make sense not to use endemic at this stage, and prefer instead "that is uniquely indigenous to ...?"
All of the sources I have use endemic, and I would prefer to as well. The indigenous species concept is poorly defined, and open to more interpretation than endemic. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 05:04, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Would it make sense to use a geographical description that is evocative of the bird's name, and in some ways more informative, such as "to the deserts of the southwestern United States and northern Mexico?"
Good idea! Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 05:04, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • So, overall, would, "The cactus wren ... is a species of wren that is uniquely indigenous to the deserts of the southwestern United States and northern Mexico" make the sentence more accessible?
Partially implemented. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 05:04, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are eight generally recognized subspecies.
    • Would it be more accurate to say, "Biologists have thus far identified seven or eight (or eight or nine, as it the case) subspecies of the cactus wren?"
I have moved it to the end of the paragraph per another reviewer, and have generally changed the wording. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 05:04, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The wren has prominent white eyebrows that stretch to the nape of the neck.
    • I am assuming that by "prominent" you mean "visually prominent." Would it be better to say, "The cactus wren has striking white ...?" ("prominent" in the human context can mean bushy.) If these markings set this wren apart from other birds, you could use "characteristic" or "distinctive."
Have changed to distinctive. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 05:04, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure about using "stretch." Would it be better to say, "... has striking white eyebrows that sweep back from above its beak to the nape of its neck?" Is it a closer descriptive fit to the accompanying picture?
Changed to sweep. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 05:04, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "They are brown with black and white spots as markings."
    • "They" here would syntactically apply to the eyebrows, not to the wren, which in any case thus far has been described in the singular. I'm hard-pressed to see brown as the single color in the accompanying picture. Would, "The cactus wren's coloration has different shades of brown speckled with black and white spots." be better?
  • "The tail, as well as certain flight feathers, are also barred in black and white."
    • "Certain" is typically used to individualize but not too precisely. Is it needed? In other words, can we not use it at all (i.e. use the zero article), or use "some" or can we be more precise and say which flight feathers? Is the "also" needed? It suggests that the tail and flight feathers have the black and white spots, and, besides, have black and white bars. Is that true?
I have removed the also, and the certain. Looking back at my sources, all the feathers seem to be barred (although to varying degrees). Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 05:04, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The chest is whiter, while the underparts are cinnamon-buff colored.
    • Whiter than what? It is probably better to describe the color. I'm not very good with colors, but is it ivory, or eggshell white? Is there a link for cinnamon-buff? Although "while" is perfectly acceptable usage for expressing contrast, would "whereas" be better?
I have linked Cinnamon and buff. I have changed whiter to simply "white". Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 05:04, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Their song is harsh and raspy; ornithologists have described it as like a car engine that will not start.
    • "raspy" is harsh. Do we need both? Should "song" be wikilinked to Bird vocalization? "it as like a" is a little vague. Isn't their vocalization also loud? Would it be better to write "Its song is a loud raspy chirrup, akin—in the description of some ornithologists—to the sound of a car engine that will not start?"
Good idea. I have wl'd song too. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 05:04, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cactus wrens are well-adapted to their native desert environment, and can meet their water needs from their diet – which consists chiefly of insects, supplemented with some plant matter.
    • This sentence is another reason why the mention of "deserts" in the first sentence is helpful. The sentence assumes a previous mention of the desert.
    • "chiefly" and "supplemented," together, are redundant, as one implies the other. Also, "supplement" has the vague implication of supplying a want or need, which has already been stated once, and which might not be a part of the wren's purposefulness, but rather its evolutionary adaptation. Would it be better to say, "Cactus wrens are well-adapted to their native desert environment, and can meet their water needs from their diet which consists chiefly of insects, but also of some plant matter?"
Implemented. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 05:40, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • They are ground feeders and spend much of their time on the ground searching for food, as they are somewhat poor fliers.
    • Isn't a ground feeder a bird that spends much of its time on the ground foraging for food? Would it be better to say, "The cactus wren is a poor flier, and generally forages for food on the ground."
    • Would it make sense here to make a connection with endemism, if there is one?
Can't say that there is a connection? Or not one that could be concisely summarized for the lead. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 05:40, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Have implemented. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 05:40, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Their American football-shaped nests are constructed first of plant material, then lined with feathers.
    • Their nests don't seem to be of a well-defined geometric shape (such as that of weaver birds). The literature uses "bulky," "large," "globular," as well, in my quick reading.
I have went back through my sources and confirmed that, and changed the wording. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 05:40, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • That reminds me, you have said nothing about the bird's size (in inches and centimeters). A large size would necessitate large nests.
Have added as the second sentence that they are the largest wren in the US. I have opted to not include numbers. If someone wishes numbers, they may read the body. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 05:40, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • You don't need "first" or "then." Lining is necessarily done after building. So, would, "They employ plant material to build large bulky round- or egg shaped nests, and line their interiors with feathers." be better? Egg-shaped is piped to ovoid.
I have opted to not implement that suggestion. I think it is a harder and less accessible read. None of my sources mention egg shaped either, so I would be hestitant to claim as such. I have changed the sentence around however, as you raise good points. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 05:40, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cactus wrens are non-migratory, and establish and defend territories around their nests.
    • Would it be better to simply say, "Cactus wrens do not migrate, establishing and defending their territories around their nests."
That is better. Have implemented. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 05:40, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pairs are monogamous, with females incubating eggs while males build new nests; both parents feed chicks.
    • You probably do not need "with" and "new" Also, what are "pairs?" "While" is ambiguous, as it can mean "during," which is not the intended meaning here. Also, nests are built before the incubation of eggs. Would, "Pairing among cactus wrens is monogamous; in each breeding season, the males build nests, the females incubate eggs, and both parents feed the young." be better?
Have implemented, although I'm unsure about it. I added "Cheifly" before males, as the pairs do work together to make some nests. Once a clutch has fledged, females will go back to help continue building nests. Suggestion on how to better tackle that dichotomy is welcome. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 05:40, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Introduced species, such as exotic grasses and domestic cats, have also hurt populations."
      • Should we say barn cats and feral cats? Should we say why exotic grasses have hurt populations?
Have taken both suggestions. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 06:37, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • There seem to be coherence issues in the paragraph: on the one hand, the cactus wren is slow to disperse into new habitat in response to habitat loss; on the other, it has proved adaptable. How so? You have to tell us. I will leave you to rewrite this paragraph. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:14, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have rewritten the last paragraph, and attempted to improve the coherence. I'm trying to cover a dichotomy: populations are declining but abundant. Hopefully I now do that better. Further advice would be welcome. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 06:37, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the feedback fowler! I have read your comments, but just letting you know that I will probably get to them last. I'm smoothing out sourcing and content in the body, and I want it to be perfect before I polish off the lead. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 02:27, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aa77zz

[edit]

Speciesbox

  • The authority should be in brackets ie (Lafresnaye, 1835) (English wikipedia follows ICZN Article 51.3).
 Done Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 01:31, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

  • "There are eight generally recognized subspecies." The number is disputed - 7 is more common - and the slight regional variation probably shouldn't be the first item mentioned in the lead after the range.
Changed to seven and also moved to end of intro paragraph, instead of start. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 01:59, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The wren has prominent white eyebrows that stretch to the nape of the neck." Better to start the description with more general features such as the size and the overall colour. Also, I don't like the use of "eyebrows" - I would use the technical word supercilium - but as an alternative consider "a prominent white stripe above the eye"
I have changed to supercilium, and started with size and color. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 01:59, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Taxonomy

  • "A 2007 genetic study by Blackwell-Rago et al. indicated that all three were distinct species.[3][5][6]" The 2007 molecular phylogenetic study was by Keith Barker.
 Done} Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 01:31, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Done} Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 01:31, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added a cite to the original description. (BHL is wonderful)
Oooh thank you very much for finding that! Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 01:31, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...he procured his specimen from a naval officer who had recently returned from California." This isn't quite correct - only indirectly. Lafresnaye states that he obtained his specimen from Charles Brelay, a collector based in Bordeaux. Brelay had obtained the specimen from a naval officer. This is described in English by Outram Bangs here.
Ah, thanks for finding that. The source I had (A&A's 1973 book primarily) gave only a brief account of Lafresnaye. I have amended the account with the reference from Bangs. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 01:31, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Done} Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 01:31, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...established, using a molecular clock," - a "molecular clock" is not needed for a cladogram - only needed if you want estimate dates for the splits.
 Done} Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 01:31, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consider simplifying the cladogram by removing the subspecies - apart from the two C. zonatus subspecies that are not each others closest relative. It would also help the reader if you used the common names with the binomials in brackets.
I have done both. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 01:31, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A great improvement - but why not link the common names rather than the binomials (with the redirects) - Aa77zz (talk) 10:36, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have linked the common names instead. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 04:08, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Subspecies

Ah, I had no clue! The more you know. I have added the IOC info to the taxonomy section. Should I remove the older taxonomy info (such as A&A, or the American Ornithologists society)? Or should I still discuss it? Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 03:22, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "C. b. affinis ... This subspecies is sometimes further divided into C. b. affinis and C. b. purus, but this distinction is not widely recognized.[3]" Perhaps mention this under C. b. purus.
Have moved. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 03:22, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "C. b. seri (van Rossem, 1932) – Found along the coasts of the Gulf of California." This subspecies only occurs on Tiburón Island (see IOC, HBW etc). It is also worth mentioning a molecular genetic study published in 2010 that found that seri could not be differentiated genetically from the subspecies occurring on the mainland: Rojas‐Soto, O.R.; Westberg, M.; Navarro‐Sigüenza, A.G.; Zink, R.M. (2010). "Genetic and ecological differentiation in the endemic avifauna of Tiburón Island". Avian Biology. 41 (4): 398–406. doi:10.1111/j.1600-048X.2010.04864.x.
Good find. I have added that, and changed it to note Tiburon island. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 03:22, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Description

  • "It has a thick, heavy bill that is dull black, curves slightly downwards, and is about the same length as the head.[5][15][3][8]:1" Why do you need 4 cites for this apparently uncontentious sentence?
Ah, yes that may seem a bit like overkill. However, that sentence took all four refs to put together. None of the refs alone had all of that information. If you could suggest a better way to deal with the refs, I'm open. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 01:59, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps more later. - Aa77zz (talk) 17:53, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Perhaps mention in the lead that the sexes are similar in appearance.
Done. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 01:59, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- Aa77zz (talk) 22:06, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - I'm happy with the changes. A non-actionable comment. This article relies heavily on web sites. I would prefer to see more use made of journal articles and suspect that the seven open-access journal articles that I've added to the Further reading could be used to support some of the material in the article. Although I have personal subscriptions to HBW and BNA, I still prefer to cite journal articles, especially those that are open access. For much of the information, journal articles are at least as good, if not better sources, than the pay-walled web pages.

Source review by Nikkimaria

[edit]

- spotchecks not done

  • Page ranges in both reflist and superscripts should use endashes rather than hyphens. Also, is there a reason to manually code superscripts rather than using {{rp}}?
  • I've fixed these, not guaranteeing I've found them all -Jim
To be quite honest, I had no clue there was a template for it; I'd seen it done and kinda just assumed that it had been done manually. Useful to know that template exists, and I will use it going forward. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 07:11, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Should I go through and replace the manual ones with the template? Would be somewhat onerous, but I could. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 07:13, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The one citation template I could find was turned into a cite book template. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 23:30, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent in how much detail you provide for publication locations
I have fixed the cases I could find. If I have missed any, let me know. I opted to go for "city, region", as some of the cities were somewhat obscure. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 04:23, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Surrey's not a city, and check location for FN18, there seems to be a typo. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:33, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent in whether book titles are presented in title or sentence case
I fixed all of the cite book templates. For the one California book, I capitalized the title but opted to not capitalize the subtitle as that seemed excessive. If you think I should captalize the subtitle, let me know. If I missed a book because it wasn't in a cite book template, let me know. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 04:23, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't use all-caps for work titles
  • Fn12: not all of that is the title
  • Be consistent in how you format website titles
@Nikkimaria: Could you clarify? Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 23:30, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Most use the name alone, but then you've got "www.birdzilla.com" rather than Birdzilla.com. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:56, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fn27 isk missing retrieval date
Fixed Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 23:30, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Jim has alphabetized it, and I agree with that strat. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 23:30, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, thank you for that! Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 07:11, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from JM

[edit]
  • "The chest is whiter," Whiter than what?
Ah that is supposed to be white, not whiter. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 23:07, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Work on wren taxonomy in the 20th century postulated that the Yucatan, Boucard's, and cactus wrens – along with the spotted wren – might constitute a superspecies. The 2007 study showed this to be unlikely, as the cactus wren was found to be ancestral to the other species." I'm probably just displaying my ignorance here, but why does that show the superspecies possibility to be unlikely?
A superspecies occurs when several organisms have been labeled as separate, but are in fact the same species. But if one of the species evolved before the others (i.e. is ancestral), there's no way they can be the same species. If you have a suggestion on how to clarify that in text, I would be willing to implement it. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 09:39, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wonder whether it is worth identifying the subspecies in image captions where known?
I've looked at a lot of images and have yet to find one where the subspecies was clearly identified. While I could probably identify the ss using the ornithology refs I have, that strikes me as OR. If someone finds one that's been identified by an expert, I'm all for adding it tho! Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 09:39, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Outer rectrices are white tipped.[3][5] ... Legs are brown to pink-brown.[3]" These aren't really full sentences.
 Done Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 23:07, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and has less markings" fewer markings or less marking, surely?
 Done Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 23:07, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • " series of "jar-jar-jar",[3] or "char", notes" Would italics rather than speech marks not be usual for vocalisations? See more in the same section and one in the "survival" section
 Done Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 23:07, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • You compare the nexts to an American football only in the lead; further down the article, it's a gridiron or rugby ball.
 Done Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 23:07, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Nests built in urban settings use a much wider variety of materials, including many human made items such as paper, string, lint, and notably: chicken feathers, used as nest lining in great quantities where available" I'm not keen on the colon; I wonder if this couldd be reworked? I also note that chicken feathers are not "human made items". Maybe split the sentence?
 Done Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 23:07, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's make do rather than make due isn't it? Either way, perhaps a little informal? (Image caption.)
I have reworded the caption. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 23:07, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Similar species (such as the wrentit and Bewick's wren) which nest in coastal sage scrub (the preferred nesting habitat of coastal cactus wrens) have faced high levels of local extinction." People concerned about that/which might twitch at this sentence, but I don't want to make a recommendation as I am not sure precisely what is being claimed. Is it perhaps worth revisiting? (I'm also not a massive fan of the semi-colon in the following sentence, but maybe that's unfair.)
Semicolon in next sentence changed. I have also swapped which to that. I am unsure the correct wording, but "that" sounds better. The sentence aims to show that similar species are at considerable risk of local extinction, but without trying to overgeneralize the statement. Its a common tactic in science writing; when you lack data on one species, you use data for similar species to make an inference, which is exactly what the source I took it from did. If you have suggestions for cleaned up wording, I am open. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 23:07, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's what jumps out at me from a first read-through. Very interesting and readable, and great to see a new face (at FAC) producing articles like this; welcome! Please double-check my edits. Josh Milburn (talk) 08:58, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review! I'll get to comments as fast as I can, but will be swamped with the holidays for the next few days. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 09:39, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Josh Milburn: I have gone through and implemented your comments. Please let me know if I've missed anything, or if you think I should do something differently. And I'm glad to be here at FAC, I hope to be back here before long with some other good articles. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 04:42, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support, as long as source and image checks come back OK. Great work; not a bird I knew before now. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:11, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For the record: I am participating in the 2020 WikiCup. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:48, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Query from WereSpielChequers

[edit]
  • I have made a couple of tweaks, hope you like them, if not it's a wiki.
@WereSpielChequers: Good tweaks. Thanks for taking a look! Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:59, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re "As many as three broods may be raised in a single year,[20][24] although one or two is more typical.[14] Up to six broods may be attempted in a year, but it is rare for more than three to survive.[3]" I suggest you combine these, at the moment it is repetitive and a bit contradictory. Especially in light of the next sentence "most egg laying occurring in March" as this implies that most have but one brood a year. ϢereSpielChequers 17:33, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have reworked the sentences. I have also changed the next sentence to say that "March being the height of the laying season", to deal with the implication of one brood a year (which is not always true, there is a lot of variation). Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:59, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that, happy to support this for FA. ϢereSpielChequers 10:15, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note

[edit]

Given this is your first FAC, CaptainEek (a belated welcome BTW!) I'd like to see a spotcheck of sources for accurate use and avoidance of plagiarism or close paraphrasing. One of the above reviewers might be interested in performing this, or you can leave a request at the top of WT:FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:40, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy hello Ian, and thanks for the welcome. I tried quite hard to avoid plagiarism and paraphrasing (as I had FAC in mind when writing), but welcome a source review. Its possible I missed something. I will ask for one on the talk page, and invite the existing reviewers to help out in that realm. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 06:51, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the sources are paywalled or not available online, reviewers are welcome to ask me for access. I still have Anderson and Anderson's book on me, and can provide copies of pages via email. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 06:55, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Tks, the spotcheck is a hoop we ask all newbies to jump through, as well as the old hands who haven't had one for a while. Even with the best intentions we can read more into a source than is really there, or use too-similar wording to the source in our articles -- I know from my own experiences as a nominator... :-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:33, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to do a spot check on Monday or Tuesday next week when next at the British Library. Tim riley talk 15:36, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ian Rose: See Tim's completed spotcheck below. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 08:37, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Source spot-check

I have been somewhat stymied in doing the books side of the spot check: for the first time in my experience both the books I wanted at the British Library (Anderson & Anderson and Vol 10 of Handbook of the Birds of the World) are reportedly in use by another reader. I find this beyond strange, but never mind! There are plenty of online sources to spot-check. There are just under 150 citations in total; I have spot-checked 45 of them.

  • 14a–h – all fine
  • 14i – the source says 1 metre (3ft), not 0.9m (3 ft). Your arithmetic is better than theirs, but I think you should say 1m (3.3 ft) as the metre is the figure given. Incidentally, though not part of my brief here, it would be better, I think, to stick to a consistent order throughout: either imperial measures with metric in brackets or vice versa.
 Done I changed the math, and also made sure that all converts had metric first. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 00:24, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 14j–m – fine
  • 14n – I don't think this reflects what the quoted source says: our "Almost all water is obtained from food, and free-standing water is rarely used even when found" doesn't seem to square with the source's "Adults begin to drink free water in September, and the rate of consumption apparently increases to high levels in December and January". This makes me want a citation for the next sentence: "The cactus wren can survive as a true xerophile, existing without any free water".
The Xerophile comment comes from Birds of NA online, which says "Cactus Wren's diet does not preclude adaptation for desert environment and species may be considered true xerophile (i.e., surviving without free water; Ricklefs, R. E. and F. R. Hainsworth. (1968a)." Excuse the slightly odd grammar, I only have a digital copy, which is formatted a bit wack. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 00:24, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 14o – fine
  • 16a–f – all fine
  • 20a - fine
  • 20b – fine, but you should perhaps switch the two citations round so that [20] comes before [23]
I have gone through all citations and ensured that all are in numerical order. Let me know if I missed any! Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 00:24, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 20c and d - fine
  • 20e – fine, but as at 20b, I'd put the citations in numerical order
  • 22a–h – all fine
  • 23a and b – fine
  • 23c – I can't find anything in this source that refers to egg-smashing or brood parasitism. I can't check the other source, and I take it on trust that this is from it. If so it might be as well to delete the 23c reference.
Removed. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 00:24, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 23d–h – all fine
  • 25 – fine
  • 32 – fine, but it's an 18-page article, and a specific page number (87, I think) would be helpful.
I have added the specific page number, good spot. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 00:24, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing of great moment there, but a couple of points that could do with checking and re-citing if necessary. I found no problems with close paraphrase: the main author of the article has shown great skill in conveying the import of the quoted sources in different words (and very readable prose, let me add). My comments about having citations in numerical order also apply to [5][19][3][10] in "Description". – Tim riley talk 10:48, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for the source review! I've implemented or responded to most comments. Let me know if anything else needs to be done. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 00:24, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fix ping @Tim riley: Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 00:26, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Good. I'm now happy to sign off this spot-check as satisfactory, in my judgement. Tim riley talk 08:28, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jens Lallensack

[edit]
  • They have a distinctive white supercilium that sweeps to the nape of the neck. – It is important to use as few technical terms in the lead as possible. Can this be replaced with "eyebrows" or "stripe above the eyes" or something similar?
I originally wrote eyebrow, another reviewer asked that I change it. I will change it back to eyebrow however, as that is more accessible. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 21:27, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • They do not migrate, establishing and defending their territories around their nests. – Not clear: What has the latter to do with migration? Migrating birds can also defend own territories? Maybe make clear that they stay in fixed territories for their lives?
 Done Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 21:27, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was historically considered conspecific – maybe add a gloss explaining the term conspecific, or avoid the term completely by reformulating.
 Done Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 21:27, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • First section in Taxonomy: Consider putting the info into chronological order, first providing the 20th century interpretations, and then the 2007 study. Makes it easier to follow I think.
While I appreciate the suggestion, the current layout is slightly non-chronological as it makes more sense to
  • gifted to him by Charles Brelay. – Would be helpful to introduce these people with one word, such as "biologist", "traveller" or whatever. Who was Brelay?
Oooh a good idea, I have added one word descriptors to the folks in the taxonomy section. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 21:27, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • ornithologists described the cactus wren multiple times as different species – Multiple times, but if so, why is only one instance (the species described by Gould) being discussed?
Because Gould's find is written about in the most detail in the sources I have, and the other descriptions were by less prominent ornithologists. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 21:27, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The bird's common name comes from its frequent use of cacti as nesting sites. – This differs slightly from what is stated in the lead (general frequenting of cacti, not only for nesting).
I have expanded the in-text reasoning and synced it with the lead. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 08:05, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • published in 1973, recognize only seven subspecies – Why "only"? In the previous sentences it was stated that seven are generally accepted. Where there more before this study?
Only removed. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 21:27, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • generally two at a time instead of the more typical clutch of three to five, – The word "clutch" is unnecessary here imo, simply "the more typical three to five" is sufficient.
 Done Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 21:27, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • A notable difference that can assist in identification of the cactus wren is the white tail band seen in flight. – This is not mentioned in the general description. If it is notable indeed, then I think it should. The wording "the white tail band" furthermore suggests that this has been mentioned already, but I don't see where.
Ah right you are, I have added that. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 21:27, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Figure caption: Note the primary flight feathers, which can be differentiated from secondary flight feathers by their increased translucence and decreased barring. – This info was not provided in the main text?
Caption cleaned up. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 08:05, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The crown – please link/explain.
 Done CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 08:05, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cornell ornithologists – Institutions are generally not mentioned when citing research in Wikipedia. Is there a specific reason for this case? If so, it should be made clear why Cornell is warrants mention, otherwise the reader is left wondering.
Since the ornithologists are being directly quoted, and its not universally described as such, attribution is being provided inline. This was added at the behest of a previous reviewer, I could change it back I guess? CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 08:05, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a distinctive greeting call between pair members, where they spread their wings and tails and give a harsh call. – I'm not sure about this wording, two times "call" … maybe replace the first instance of "call" with "ceremony"? This would encompass the body displays as well.
 Done A nice suggestion, thanks. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 08:05, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Young are born asynchronously – hatch asynchronously? Maybe elaborate a bit on this, not sure if everybody will understand what this means. How much time between the first and last hatch?
I have foudn and added the timeline. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 08:05, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leucocytozoon sp. – "sp." should not be in italics.
 Done Good catch. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 08:05, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Anderson and Anderson – Why do we have author names here but not elsewhere?
Author attribution was provided in niche cases where generalizations shouldn't be pulled from the data. For example, the nest distance example was one extreme result from A & A's study, which they thought was important, but was not indicative of all such occurrences. I also have cited A & A more specifically in some cases, as I take their work to be the single best source that exists on the subject. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 08:05, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Jens Lallensack: I believe I have either taken care of or commented on most issues. If followup is needed, just let me know! CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 08:05, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 14 January 2020 [25].

First Silesian War

[edit]
Nominator(s): Bryan Rutherford (talk) 17:47, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this article should be nominated. It has no big problems, it is crucial to European history, and is already rated at good article. This article has no ongoing conflicts and a great lead. It shows no bias and has npov. Kaiser Kitkat (talk) 00:52, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to nominate this (and the others I wrote in the series), but I've been trying to find a way to access some scholarly articles relevant to the topic without paying for them. Anyway, I'll jump in as co-nominator here and help to address any concerns. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 17:47, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks User:Bryanrutherford0 Kaiser Kitkat (talk) 22:40, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from KeeperOfThePeace

[edit]

Just looked at the GAN and it all looks good to me, but a few points:

  • Is the tertiary citation in the first sentence necessary? The fact that the war happened between Prussia and Austria doesn't seem controversial or challengeable according to MOS:LEADCITE.
  • "In January 1742 the Imperial election was held at Frankfurt, where Bavarian Elector Charles Albert was chosen as the next Holy Roman Emperor." If a reader didn't know better, this might not seem all that noteworthy. Maybe give a mention to how this was the first time a non-Hapsburg had been elected Emperor in centuries?
  • "capitulating to a lesser German prince significantly dented the House of Habsburg's prestige. The House of Hapsburg was defeated in the Imperial Election..." Seems like an overuse of "House of Hapsburg", maybe replace one with "Habsburg Dynasty" or "Habsburg Monarchy"?

First comments on an FAC, feel free to tell me if I'm not making any sense. KeeperOfThePeace (talk) 1:53, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

I have edited everything you said. You made great insights, thanks for your support. Emicho's Avenger (talk) 17:52, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you both! -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 21:51, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me like the majority of points presented in this FAC have been resolved by the nominators, I do believe some additional work is required on minor issues, but overall I'm confident this is FA-quality. KeeperOfThePeace (talk) 13:14, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Factotem

[edit]

I'm curious. The page info indicates that 98.8% of the article was authored by Bryanrutherford0. The nom has made only three edits to the article, all three in reponse to the comments made in this FAC by KeeperOfThePeace. I guess this is somewhat moot, given that Bryanrutherford0 has now co-nominated, but isn't the nom by Kaiser Kitkat, aka Emicho's Avenger, who has not consulted Bryanrutherford0 before nominating as far as I can see, out of process, and shouldn't Bryanrutherford0 be the nom? Factotem (talk) 13:33, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Of greater concern is Bryanrutherford0's statement about (if I've correctly understood it) their original intent to get access to scholarly articles relevant to the topic before nominating. I did the source review for this article at its MILHIST ACR, where I was concerned about the heavy use of old sources, especially Carlyle. The possibility that there are scholarly sources that have not been consulted has implications for WP:WIAFA 1c. ("well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature...") Factotem (talk) 13:33, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The scholarly articles I have in mind have things to say mainly about the nomenclature of the war (the difficulty of deciding where one war ends and another begins, is this a "war" or just a "theatre" of a larger war, and so on); they wouldn't change or even substantially add to the existing substance of the article. I'll probably just break down and buy access while I've got some time over the break, but it won't address any of your concerns about the sourcing for the bulk of the material here. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 21:51, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: @Bryanrutherford0: I get online access to a lot of journal articles through my university alumni account: if there are any journal articles you are after, pop me a message with the DOI, and I can see if I can save you some money. Harrias talk 00:03, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK. In the ACR we discussed the possibility that Anderson's The War of Austrian Succession 1740-1748 might be relevant. @Auntieruth55:, who also reviewed the sourcing at ACR and found no problems, indicated that it might be and would check. It does not appear in the bib now; was that check ever done? Other than that, I think I was satisfied then that the article was a comprehensive survey of the sources as best I could tell. Factotem (talk) 22:20, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Are you happy with this edit by Kaiser Kitkat/Emicho's Avenger, which inserts the text ", the first Non-Hapsburg ruler in centuries" in response to the comment above by KeeperOfThePeace? I have only a GBooks snippet view of p. 106 in Fraser (2000), the source for that sentence, but it really does not look to me like it supports that addition at all. Factotem (talk) 22:20, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think Fraser supports that addition, but the fact that the Hapsburgs monopolised the imperial election is easily verifiable. Just look at the lead of the Hapsburg's article, or the Holy Roman Emperor article. I cannot find a scholarly citation that specifically states their dominance in the Imperial Election, but there are plenty of tertiary ones, like [26] or [27]. Moving Fraser's citation before the addition of the "first non-hapsburg ruler in centuries" clause and adding a tertiary citation after said clause would work fine I believe? KeeperOfThePeace (talk) 11:59, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, I don't think it's contentious that Charles Albert was the first non-Hapsburg Holy Roman Emperor in centuries, but there are two issues at stake here:
1. Someone who has made no contributions to the article's development prior to FAC has added information without a source. I don't think this is right or proper, and not something to be encouraged for the sake of the integrity of the rest of the article;
2. This is FAC, where the standards are rightfully high. Personally, I think every statement except for the-sky-is-blue kind should be reliably sourced. I believe policy supports me on this, though I'm open to correction on that.
Another thing to consider is whether the fact that Charles Albert was the first non-Hapsburg emperor in three centuries has any significance to the First Silesian War. If yes, then there should be no problem finding a reliable source to support it (and of the two links you provided, I don't think the first counts as a reliable source, whilst the second does not explicitly support the statement). If no, then why state it? Factotem (talk) 15:38, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree that at FA all points must be appropriately sourced, and I am not to any degree a master on the subject nor am I particularly knowledgeable in regards to literary material about the period other than what I have learned from reading through the GAN, ACR and this FAC. I suppose it is up to the two nominators to find scholarly sources, though I must say I would be much more comfortable with User:Bryanrutherford0 being the driving force between any push to FA here seeing as he has made the overwhelming majority of edits. And I also agree that there are much better sources than the ones I presented, but I’m sure with more tools than just google books and ten minutes of time something reliable could be found that directly references such a well known and prominent part of HRE history. KeeperOfThePeace (talk)
All good points. A similar statement abut the imperial election is made in the last section of the article, this time cited to p. 133 of Fraser. I don't have access to that page to verify it, but if does presumably that can be used, although I don't see the need to repeat the same statement. Factotem (talk) 19:05, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The citation to Fraser, p. 133, is for the first half of the succeeding sentence, about the difference in competence displayed by the two armies during the war. There's a citation to p. 106 of that source in the portion of the article that mentions Charles Albert's election, but the citation there is to confirm the date of the election, rather than the fact that the election of a Wittelsbach broke the chain of Habsburg emperors running back to 1440. I don't see the fact mentioned in any of my sources, which, as Factotem says, suggests that it's not an essential point to an understanding of the First Silesian War; the material point is that Albert was not Maria Theresa's husband, her preferred candidate, and therefore his election represented a setback for her and her house, and that point is amply covered by the citations already present. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 23:11, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So if there's no support in the source cited for the statement about the first non-Hapsburg emperor and that statement is not important to our understanding of the article's subject, the statement has no place in the article and should be deleted in both places it appears. Agreed? Factotem (talk) 23:18, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That works for me. Changed. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 02:23, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review Support on sourcing by Factotem

[edit]

Having completed a source review for this article at ACR, I'll repeat that here over the next few days. @Bryanrutherford0:, have there been any significant changes in the sourcing since the ACR? Factotem (talk) 23:25, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The diff looks as though the only sourcing change since August is the removal of the Britannica citation in the lead section in response to feedback earlier in this review. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 02:23, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

General

  • Ref #34 to Browning (1993) missing page number
There's a lengthy section in the book on this theater of the war, and I suppose I won't cite the entire section in the interest keeping the page count on the citations down. I've chosen a page that specifically describes Spanish and Neapolitan cooperation to stage an invasion of Habsburg northern Italy. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 15:05, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of the page ranges in cites to Carlyle are quite long.
  • Ref #25 cites pp. 291–298, which is eight pages to support a ten-word statement that also has a second ref
  • Ref #46 is twelve pages, Refs# 50 & 52 six
N.B. I'm not aware of any policy that specifies a limit for page ranges, but WP:PROVEIT requires the source to be cited "clearly and precisely". Personally, I think longish page ranges are occasionally warranted; can you check the above to see if that really is the case here (especially as the age of the source makes it, I have found, quite a difficult read)? Factotem (talk) 10:59, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Point taken. In my defense, Carlyle's prose is a bit, er, discursive, and it sometimes does take him eight pages to say something that could be summarized in ten words! I've trimmed #25 (about maneuver prior to the Battle of Mollwitz), #46 (about the Moravian expedition), and #50 (about the Battles of Chotusitz and Sahay). The last (about the Treaty of Breslau) I really can't reduce, because Carlyle talks through the negotiations (often in the form of hypothetical dialogues) for the full six pages. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 19:13, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I know it! I checked Carlyle to find out why such a simple statement as "Brieg surrendered to the Prussians on 4 May" needed a 3-page range in the ref, and found that actually it pretty much did. Kudos to you for wading through it all for this article. Factotem (talk) 19:33, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Technical checks: OK Factotem (talk) 10:59, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

External link checker: no issues Factotem (talk) 10:59, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ISBN Links

  • As per the ACR review, there is a mismatch between Gbooks link and ISBN link through to Worldcat for Black's European International Relations 1648–1815. If you really want to provide Gbook links, then you really have to ensure the editions linked to match the editions represented by the ISBN. In this case there is a pagination mismatch between the two, which may affect the page numbering in the cites.
Changed. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 19:13, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Quality/comprehensiveness of sources

  • This was discussed in some detail in the ACR review, where I expressed concern about the age of some of the sources, especially Carlyle. For the most part, the rationale given was entirely satisfactory, and it's good to see the number of Carlyle cites reduced.
  • I searched for sources myself during the ACR, but found only one, Anderson's The War of Austrian Succession 1740-1748, which has a chapter of some 30 pages on the First Silesian War. I'm still not comfortable that either:
A. This source has not been used (WP:WIAFA 1c. "well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature...", or
B. No acceptable explanation has been provided for why it has not been used.
I'm fine with Anderson's work not being used if it offers nothing new beyond the sources already used, or if it is deemed to not meet the standards of reliability expected at FAC, but I would like to see some sort of statement to this effect. Hopefully Auntieruth might be able to help here. Factotem (talk) 10:59, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try to look into this other source over the weekend. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 19:13, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think it does need to be checked. I looked up the author, and I doubt very much a case can be made for his work not being reliable. Factotem (talk) 21:45, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in the process of reading through it, and I'll add any details and citations that seems helpful; I've already added one on the background of the Habsburg–Hohenzollern conflict. I'll finish going through it by the end of the day tomorrow. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 16:01, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Good stuff. I've been able to access some of Anderson's work via Gbooks preview. I'm no expert and bow to your superior knowledge, but it seems to me that Anderson's version of the lead up to invasion is more detailed and nuanced than this article suggests. From what I can tell, Frederick hoped to avoid armed conflict, and sought to have Silesia ceded to him by diplomacy. This included offering a three-way, Prussia-Russia-Austria alliance that would have bolstered the failing Hapsburg hegemony against its more powerful enemies. That's a little more than the diplomatic support for the Pragmatic Sanction and imperial election that the article currently suggests. There is also some detail on Prussian fears about Russia, to the extent that Frederick later claimed that the death of the Empress of Russia on 28 Oct 1740, and the ensuing internal turmoil in Russia, was the deciding factor in his resolve to attack Silesia. Factotem (talk) 16:11, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That helped! The book had a handful of details I hadn't seen in other sources (many relating, as you say, to the lead-up to the outbreak of armed conflict), and I've tried to add them in without radically rewriting the article, with citations. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 23:13, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Good job. I'm more comfortable now that the article is a comprehensive survey of all available sources, as best I can tell. Factotem (talk) 11:31, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Spotchecks for verification and plagiarism

Spot checks at the time of this version:

  • Anderson refs #8, #11, #21 #42 All OK
  • Carlyle III #6 OK
  • Carlyle XII #26, #32 OK
  • Carlyle XIII #33 OK

So far, so good, but then I started checking against Clark, and found multiple issues:

  • #61. On p. 192, the context is pre-war, and Clark is discussing the motivation for taking Silesia. There's no mention of any post-war settlement, of Prussia gaining control of lands in Glatz and Silesia, or of the substantial manpower and taxes that the territory would contribute to Prussia (Clark does say that Silesia yielded a significant amount of tax to the Austrians, but that does not directly support the assertion that it also did so to the Prussians).
The fact that the outcome of the war was Prussia's acquisition of Glatz and the majority of Silesia is covered by citations elsewhere in the article (e.g. in the discussion of the Treaty of Breslau); I've added one this paragraph, as well. As to the fact that Silesia benefited Prussia, how about this, from Fraser, pp. 130–131: "<Silesia was> a province ... which would add greatly to <Prussia's> size and prosperity. ... In a very few years a quarter of all Prussian state revenue would come from Silesia." Is that satisfactory? -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 16:01, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • #62. On p. 196, I do not see how the source supports the statement "...marking the beginning of Prussia's rise toward the status of a European great power."
I've added a citation from Schweizer, p.250: "<Prussia won the Silesian Wars>, thereby confirming indisputably Prussia's claim to great power status." Schweizer is saying that this new status was established by victory in the Third Silesian War, which is why victory in the First only marks the beginning of Prussia's rise. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 16:01, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • #64. On pp. 210-211, I do not see how the source supports the assertion that Frederick's unilateral withdrawal from the Nymphenburg alliance in the first two Silesian wars turned the French against him. The source appears only to state, "The Prussian invasion of Silesia was the real revolution. Without this powerful stimulus, the Austrians would not have abandoned their British allies to embrace their French enemies." (My emphasis) It's also not clear that the source supports the final assertion, that France would later oppose Prussia in the Third Silesian War.
I've updated to a source that spells out that the Treaty of Breslau upset the French court and another that supports a weakened version of the other statement, that this was one in a series of "betrayals" of France that ultimately contributed to putting France in the opposing camp in the Third Silesian War. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 23:07, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • #65 (pp.192, 196). I'm not sure that these pages support the statement being made either. Does the fact that Silesia provided more tax revenue "than any other of the hereditary Austrian lands" (according to the source) mean that it was the Habsburg's "wealthiest province" (according to the article)? Also, where on those pages is there support for the statement, "...capitulating to a lesser German prince significantly dented the Habsburg Monarchy's prestige." I don't see it. Factotem (talk) 11:29, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, I think we can dispose with p. 192. As for the latter, Clark, p. 196: "The Austrians absolutely refused to be reconciled to the loss of the monarchy's richest province..." (emphasis added); for the former, "What amazed contemporaries ... was the apparent mismatch between ... Prussia, a third-rank player ... and Austria, the leading dynasty of <Germany> and an established <great power>". If that doesn't convince you that Austria's defeat was embarrassing, then let's try Fraser, p.135: "<French Cardinal> Fleury's interest <in the First Silesian War> had been in dealing a blow to Austrian prestige as Frederick had done." Shall I add that in? -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 16:01, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Apologies. I missed the "richest province" bit. My bad. Yes, that Fleury reference would be useful. There's a fine line, I think, between extracting the meaning behind the sources and paraphrasing it which, if crossed, becomes asserting something not supported by the sources. My feeling was that the above straddled that line a little. But your responses are all good. I looked up Schweizer's credentials and found him to be well-credentialed academically. I'll do the same with Fleury when you add that source, just to be sure that it is of the standard expected at FAC. Just the one comment above and the Hirsch issue below still to be sorted and I will be happy to support the sourcing on this. Nice work. Factotem (talk) 16:49, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I clearly misunderstood what you wrote about Fleury. All good now. Factotem (talk) 00:31, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I also notice that a cite to Hirsch appears in the References section, but details of that work do not appear in the Sources section. Factotem (talk) 11:29, 22 December 2019 (UTC)'[reply]

The full citation is currently in the References; it's a single article in a biographical encyclopedia, rather than a page range in a book. Do you mean that you'd prefer a shortened version there and the full version in the Sources? What would be the best way to do that: to put the encyclopedia in the Sources and then cite the article and article's author in the References? -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 23:07, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Yes, I think it would be best to format it like the rest of the refs and sources. Cite Hirsch p. xxx in the article, and add the full details of the work in the Sources section. You can specify Dunder & Humblot as the publisher, and Leipzig as the publisher location. I'll try and find an OCLC ref on Worldcat tomorrow, but with the link to the actual article in Wikisource, it's no biggie if there is none. Also, you can split the ref in two. The first instance (currently a) can be cited to p. 175, the second (b) to p. 176. Finally, for the second I'm pretty sure the source says that Johann Georg joined the Silesian rather than Bohemian estates in revolt. Factotem (talk) 00:53, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I think that's in order now. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 01:30, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Tim riley

[edit]

I enjoyed this article, but I think the prose could do with a polish here and there before it is ready for FA:

  • Lead
  • Does it add anything of value to be told that the German for "First Silesian War" is "Erster Schlesischer Krieg". Seems to me mere clutter, though I'm quite used to being told I'm talking rubbish.
MOS:FORLANG says that "If the subject of the article is closely associated with a non-English language, a single foreign language equivalent name can be included in the lead sentence." If you feel very strongly that it needs to go I'll remove it, but I think it helps a non-German-speaking reader to know what the native-language name for the topic is. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 21:51, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fine with me. Tim riley talk 17:07, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • If we're bandying German terms around, shouldn't "Realpolitik" have a capital R? The OED's preference is for one.
Done by another editor. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 21:51, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Brandenburg–Prussia's claims
  • "However, in the Bohemian Revolt" – this is the first of eight "However"s in the text and one does begin to notice the repetition. Most howevers are unnecessary and can be deleted without harm to the meaning of the text: all but one (or arguably two – the last one) in this case.
Eight out of 3300 words doesn't immediately seem immoderate to me, but I'll reduce them if they seem obtrusive. Can you be more specific as to which you feel should stay and which should go, and perhaps why? -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 21:51, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"However" is one of those words that usually add nothing to the sentence. It continually leaks out from one's pen (mine too) unbidden but more often than not it is just woolly padding. Where it clearly means "but" it's fine, but in my view you could lose at least the first, second, third, and seventh howevers here without any damage to the sense and with advantage to the flow of the prose. But if you disagree, well it's your prose, not mine and I certainly wouldn't press the point. Tim riley talk 17:07, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed or rewritten several instances. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 19:13, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Austrian succession
  • "hereafter referred to as "King Frederick"" – this reads more like a will than an encyclopedia article. It is perfectly clear throughout whom you mean. Moreover, why call him "King Frederick" when you call the Empress merely "Maria Theresa"? He should be Frederick tout court. (If we're being pedantic, as in Erster Schlesischer Krieg, he was Friedrich, but in an English article Frederick is clearly what is wanted.)
This is my view as well, but in the good article review I was instructed to insert that clarifying statement to distinguish Frederick II of Prussia from other men named Frederick who are mentioned in the article. I bow to the community's judgment. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 21:51, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've just copied the whole text into Word, turned all the "King Frederick"s to plain "Frederick"s, and (from an admittedly swift skim-through) found nowhere where there seemed to me the smallest doubt whom you meant. At the moment we seem to have the GA reviewer on one side and you and me on the other. I call that a strong working majority, and (unlike the howevers, above) I think this point worth pressing a bit. May I suggest you invite other reviewers on this page to express a view? Tim riley talk 17:07, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Losing "King" does not harm comprehension. I would suggest you be consistent about Frederick Augustus II of Saxony. The first two mentions you specify the numerals, the last two you don't. That might conceivably be confusing, but it's not something I feel strongly about. I quite like the way you add "of Saxony" in the later two mentions, and think that helps clarity. You don't add "of Saxony" on the second mention, and I don't think you need to either. Factotem (talk) 17:27, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Changed. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 19:13, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "soon after taking the Prussian throne in May 1740" – sounds like a coup d'état. Acceding or succeeding or some such might be more appropriate.
Changed. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 21:51, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Moves toward war
  • "Tsaritsa Elizabeth" – why Tsaritsa when Maria Theresa is not Kaiserin?
Changed. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 21:51, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Course
  • "Colored woodcut" – probably doesn't matter in alt-text, but "coloured" would be the expected form in a BrE article.
Apologies, hard to write in an EngVar I don't speak! Changed. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 21:51, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bohemia–Moravia campaign of 1741–42
  • "so, he repudiated" – unexpected comma (but nice to see "so" not masquerading as a conjunction as it usually does nowadays). Losing the "so" and the comma wouldn't harm the meaning.
The "so" indicates causation, which seems an important part of the content of the sentence to me; I'll remove it if you feel strongly that it must go. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 21:51, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As above, it's your prose. I have made my point and if you don't agree with me that's fine. Tim riley talk 17:07, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In December, Schwerin's army" – you seem undecided between AmE practice (otiose comma after temporal references) or BrE (putting commas in only when needed to avoid ambiguity). You have a BrE commaless type in the next para: "In early 1742 King Frederick organised"
I also prefer to neglect that comma, but other reviewers have disagreed previously, and the text is a bit of a mash. With your support, I'll try to eliminate those that remain. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 21:51, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Treaties of Breslau and Berlin
  • "The British treasury had financed much of Austria's war effort" – it isn't really clear from the existing text why the British wanted to subsidise the Austrians. The Hanover connexion? A word or two explaining would be useful.
Because Britain and Austria were conventional allies, and the opposing alliance in the wider War of the Austrian Succession included France. That sentence already includes a wikilink to the Golden Cavalry of St George, but I've added a phrase to indicated that Britain's goal in the affair was essentially to prevent any profit by France. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 21:51, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent – v. helpful, thank you. Tim riley talk 17:07, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Outcomes
  • "However, by making a separate peace" – this, I think, is the only truly useful "however" in the current text, and I'd recommend keeping it when culling the rest.
This one and which other? -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 21:51, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comments above. Tim riley talk 17:07, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I take Factotem's point about the missing up-to-date sources, but I hope to support this article for FA at some point, and will look in again to add my twopenn'orth when you have had the chance to consider my suggestions as well as Factotem's point. – Tim riley talk 13:54, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On the final point, I'll direct you to comments by me and Auntieruth55 in the Military History A-Class review; there simply isn't another English-language source on this topic with remotely the level of detail that the Carlyle biography provides, and it's either for the Hohenzollern family history or for dates and details of the campaigns that it is used here. I haven't seen another source that could cover those facts, new or old. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 21:51, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As one who knows next to nothing about the period I bow to your expertise on this point. I dipped into the Carlyle volumes many years ago but recall only this from them: "Two dogs, at meeting, run, first of all, to the shameful parts of the constitution; institute a strict examination, more or less satisfactory, in that department. That once settled, their interest in ulterior matters seems pretty much to die away, and they are ready to part again, as from a problem done". I put that into my commonplace book, but it is, I admit, not much help here.
In the light of the above exchanges I am happy to support the elevation of this article to FA. I hope "King Frederick" will end up as just "Frederick", but whether he does or not the article is a very good read, evidently balanced and impartial, well illustrated and well referenced. Clearly of FA quality. Tim riley talk 17:07, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Have you considered putting your name in nominators? Emicho's Avenger (talk) 22:21, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass

[edit]
The current alt-text reads "Painting of Frederick the Great standing on a dais surrounded by Silesian nobles". -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 01:23, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You are of course correct. I had trusted the alt text tool without manually checking it. The tool is still showing it as missing, but I have checked, so:
All images are appropriately licenced, positioned, captioned and alt texted. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:04, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Copy edit

[edit]

I hope you don't mind that I've done a bit of a copy edit. Marco polo (talk) 20:56, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Western Poland => south-western Poland is a definite improvement in precision, thank you! I think your phrasing on "lay along" the frontier rather than "marked" the frontier is fine. Your larger edit moved a citation so that the text was no longer supported in places, as well as changing the emphasis and flow of the paragraph, and I'd prefer to discuss such a change here first. I also think that your fourth edit ("several other European powers made similar preparations") makes the sentence awkward by repeating "prepare" so soon after it appears earlier in the same sentence. But, I see your point about the implied alliance; how about "similar moves?" -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 21:08, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I wasn't aware of the process. It's been a while since I've edited Wikipedia. You're right that "similar moves" would be better to avoid repetitiveness. As for the paragraph that I reworked, I think that it would be stronger and clearer if the main point—that Frederick wanted to pre-empt a likely move by Saxony—came at the beginning of the paragraph rather than at the end as a clause after a semicolon. I wasn't clear which points the citation was meant to support, and I'm not sure how best to position it to maintain that support. As you are the de facto author, I'll just suggest that the paragraph should begin with the main point it wants to make. Alternatively, if it is going to end with that main point, I feel rather strongly that it should be an independent sentence rather than a clause following a semicolon. But I will let you make that edit (or not) as you see fit. Marco polo (talk) 22:16, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Similar moves" changed. The first sentence of the paragraph in question contains what I consider to be the main idea of the graph, which is that Bavaria and Saxony were also hungry for Habsburg territory; that fact the Frederick knew this and it influenced his decisions is a second-order effect, and I disagree with your preference for a period, since my goal was exactly to indicate that Frederick's reaction was a secondary result of the moves made by other actors. In historiography of these wars it's a constant struggle not to make the whole story be about Frederick's motivations and decisions and state of mind, since most of the historians writing about it have been heavily interested in Frederick personally and Prussia generally (because of its subsequent importance in European history), and this is me trying to make this article not be entirely about "how Prussia beat Austria"; other players also participated in these events, and this paragraph is about them. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 14:46, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Prose review by Factotem - Support

[edit]

Most of these comments relate to concision. They may seem nitpicky, but generally if a word can be removed without altering the meaning of the sentence, you have to question why that word is there.

Lead

  • "It was the first in a series of three Silesian Wars..." (concision)
Changed. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 14:46, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...all three of which ended in Prussian control of Silesia." It seems odd that each of the three wars ended in Prussian control of Silesia. It implies that Prussia lost control between each of the wars. Would it be better to state that all three ended in victory for Prussia and gave it control of Silesia?
Prussia frequently did lose control of Silesia during each of the wars, but it ended each war in control of the region. Is there a phrasing that you think would communicate that point more clearly? -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 14:46, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe something along the lines of "...all three of which ended in victory for Prussia, securing for it control of Silesia." ? Factotem (talk) 17:55, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
...That seems like just the sort of phrase that elsewhere in your comments you're telling me to shorten in the interest of concision ("...all three of which ended in victory for Prussia, securing for it control of Silesia."). I'll make the change if you insist. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 19:54, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all. Victory and control are two entirely separate things. One is result, the other is consequence, and concision like that would degrade the meaning. But I found the phrasing more odd than a FAC-busting failure and won't press it. Factotem (talk) 20:25, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Context and causes

  • "... Brandenburg–Prussia's ruling House of Hohenzollern held dynastic claims to various of the Silesian duchies within the Habsburg province of Silesia..." (concision)
Changed. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 19:54, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Brandenburg–Prussia's claims

  • "...if the Piast dynasty in Silesia should become became extinct." (concision) You might also cast this is "...should the Piast dynasty in Silesia become extinct."
Changed. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 19:54, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...refused to return it to his heirs after his death; the Electors of Brandenburg continued, nevertheless, to assert themselves as the legitimate rulers of Jägerndorf." -> "...refused to return it to his heirs after his death, but the Electors of Brandenburg continued to assert themselves as the legitimate rulers of Jägerndorf." (concision - I'm not sure the semi-colon is appropriate here, and the "nevertheless" adds more to the word count than it does clarification)
Changed. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 19:54, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "However, a After the accession of the Great Elector's son and successor..." (concision)
Changed. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 19:54, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Austrian succession

  • "Austria, by contrast, was in financial distress..." (concision - the contrast is quite clear from the information conveyed in this passage; we don't need to be explicitly told it)
Changed. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 19:54, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Moves toward war

  • "...while France, which viewed the Habsburgs as traditional rivals, sought control of the Austrian Netherlands and viewed the Habsburgs as traditional rivals." (flow)
Changed. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 19:54, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Austria, for its part, was supported by Great Britain..." (concision)
Changed. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 19:54, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Silesian campaign of 1740–41

  • "...Frederick moved his army troops across the frontier into Silesia." (repetition)
Changed. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 19:54, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...while all of Silesia was defended by an Austrian garrison of only 8,000 men." (concision)
Changed. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 19:54, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Negotiations of Mid-1741

  • "...joining the Bavarian Elector's forces on the Danube and advancing toward Vienna..." (concision)
Changed. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 19:54, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bohemia–Moravia campaign of 1741–42

  • "In mid-October, Charles Albert of Bavaria and his French allies were encamped near Vienna, ready to besiege it, but the Bavarian Elector he became concerned that Saxony and Prussia would seize parts of Bohemia, which he had also claimed, and on 24 October his force he turned north to instead march on Prague." I think it might be confusing to write "the Bavarian Elector" when a pronoun works perfectly well; it's not immediately obvious that "Charles Albert of Bavaria" and "the Bavarian Elector" are one and the same. The pronoun also works better later in the sentence, to avoid giving the impression that his force acted unilaterally rather than on his command.
Changed. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 19:54, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Frederick became concerned that Prussia might be sidelined in the eventual peace agreement; so, he repudiated the Convention of Klein Schnellendorf, accusing the Austrians of violating its secrecy, and joined the general advance southward into Bohemia and Moravia." The second clause is more closely related to the first, making a comma more apropriate than a semi-colon after "agreement", I think, and I agree with Tim Riley that the comma after "so" is unnecessary.
Changed. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 19:54, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...; the French, however, were reluctant and uncooperative, and, after the seizure of Iglau on 15 February, they withdrew into Bohemia." This clause would, I think, be better cast as a sentence in its own right, i.e. replace semi-colon with a full-stop. And I tend to agree with Tim Riley on the use of the word "however". You might also usefully add "allies" after "uncooperative", but not something I feel strongly about.
Changed. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 19:54, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This The Moravian campaign achieved no significant gains..." (unless there was another Moravian campaign that needs to be disambiguated, but I see no evidence of that in the article)
Changed. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 19:54, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... Charles Alexander of Lorraine (Maria Theresa's brother-in-law) led a renewed Austro-Hungarian army of 30,000 through Moravia toward Bohemia..." Renewed? Seems odd to describe the army in this way. Would "reinforced" or "new" be better?
"Reinforced" works. Changed. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 19:54, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...followed shortly by the defeat of another Austrian army at the 24 May Battle of Sahay on 24 May..." (slightly awkward phrasing)
Changed. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 19:54, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Treaties of Breslau and Berlin

  • "..., concessions which Maria Theresa was reluctant to make; however, the British envoy..." I think this can be simplified by making it a sentence in its own right: "Maria Theresa was reluctant to make such concessions, but the British envoy..." (flow and concision, and agree that "however" is not right here)
Changed. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 19:54, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...Hyndford threatened now to withdraw Britain's support if Maria Theresa refused to give up the Silesian War for lost concede Silesia. (simplify and concision)
Changed. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 19:54, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...Austria conceded to Prussia the large majority of Silesia..." (concision - debatable; I'm not sure you can have a "large" majority, but mainly the scale of the concession soon becomes clear with the next sentence)
There are absolutely such things as "large majorities" and "small majorities": "Former PM Theresa May lost her party's small majority in Parliament after a disastrous snap election, but the latest poll has returned the Tories with a much larger majority, making Brexit more likely..." etc. The territory conceded made up around 90% of the land area of Austrian Silesia, whereas, if Prussia had only gotten Lower Silesia (as at times seemed likely), then that would have been a "small majority" of the region (around 60%). -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 19:54, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And debated it was. Fair enough. Factotem (talk) 20:20, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Outcomes

  • "The First Silesian War ended in a clear victory for Prussia; Prussia , which secured new territory in Silesia, greatly enhancing its and the kingdom's resources and prestige were greatly enhanced." (avoid repetition and a potentially ambiguous reference to "the kingdom")
Changed. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 19:54, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The seizure of Silesia also ensured continuing conflict with Austria." This aspect is repeated in more detail in the next paragraph, so is not really necessary here.
A fair point. I've rearranged a couple of sentences. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 19:54, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Prussia

  • "This success planted the seeds of future challenges, however." This sentence adds only to the word count. It can be deleted without any degradation to our understanding of the subject.
Changed- Bryan Rutherford (talk) 19:54, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's all from me. Factotem (talk) 13:46, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again for your time! -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 19:54, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CommentSupport from Mimihitam

[edit]
  • "after which the main Prussian force encamped through the succeeding months near Neisse, facing off against Neipperg's Austrians but fighting little" --> I have a question with regard to this part. So the Prussians basically managed to stop Neipperg' advance in Mollwitz. But the next time Neipperg is mentioned, he suddenly already appeared in Neisse and facing off against the Prussians (although only fighting a little). There seems to be something missing in between? Mimihitam (talk) 18:54, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As the Austrians advanced toward Neisse, the Prussian force besieging it retreated and regrouped for the battle; so, the Austrians had already relieved Neisse before the Battle of Mollwitz. After the battle, the Austrians regrouped near Neisse, and the Prussians set up lines facing them, where both forces proceeded to do very little for months. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 23:51, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Could you add this detail to the article then? Mimihitam (talk) 00:10, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The text currently reads "An Austrian force ... under ... Neipperg crossed ... from Moravia to break the siege of Neisse on 5 April, and the main Prussian force manoeuvred to oppose its advance." Would you find the sequence more clear with "An Austrian force ... under ... Neipperg crossed ... from Moravia and broke the siege of Neisse on 5 April, after which the main Prussian force manoeuvred to oppose its advance."? -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 03:25, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the second one is much clearer :) I think the misunderstanding is caused by using the infinitive "to break" instead of "broke". Mimihitam (talk) 07:50, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Changed, thanks! -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 13:56, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Moravian campaign achieved no significant gains, and the effort was finally abandoned on 5 April, after which the Prussians withdrew into Bohemia and Upper Silesia" ==> where did the Saxon army go? Mimihitam (talk) 18:23, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, a good detail. Added. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 20:16, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Infobox: shouldn't we add France and Saxony in the infobox together with their commanders? Their involvement is extensively discussed in the article, particularly in Bohemia and Moravia. Mimihitam (talk) 18:30, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Tough question; it's hard to say where these multiple interlocking wars begin and end. The historiography is pretty unanimous and clear that the "Silesian War" is fundamentally the war between Prussia and Austria. My opinion is that France should not be included in the list of belligerents for this war, since they had no direct interest in the Silesian question and were essentially fighting a parallel war against Austria for Bavaria's claims (and largely failed to make good on any proposals to coordinate actions with the Prussians). I could maybe see listing Saxony on the Prussian side, since Saxony was directly interested in contesting some of the same territories that Prussia aimed at (Upper Silesia, northeastern Bohemia); on the other hand, they played almost no role in the actual conflict, offering mostly theoretical support to the Bavarian and Prussian campaigns and dropping out of the war mostly unnoticed after the Moravian foray. I'd love to get some opinions from other editors before making a change. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 20:16, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"The historiography is pretty unanimous and clear that the "Silesian War" is fundamentally the war between Prussia and Austria." ==> I think this is already a good reason to keep the infobox as it is. Thank you. Mimihitam (talk) 21:12, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for adding the new information about the Saxon army, but now there seems to be a contradiction. On the one hand, "The Saxons abandoned the effort on 30 March and returned home". I would assume that "returned home" means going back to Saxony instead of Bohemia. On the other hand, "Saxony withdrew its forces from Bohemia after the Treaty of Berlin", which would be after 28 July 1742. Which one is the correct one?
Good point; Carlyle is eliding some detail there. This is the last point at which the Saxons had any impact on Prussia's campaigns, but they did sit around in Prague until quitting the war completely at the end of the year. I've tried to further clarify. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 21:50, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in the Diplomatic Revolution of the 1750s" --> didn't it happen in 1756?
The treaties that formally established the new defensive alliances were signed in 1756 (Westminster Convention and 1st Treaty of Versailles), but the process of the realignment was going on from the Treaty of Aix-la-Chappelle all through the early 1750s. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 21:50, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "exiling the Bavarian Emperor Charles to Frankfurt" ==> consider rephrasing it to "Charles Albert" to avoid the impression that he is the "Emperor of Bavaria"
Okay, changed. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 21:50, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have finished reading the article, happy to support now. Mimihitam (talk) 22:24, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5

[edit]
  • Hungary/Hungerian is overlinked.
Fixed, along with a couple of others. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 14:14, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • retreated into Bohemia and Upper Silesia.[57][55] Re-order the refs here.
  • for diplomatic unreliability and double-dealing.[45][36] Same as above.
Both changed. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 14:14, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not much to say. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 14:06, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Are we done?

[edit]

I feel we have edited and perfected this article significantly. Does anyone object at this point to this article not becoming a FA? Emicho's Avenger (talk) 12:39, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 14 January 2020 [28].

Parachute Jump

[edit]
Nominator(s): epicgenius (talk) 18:39, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a defunct amusement park ride on the Riegelmann Boardwalk in Coney Island, Brooklyn, NYC. It was located at the 1939 New York World's Fair before being relocated to Coney Island in 1941, and continued to operate until the 1960s. A long fight for preservation followed, and after over a decade, it was listed on the National Register of Historic Places, later becoming an official NYC landmark as well. Today it's used for light shows because no one wants to spend money to bring it back to operating status.

Anyway, this was promoted as a Good Article a few months ago thanks to an excellent GA review from The Rambling Man. After a much-appreciated copy edit by Baffle gab1978, I think it's up to FA quality now. I look forward to all comments and feedback. epicgenius (talk) 18:39, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Cas Liber

[edit]

Ok taking a look....

  • Not a fan of one-sentence paras - one in lead and one in first section. Surely they can be appended onto paras somewhere?
  • The tower's wide base gives it stability, but the tower tapers off toward the top,[2]:8 located 250 feet (76 m) above the ground - err, why the "but"? Its' not really contrastive...? A bit clunky this sentence
  • As initially built....wasn't built more than once was it? Still sounds funny without the "initially" if left in that form - could do with rejigging

I read the rest of it last night before I fell asleep. Looked good. Will have another read-through today. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:37, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • At least two other jams occurred on the Parachute Jump in its first year; a deputy sheriff and his sister-in-law later in July 1939,[27] and two female friends in September 1939. - after a semicolon you need grammatical sentences. Or make semicolon a colon (which might have been your intention..?
  • When the Life Savers sponsorship ended in 1939 --> "After the Life Savers sponsorship ended in 1939" ?
    • Done.
  • Can the 2-sentence para in Similar amusement rides be appended onto the one before or after (or expanded)

Otherwise I think we're on target for a shiny star....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:50, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Lingzhi

[edit]

Comments – Overall, a very interesting article. I merely have a handful of minor copy-editing points to offer:

  • In the lead I see "Steeplechase amusement park" and "Steeplechase Park", with varying capitalization methods. This should be made consistent throughout; our article on the park capitalizes it, for what that's worth.
  • "and has also been listed on the National Register of Historic Places." "also" isn't needed here and is just redundant in this context.
  • Precursors: Soviet Union is so commonly known that a wikilink doesn't serve much purpose but to district from the other items where links are more helpful to the readers.
  • 1939 World's Fair: A duplicate Soviet Union link here could stand to be removed.
  • Acquisition of site: Minor point, but the hyphen in "no-one" should probably be taken out.
  • Restoration and lighting: Comma needed after "sports stadium" (right before KeySpan Park). Giants2008 (Talk) 22:43, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Giants2008: Thank you for the feedback. I've done all of the above. I was thinking that readers may not know "Steeplechase Park" was an amusement park. Also, I hadn't realized that Soviet Union was linked twice. epicgenius (talk) 02:02, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support – All of my comments have been addressed and I'm confident that this meets FA standards. Nice work compiling all of the far-flung bits of information on the topic into an article that was a pleasure to read. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:23, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt

[edit]
  • " Riders were belted into a two-person canvas seat and dropped from the top; the parachute and shock absorbers at the bottom slowed their descent." This may lead to ambiguity about where the riders boarded, perhaps start "Riders were belted into a two-person canvas seat, lifted to the top and dropped; the parachute ..."
    • Done.
  • You might want to emphasize at the end of the lede that the ride is not operational.
    • Done.
  • I might split the second lede paragraph after either the third or fourth sentence.
    • Done.
  • "Riegelmann Boardwalk" is linked on the second use in the body, not the first. Consider if you want to change some of the usages of this to the more familiar "Coney Island Boardwalk" or just "Boardwalk".
    • In the body, I linked the boardwalk upon first use. The second usage in the body was changed to simply "Boardwalk". I haven't changed the lead because it would then say "Coney Island Boardwalk in Coney Island". epicgenius (talk) 15:06, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would add either a "Coney Island" or "Brooklyn" to the description of the address at the start of "Description".
    • Done.
  • I might lose the comma in "two-person, canvas"
  • I have two issues with the third paragraph of "Description". First, it is ambiguous whether the parachute was closed during the ascent, as you mention riders boarding beneath the closed parachute but then speak of it being open both on ascent and descent. Also, I'm not sure you're completely consistent in singular/plural.
  • "freefall" I would say "free fall"
    • Done.
  • "as well as in Fort Benning, Georgia." possibly "at" rather than "in".
    • Done.
  • "The Parachute Jump opened on May 27, 1939," If I recall correctly, this is about a month after the Fair opened. Was there a delay, or were they just content to have it open by Decoration Day?
    • Not actually sure, and I can't speculate as to why. The only source that mentions the May 27 opening in detail is the NY Times (which is a pretty reliable source), and even the Times doesn't give a reason for why it only started operating a month after the fair opened. epicgenius (talk) 15:06, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I note that you mention the 250 ft plus 12 feet both in the Description section and the one on the Fair, with the latter phrased as if you hadn't already introduced the subject. Maybe change the sentence to something like : "A 12-foot flagpole was added to the original 250-foot elevation to surpass the height of a statue on the Soviet Pavilion; members of the public had objected to ..." If this made it the tallest structure at the 1939 Fair, that might be worth mentioning in the lede.
  • "by New York City mayor Fiorello H. La Guardia, who had happened to be at the fair when they got stuck.[28][29] " I might cut the "had".
    • Done.
  • Probably one or both 1939's in the final sentence of that paragraph can be dispensed with.
    • Done.
  • "After the Life Savers sponsorship ended in 1939," I assume this ended after the Fair closed for the season, which could be made clearer.
    • Done.
  • Your capitalization of World's Fair seems inconsistent. Also "Fair". Also "Jump".
    • I fixed the one instance of "world's fair" in lowercase. I also capitalized the standalone word "fair". I believe "jump" is only capitalized when it's part of the proper name "Parachute Jump" and lowercase when it's a standalone word; I've fixed the one instance where this wasn't the case. Thanks for the catch. epicgenius (talk) 15:06, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Parachute Jump reopened in June 1940.[36]" Did it open at the start of the Fair's 1940 season or later? This could be made clear inline.
    • Done - it was later.
  • "Palisades Park, New Jersey". Is Palisades Amusement Park meant? (it was not in Palisades Park).
  • "A ride on the Parachute Jump was included within an admission ticket to Steeplechase Park, which cost 25 cents (equivalent to $4.26 in 2018) at the time of the ride's relocation.[44] " I might say "with" rather than "within". And is it one ride or could someone ride as many times as they liked?
  • "Most riders reached the top of the tower in just under a minute and parachuted downward within 11–15 seconds." Does this mean the fall took 11-15 seconds or that they remained at the top for that period?
  • Was the ride open year round in the 40s to 60s era?
  • "the ride could be seen from the ocean 30 miles (48 km) away.[73] " This reads like the ocean is 30 miles away from Coney Island.
    • Added "up to".
  • "The city stabilized the structure in 1993 and painting it in its original colors, although the structure still suffered from rust in the salt air.[86][87] " "Painting" should be "painted"
    • Done.
  • ""an amateur sports arena, such as a minor-league baseball stadium, on the site.[89][90] " Minor league baseball is not amateur.
  • "The planned renovation would have cost $20 million, excluding the large amount of insurance that would need to be paid on the ride.[6]" This reads awkwardly. After the comma, I might suggest, "excluding the cost of insurance, that would be high." or similar.
  • "save for green" Better, "except for green".
    • Done.
  • While Memorial Day may be deemed to have a patriotic theme, is the same true of Labor Day?
  • "scenarios" An odd term. Is this the same as the six animations?
  • "Anti-climbing devices were installed on the Parachute Jump in 2010 after several instances of people climbing the structure,[5] " I might change the second "climbing" to "scaling" to avoid the repetition.
    • Done.
  • You use the term "ride" several times in describing the half century during which no one has ridden it. I might suggest substituting "Jump" or "structure" or even "tower" as appropriate.
    • Done.
  • On images: I do see the one image from the 1939 era, from the Library of Congress. I would strongly suspect that anything published in connection with the Fair, leaflets, guidebooks, postcards, is in the public domain, either through not being copyrighted at the time or though it not being renewed. There may be better photographs out there, not only 1939 but also of Coney Island that are out of copyright for those reasons. I'd like to see at least some search made, if it has not been already.
Let me know when you've done these and I'll take a second look.--Wehwalt (talk)
@Wehwalt: Thanks for your extensive comments. I'll address these shortly. epicgenius (talk) 13:41, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Wehwalt: Thanks again, I've addressed almost all of these, except for the image related request, which I'm working on right now. epicgenius (talk) 18:37, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, this seems to be the only image for "parachute tower 'world's fair'"]. As for copyright, items typically enter the public domain if they were first published at least 95 years ago (in this case, 1923 or earlier), or without notice in 1924-63 (per c:Commons:Copyright rules by territory/United States). I'm going to err on the side of caution here, and wait for the larger image review, since I assume the organizers received a notice and did renew copyright. epicgenius (talk) 19:15, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Wehwalt: I've addressed all your points, just so you're aware. Thanks again for the feedback. epicgenius (talk) 15:50, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I believe it is correct that if there is no notice before 1978, they are in the public domain, and if copyright was not renewed, they are in the public domain. Copyrights were not renewed unless they needed to be for economic reasons. This search suggests that only three works connected with the World's Fair were renewed. 1939 US works are only in the public domain if they were properly copyrighted (including the requisite information printed on the item itself, such as the copyright notice) and were properly renewed. I'll leave that to you.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:18, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'd appreciate it if you'd look again at the image matter, but either way, I think it meets the criteria.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:18, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Ergo Sum

[edit]
  • The Life Savers company sponsored the ride - reads a little awkwardly; perhaps "The company Life Savers".
  • members of the public had objected to the Soviet... - The way it is phrased, it is not obvious how this statement is supposed to relate to the preceding statement.
  • The Parachute Jump was negatively affected - it seems you are referring to its popularity, rather than its actual mechanics.
    • Fixed.
  • During World War II, when much of the city adhered to a blackout - I could be mistaken, but I believe the blackout was ordered by the government, in which case "adhered" would not be the most accurate word. Perhaps "was subject to". Also, military blackout or something similar might be clearer for those unfamiliar.
    • Done both.
  • automotive boom Perhaps link to History of the automobile.
    • Done.
  • The photo in the "Acquisition of Site" section causes the subsequent header to be shifted over. I would recommend right-aligning it and then left-aligning either the previous or subsequent image.
  • the city started planning to install - "the city began planning" or "planned"
    • Did the first option.
  • You mention the anti-climb devices in two different sections. Is this necessary?
    • In this case, yes. The first mention is within the general description of the Parachute Jump, and the second is within a chronological context (following the news reports of people scaling the tower). However, in the description section, I've removed the year of installation. epicgenius (talk) 02:15, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ergo Sum 20:44, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ergo Sum, I'll reply to these shortly. epicgenius (talk) 21:12, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Ergo Sum: Thanks for the feedback. I've addressed all the above comments. epicgenius (talk) 02:15, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to go, as far as I'm concerned. Interesting article. Ergo Sum 02:41, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

CommentsSupport by Ceoil

[edit]

I have a soft spot for the faded grandeur of Coney Island, which to me epitomises 1950s nostalgia. The article needs some copy editing, most of which I'd like to do directly, having an interest, if that's ok with the nominator. This is a very comprehensive article; am leaning support after work, with the disclaimer to the co-ords that I have collaborated on FACs with epicgenius before. Ceoil (talk) 08:09, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ceoil: Go for it. I'll defer to your judgment here regarding copyediting, since I might have missed some things. Thanks for the edits you've already made. epicgenius (talk) 15:05, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support now with all the improvements below, and have had a look through also. One thing in the lead sentence, would prefer 'defunct' to "non-operational". Ceoil (talk) 16:51, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ceoil, I really appreciate the edits you've done. I've made that change in the lead. epicgenius (talk) 21:02, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Reidgreg

[edit]

Ceoil asked me to assist with copy editing. As noted by the nominator, the article received a GOCE copy edit in October. There have been about 100 edits since then so I'm just giving a light look at it and leave notes here.

  • The short description is 23 characters over the "target" of 40 characters. I don't think this is a big deal, and if it truncates to the first 40 characters you still get the most important information.
  • It consists of a 250-foot (76 m), 170 short tons (150 t) open-frame, steel parachute tower. Both the height and mass should be in the form of adjectives (add |adj=on to the second convert template). I think I'd also change the first convert template to {{convert|250|ft|m|adj=mid|-tall|sp=us}} to produce 250-foot-tall. I tend to feel that the hyphens make the compound modifiers easier to read and would remove the commas. Commas can be used to separate coordinate adjectives, but here I feel that the height, weight, and material are inherently related to each other.
  • When operational, the ride contained twelve cantilevered, steel arms radiating from the top of the tower, each of which supported a parachute attached to a lift rope and a set of guide cables. From the pictures, it looks like these arms are still part of it (and weren't only there when operational). I might rephrase as "The ride has twelve cantilevered steel arms radiating from the top of the tower; during the ride's operation, these each supported a parachute attached to a lift rope and a set of guide cables."
  • The pavilion had six sides divided by fluted piers that slope upward toward the corrugated, galvanized-iron roof. "corrugated" describes the type of galvanized iron of the roof, so I don't feel it should be separated with a comma.
  • The upper floor of the pavilion had red, yellow and blue walls, while the lower floor, located below the level of the boardwalk, and fenced-off open space. There's something missing in the second half of this, from while.
  • Strong sold a military versions → Strong sold military versions
  • It had twelve 32 ft (9.8 m) parachute bays I would tend to remove |abbr=on so that it produces "32-foot". The hyphen associates the number and units more explicitly, which effectively separates them from "twelve".
  • at the conclusion of the 1939 section ... for the World's Fair's 1940 season. Should these both be "season"?
  • Coney Island's popularity receded during the 1960s. At rtrh same time, it saw increases in crime, insufficient parking facilities, patterns of bad weather. → Coney Island's popularity receded during the 1960s, when it also suffered from increases in crime, insufficient parking facilities, and patterns of bad weather.
  • the jump became a haunt for teenagers and young adults to climb up on the frame I think I'd remove "up on the frame" as assumed.
  • The city government questioned its safety. A 1982 survey concluded the tower would need a $500,000 renovation just to stabilize the ground I think "questioned the tower's safety" (as this begins a new paragraph) and remove "just".
  • which was not be visible → which would not have been visible
  • From the deleted "Similar amusement rides" section, since Texas Chute Out, Great Gasp and Jumpin' Jellyfish have their own articles, you might list them in the See also section, either under a "similar rides" bullet or with brief notes for each like "a similar ride at xxx" or "a similar ride operated by xxx".
  • There is a similar section at Parachute tower § Fairground rides which mentioned the subject of this article. I'd recommend linking this article there.

Hope this is of help. Please let me know if you have any questions. – Reidgreg (talk) 20:16, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Reidgreg: Thanks, these were very helpful. I have addressed the points above, and for the short description, tried to condense it. Thanks for catching the errors as well. epicgenius (talk) 01:52, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]

All images are correctly licensed. On Wehwalt's question above about File:1939parachutejump.jpg, it's a Gottshco-Schleisner photo, and if you do a little poking around the LoC website, you'll see that the heirs of Gottscho and Schleisner placed the images in the public domain when they donated them to the LoC. On a side note, when I saw the image review request, I was picturing an article about this sort of thing, but the tower is awfully similar to the 250-foot towers I narrowly avoided having to use. Parsecboy (talk) 16:44, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Parsecboy: Thanks for the review, I appreciate it. Yeah, that first image is a different kind of "parachute jump"... the second one is more like a parachute tower, which this particular attraction is. epicgenius (talk) 18:21, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: Are there any significant things I'm missing? It seems like this nomination has four supports, an image review, and a source review. I understand Ceoil still has to leave some comments, but I am not sure what else is needed. epicgenius (talk) 21:32, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like most bases have been covered above, so all I'm doing is scanning the sources:

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:55, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SandyGeorgia: Thanks for your comments. I have fixed these issues. epicgenius (talk) 02:13, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Great! I left the Cityroom, NYT blog unstruck so Ealdgyth will take a look. You might want to retain Cityroom blog in the citation along with the New York Times as the publisher. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:32, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: Is there anything else I need for this nomination? Ceoil has given his feedback and support above. I would like to nominate another article for FAC soon, but I understand that I can't do so until the existing nomination is resolved. epicgenius (talk) 21:02, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't had time to look through this one, but at a glance it seems to be nearing the end. You may start your next nom if you are so-inclined. --Laser brain (talk) 17:44, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 14 January 2020 [29].

Peter Badcoe

[edit]
Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:38, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The most recent instalment in my series on South Australian Victoria and George Cross recipients, Peter Badcoe was the most recent South Australian awarded the Victoria Cross for gallantry. Badcoe's VC was awarded following three separate acts of extreme bravery over a three month period during the Vietnam War, the last action costing him his life. He was the only commissioned officer to be awarded the VC in Vietnam. This went through Milhist ACR in July, so hopefully the rough edges have been knocked off of it. Have at it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:38, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just noting I'll be largely incommunicado 8-17 December, but will address any comments as soon as I get back from holidays. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:37, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Don't use fixed px size
Removed the double-up and the fixed px size. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:08, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest adding alt text to the other images. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:47, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • How are you deciding which awards are listed in the infobox?
Yes, I hadn't really applied any science to that, I've trimmed it to the highest award from each country. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:23, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The award citation quote is quite long
Unavoidable given he was awarded the VC for three separate actions. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:23, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent in when/whether you include states in publication locations; country name is not necessary when state is included
I think I got these. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:23, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Newspaper formatting generally needs editing for consistency
Not sure what you mean here, can you give an example? Some are hard copy and some are online papers, which may explain the differences? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:23, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
For example, Canberra Times has location but not publisher, while Sydney Morning Herald has publisher but not location, and London Gazette has neither. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:27, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed these now, I think. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:43, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • McNeill & Ekins title should use endash
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:23, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Canberra Times issue is 11,968, not 11 and 968
This space seems to be a glitch in the syntax. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:23, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think I got all these that are available. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:23, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for looking at this, Nikkimaria, let me know about the formatting issue and anything else I've missed? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:23, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5

[edit]
  • Oh is it? Didn't know that also don't drink so I'm not really in alcohol English.
  • Question I now realise shouldn't district be capitalised?
  • that the enemy were dug-in along a small rise --> "that the enemy was dug-in along with a small rise"?
    Enemy can be either singular or plural, in this case it is plural, so were is the correct plural past indicative.
  • Another British English plural form?

Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:33, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • --> "killed by a burst of machine gunfire"
    "machine gun" is the compound noun from which the fire (verb) comes, so it should remain separate from the verb. Alternative approaches to the addition of a verb to a compound noun might be machinegun fire or machine-gun fire, but I tend to render the weapon as "machine gun", and tend to use the hyphenated form only for the compound verb, ie "Bloggs machine-gunned the aircraft". Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:33, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 12:05, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid we are not on the same page with all of these review comments, CPA-5. Happy to discuss anything of course. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:33, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Ian

[edit]

Recusing from coord duties, I wasn't involved in the MilHist ACR so this is really the first time I'm seeing this...

  • Copyedited so pls let me know any concerns. Aside from what I've done directly, I think you should consider attributing inline some of the praise, e.g.
    • "Enthusiasm, courage and audacity were his hallmarks, and those around him were often infected by his optimism."
    • "he was an inspirational leader who had saved the lives of his comrades and turned defeat into victory on many occasions"
Attributed both to Ian McNeill. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:46, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tks PM. That works fine for the first instance, just wondering about the second that has three citations at the end. I didn't want to over-complicate things but the way it is now it looks like we have three sources saying McNeill thought this and I'm guessing that's not the case...? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:02, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the ping, Ian. It's not the case, you're right. I'm not clear on how the citations to McNeill's ADB entry and Macklin got there, but despite the fact I don't have The Team to hand, it must have come from there, because it is not in Macklin and I've checked the ADB. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:54, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re. the image captions:
    • How did we verify that the Singapore picture was dated 1962? I can see it's so in Commons but the source image at AWM appears to be undated unless I missed something...
      It is an educated guess, based on his deployment to Malaya in that year. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:46, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Neither the Commons file nor the source USIA image seems to clearly identify the Vietnamese soldiers as South Vietnamese Regional Force so how are we certain of that?
      Pretty certain based on the date of the pic, their apparent age and length of recruit training, which was the same as the ARVN. PF training was shorter, and the PF were banned from recruiting in the 17-30 bracket in 1966. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:46, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fine work overall as usual. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:47, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the c/e and review, Ian. Let me know if you think either of the captions need tweaking as a result of the above responses. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:46, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, look I agree that all this is perfectly plausible but I think if we're making educated guesses or reading into things based on what we see in a picture then we're getting into OR territory. I don't think it harms the first pic to lose the date, the main thing is it illustrates the subject and says where he is, so I suggest we trim the caption accordingly (and ideally remove the date from the Commons file too). The second pic presents a bit more of a challenge but I'd like to think we could reword to remove the RF reference. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:02, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]

Support by JennyOz

[edit]

Hi PM, I looked at this during Milhist ACR and cannot find much else to comment on...

  • Badcoe entered the Officer Cadet School, Portsea, on 12 July 1952 - was Badcock at this time ie not yet changed name but you are using Badcoe intentionally here?
  • he wore horn-rimmed spectacles - maybe wlink Horn-rimmed glasses
  • He returned to the 1st Field Regiment ... at Ingleburn, New South Wales. - not clear when he actually returned to Australia
  • last sentence, "In late 2019, a 60-bed residential aged care facility..." doesn't seem to have opened as yet (and not in Newcastle newspaper which you'd expect if there'd been an opening ceremony/dedication?). Change to 2020 or otherwise reword so it doesn't appear out of date?

None of the above is a concern so I am already happy to support promotion. Best wishes, JennyOz (talk) 06:36, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look, Jenny. Let me know if I've misunderstood your query about when he came back to Australia? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:12, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No problems PM, just my ignorance of military matters:) So a 'Regiment' refers to home-base? JennyOz (talk) 11:28, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the regiment was still in Australia, only the battery (a sub-unit) went to Malaysia, Jenny. Do you think I need to tweak this bit to make it clearer? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:51, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Cas Liber

[edit]

Taking a look now....

  • Promoted to temporary captain in 1958,[1] and substantive captain in June 1960,[4] from 1958 until 1961 he was a junior staff officer in the Directorate of Military Operations and Plans at Australian Army Headquarters. - this sentence parses oddly in this order. To me it'd be more natural to flow like, " A junior staff officer in the Directorate of Military Operations and Plans at Australian Army Headquarters from 1958 until 1961, he was promoted to temporary captain in 1958,[1] and substantive captain in June 1960,[4]."
  • During his short visit to South Vietnam - I'd omit "short" as you've established how long the trip was. In fact I'd also leave out "South Vietnam" here too as redundant.

Otherwise looks in good shape comprehensiveness and prose-wise. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:13, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks Cas Liber! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:19, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: this is progressing well, can I have a dispensation for a fresh nom please? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:47, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. --Laser brain (talk) 17:43, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 14 January 2020 [30].

French battleship Iéna

[edit]
Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:32, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Iéna had a short history after her completion in 1902 as she suffered a magazine explosion while in dry dock in 1907. The ensuing investigations caused a scandal that resulted in the resignation of the navy minister and did not solve the fundamental problem because another magazine explosion occurred in 1911 aboard another battleship to much the same cause. The ship was patched enough to be refloated and used as a target in 1909 before sinking. Her wreck was sold for scrap three years later. The article had a MilHist A-class review several months ago and meets the FAC criteria, I believe. I'd like for reviewers to check for any unlinked or unexplained jargon and infelicitous prose.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:32, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Quick question: Is Caresse's book the only secondary source for the various reports into the ship's loss? I also take it that the Michel Commission's vague report didn't place blame on Poudre B? Lord Roem ~ (talk) 22:43, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

[edit]

The article had a pretty good sources review at its recent A-class nom. I have only a few minor comments:

  • The WorldCat isbn link names the author as "Anthony Preston" (and provides a blurb in Dutch!)
  • Umm, are you sure this review is for this article? 'Cause I don't reference Preston anywhere.
  • The ISBN is as printed in the book. This English-language link differs by the OCLC # [31] If you want I can replace the ISBN with the OCLC #. Preston is listed as the founding editor with Jordan as the editor. I don't consider the former position to be noteworthy.
  • As you give full publisher name for the previous book, maybe for consistency you should do so here (or shorten the earlier one)
  • I've never seen "n°" before – is that what you intended, rather than "no"?

Otherwise the sources seem to beet the required FAC criteria for quality and presentation. Brianboulton (talk) 20:00, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM

[edit]

I reviewed this at Milhist ACR, so only have a couple of comments to add:

That's all I could find. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:34, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:12, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, a pleasure. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:42, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5

[edit]

Long time no see mate. :)

  • No link for Naval Council?
    • Not enough material in English for the
  • No links for Director of Naval Construction and Jules Thibaudier?
  • Naval historians John Jordan and Philippe Caresse evaluated --> "The naval historians John Jordan and Philippe Caresse evaluated" I think this is an American English thing.
  • No link for shafts?
  • Iéna carried a maximum of 1,165 tonnes (1,147 long tons) of coal which allowed her to steam for 4,400 nautical miles (8,100 km; 5,100 mi) --> "Iéna carried a maximum of 1,165 tonnes (1,147 long tons) of coal, this allowed her to steam for 4,400 nautical miles (8,100 km; 5,100 mi)"
  • Wait a second the magazines stored 45 per gun but later the article says the magazines stored 15,000 shells. How many guns does she even had? Unless I'm blind or forgot something here.
  • 15,000 rounds for the 47 mm guns.
  • 15,000 shells were kept in the magazines This sentence starts with a number.

I think that's anything. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 11:48, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Llammakey

[edit]
  • In Design section, "Charlemange class ship" should be hyphenated
  • Is there a reason why in the fourth paragraph of the Armament section that the millimetres are not abbreviated?
  • Same for the Disposal section.
  • There is a harv error in the Further reading section for Schwerer.

That's all that I can find. Llammakey (talk) 17:03, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Parsecboy

[edit]

This is just a placeholder for the moment, but I have this book at the moment, and can scan you the chapter if you'd like. Parsecboy (talk) 12:40, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not much to complain about:

  • You might consider not abbreviating metric horsepower - I stopped doing that after I got questions about what PS/CV stood for (and PS is the German abbreviation anyway - I don't know that you can force it to abbreviate as CV).
    • Me neither, but not abbreviating it seems like a good idea.
  • "by Contre-amiral Léon Barnaud" - earlier, you give the rank in English and then the French translation, but here you only give the French rank. I'd think based on your earlier practice, you'd just give the English rank. Parsecboy (talk) 19:46, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Image review

Coord note

[edit]

Hi Sturm, I know it's a busy time but can you just indicate you'll get to the outstanding comments before long? Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:39, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Seems all good. Just a couple of minor things.

  • "The lower strake was backed by a highly subdivided cofferdam intended to reduce flooding from any penetrating hits as its compartments were filled by 14,858 water-resistant "bricks" of dried Zostera seaweed (briquettes de zostère)." It's not clear either from this or the article on the seaweed what these bricks did.
  • Why do you refer to one admiral as "Rear-admiral" and then another as Contre-amiral?
  • Sigh, I thought that I'd fixed all of those.
  • "To test this theory, Gaston Thomson, the Navy Minister, ordered that a replica magazine and the adjacent black-powder magazine be built on 31 March, but when the tests were conducted on 6–7 August, they were deemed inconclusive ..." I might move "on 31 March" to before "ordered" to avoid some small ambiguity.
  • Similarly move up "on 6 August" a bit later.
  • Good ideas.
That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:20, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for looking this over when most people are in recovery mode. See if my changes are satisfactory.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:56, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 14 January 2020 [32].

Abbasid invasion of Asia Minor (806)

[edit]
Nominator(s): Constantine ✍ 18:27, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the largest expedition ever launched by the Caliphate against the Byzantines after the Second Arab Siege of Constantinople. Although not as dramatic, it was a climax in the long history of Arab–Byzantine wars: a long period of peace followed, before warfare resumed in the 830s. The article is a bit old, and passed MILHIST's ACR back in 2012, but I have continued working on it, adding some more details. I feel confident that it is as comprehensive as I can get it, but any suggestions for improvement are, as always, welcome. Constantine ✍ 18:27, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Alt text, external links etc are all fine. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:20, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Dank

[edit]

Support by Gog the Mild

[edit]
  • Haj is duplinked, but permissibly so IMO.
  • "Harun retaliated at once, launching a raid" It is not clear what Harun is retaliating for. From the text Nikephoros had not done anything that needed retaliation. Indeed at this point in the article there has been no mention of any actions at all by him.
  • Good point, it was left rather unclear. Fixed now.
  • "he barely escaped with his own life" Delete "own".
  • Done.
  • "Having settled matters in Khurasan" Do we know what the nature of this settlement was?
  • Clarified the original problem, and rewritten/added some details. Also took the opportunity to re-check and re-order the references to a more fine-grained pattern.
  • "against the local Arab garrison began in Cyprus" suggests that Cyprus was Arab occupied; while "admiral Humayd ibn Ma'yuf al-Hajuri was prepared to raid Cyprus" suggests that it wasn't.
  • Clarified.
  • "asked Harun to send him a girl from Herakleia" Suggest something like 'asked Harun to send him a young Byzantine woman who had been taken captive when Herakleia fell'.
  • Good suggestion, done.
  • The related quote shortly after: consider putting it in a block quote per MOS:BQ.
  • Done.
  • "Abbasid efforts was compounded" Either 'efforts were' or 'effort was'.
  • Done.
  • "Influenced by the events of Harun's 782 campaign" Is this a typo? If not, why is in an article on the 806 campaign?
  • What I meant was that the later narratives conflated the two: the 'famous' expedition was that of 806, and Harun's letter to Nikephoros is widely quoted; but in 782, the Arabs had actually come within sight of Constantinople, so the later sources 'tweaked' things a bit, and had Harun advance to Constantinople twice during Nikephoros' reign. I've tried to clarify this.

And that's all I have. Masterful. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:20, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the kind words Gog the Mild. As usual, you also caught (hopefully most of) the stuff I overlooked. Please have a look at my changes and let me know of you have any further comments. Best, Constantine ✍ 21:10, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The changes and clarifications are all good. I am happy to support. Although a cite immediately after the block quote may be helpful. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:21, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Brianboulton

[edit]

An interesting and engaging article, dealing most informatively in a sphere of history which is entirely new to me. I'm much inclined towards support, but meanwhile have a few issues for discussion or action:

  • The article is quite short, just under 2,000 words ex. lead, of which 680 words deal with background, and 750 with aftermath and impact. That leaves only 550 words on the campaign itself; I just wonder if this constitutes full, comprehensive coverage of the action?
    • A reasonable question, which IMO touches on two issues: one, the comprehensiveness of coverage of the 806 campaign, and two, the relation of the 'main' section to the rest of the article size-wise. On the first, the sources are very brief regarding these events. If you check Tabari's or Theophanes' accounts (which are our main sources), you will see that they only mention towns taken, generals involved, etc., pretty much the same as you can read in the article. This is sadly the case with most of the conflicts of the period, sine chroniclers on both sides give a somewhat sanitized, not to say sterile, version of events. Kennedy makes this point when describing the Siege of Kamacha, where for once we actually have details for an event that otherwise would have been an one-liner in Tabari's account. So there is--unfortunately--nothing more to add on the account of the actual campaign.
      On the second issue, although we don't know much detail about the actual campaign, it still is of importance in the historiography of the Arab-Byzantine conflict, as it represents a certain climax, and impacted both sides: Nikephoros turned west instead of east, etc., not to mention the erection of a victory monument by Harun, the echoes in later literature, etc. So this definitely needs to be unpacked somewhere. The first half of the 'Aftermath' section properly belongs to the denouement of the campaign itself either way. Similarly for the 'Background' section, because the interplay between Harun and Nikephoros needs to be explained in order to give sufficient context for the campaign itself. If you think there is anything redundant, feel free to add it to the list below for discussion
  • Prose: a bit of final polishing is necessary:
  • Lead: "to retaliate for..."? I think you retaliate against.
    • I don't know, but "retaliate against the Byzantine successes" reads odd to me; how can you retaliate against a success?
During my review I started to make the same complaint, anticipated Constantine’s response and left it. It seems to me that the meaning will be entirely clear to a reader and that it is the least grammatically messy way of expressing it without completely recasting it. Wicktionary’s sole quote on the usage of retaliate has “retaliate for”. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:52, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still unhappy with this form, but won't press it unduly. I'll just make one rewording suggestion which I think would work, retaining "for": "In retaliation for the cessation of tribute and the violation of the peace agreement concluded with Irene, Harun launched a raid under his son al-Qasim in spring 803". Brianboulton (talk) 13:09, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is indeed much better, done.
  • Background:
  • I'm not sure of the purpose of "also" in the first line.
  • Leftover from early drafts. Removed.
  • Some pronoun confusion in the first para: we have "when he learned", and in the next line, "he was determined", a different "he". You need to clarify who the different persons are.
  • Good point, fixed.
  • Formulaic phrases like "in addition" should, if possible, be avoided. (It occurs again in the fifth paragraph.)
  • Rephrased, have a look.
  • Now we have "retaliated to"
  • CHanged to "for", see above.
  • I'm not sure that "confronted" is appropriate in the circumstances you describe; exchange of letters doesn't amount to confrontation. Perhaps "faced one another"?
  • Good suggestion, done.
  • Campaign
  • Per MoS, section heading should be just "Campaign", rather than "The campaign"
  • Done.
  • Link "freebooter". The best is probably a pipelink, thus: freebooter
  • Done.
  • "Harun's lieutenant Abdallah ibn Malik al-Khuza'i took Sideropalos, from where Harun's cousin Dawud ibn Isa ibn Musa, with half the Abbasid army, some 70,000 men according to al-Tabari, was sent to devastate Cappadocia." Needs reworking for clarity – too many sub-clauses at present.
  • Rephrased.
  • Impact
  • Third para: I got somewhat lost in the convoluted sentence beginning "Influenced by the events..." There seems some fusion of fact with fiction – needs clarifying
  • Rephrased, please have a look
  • 4th para: Another redundant "also"
  • Removed.
  • I'd replace "due to", another ugly form, with something simple like "left incomplete on Harun's departure..."
  • Done.

Source review follows. Brianboulton (talk) 14:24, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

[edit]
  • No spotchecks carried out
  • Links: The archived links in refs 3, 24 and 41 all go to the same place, although the refs cite different chapters. The archived link to Kiapidou in the list of sources isn't working at all.
    • Hmmm, this is troubling, since the original url also appears more often down than not. Google cache still displays at least the text content. Well, there are two options: One, we link to the Google cache and at some point in the future, when the website is again up and running, I will try to archive it again at the Web Archive, although since I can remember and know that the url had been archived, my hunch is that it has been removed by request and therefore is likely to be removed again. Second, I can remove/replace Kiapidou altogether. It was a major source at the inception of this article (as well as its inspiration, TBH), but that is no longer the case; I can simply remove the references and the content would still be more than adequately cited. It would, however, be rather dishonest to do it, for the reasons mentioned before.
  • I think I see a solution to this:
  • The linked source for refs 3, 24 and 41 is this, which has three sections: 1. Historical background; 2. Beginning and outcome of the campaign; 3. Consequences.
  • I assume these sections are the three "chapters" referred to in your refs?
  • Then, all you need do is reformat refs 3, 24 and 41 in harvard short form, and replace the dead link in your sources list with the working link.
  • Hah, I feel really stupid, I didn't check that the links in the footnotes were working, I just went with the main source link, which was dead. I've fixed it now: the correct archive url is in the "Sources" section, and the footnote links point to the relevant sections in the archived copy. I also renamed from the apparently unclear "Chapter X" to the actual section headings. Constantine ✍ 17:23, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done
  • Formats:
  • Refs 42 and 43 both carry open-ended page ranges, which make verification difficult. Is it possible to be more specific?
  • Certainly, will do this ASAP
  • Done, I reworked and expanded the section somewhat in the process.
  • You could add an oclc number to the 1923 Cambridge medieval history, vol. 4. It is 241580719
  • Done, thanks
  • Quality/reliability: The sources appear to be of a scholarly nature within our FA criteria for quality and reliability. My lack of subject expertise means I can't judge whether they fully cover the topic, but in the absence of any challenge I accept your word that they do.

Otherwise, all well. Brianboulton (talk) 14:58, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Fixed, thanks.
@Brianboulton: just a heads up, can you please have a look at my edits and replies above and indicate whether any outstanding issues remain? Cheers, Constantine ✍ 13:27, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No further issues: sources are fine now. Brianboulton (talk) 16:09, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Brianboulton: Thanks :). What about the general/style comments above? Constantine ✍ 16:28, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Your responses to my expressed concerns are fine. I intend to read (slowly) through the whole article again, in a few days' time (you can ping me in a week, if I haven't done so by then) before making a final decision on supporting - so far, I've only speed-read it. Brianboulton (talk) 17:02, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Take your time and be as nitpicky as you like :). Constantine ✍ 21:33, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support with a few additional comments/suggestions:

  • Lead: delete "ever" from first line
    • Done
  • Background:
  • Para 2, 4th line: delete "himself"
  • Changed to "in person"
  • Para 4, line 2: "that summer" – specify year
  • Done, with some rewriting around
  • Campaign: since here you state that the number 135,000 is "certainly exaggerated", perhaps you should mention this in the lead, where the number is first mentioned.
    • Good point, done
  • Aftermath: "surprisingly" is perhaps editorial comment?
    • Indeed, removed.
  • Impact: "Nikephoros's efforts would end tragically in the disastrous Battle of Pliska". A bit vague – you could say "would end with his death". And presumably, the story of his being hanged from the Hagia Sophia is fictional – that needs be be made clearer.
    • Good point, I rewrote the section a bit, I think now it is clear.

An impressive article, deserving of FA status. Brianboulton (talk) 13:35, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your time and contributions, Brianboulton! Cheers, Constantine ✍ 14:26, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review by PM

[edit]

All the images are appropriately licensed and have appropriate captions. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:05, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5

[edit]
  • Unlink Arab.
  • men from Syria, Palestine, Persia, and Egypt Maybe pipe Persia to the medieval Persia?
    • Was unaware of the link, done.
  • Despite the sack of Herakleia, which is given prominent treatment in Arab sources Isn't the sack a proper noun?
    • You mean it should be capitalized? No, here it is used descriptively, not as a named event.
  • victory monument about 8 kilometres (5.0 mi) west of Raqqa Round the nought here.
    • Done.

That's anything that I found. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 13:56, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@CPA-5: your points have been addressed. Anything else? Cheers, Constantine ✍ 18:39, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose by Fowler&fowler

[edit]

I have read the lead. I feel that the prose in it (which includes, syntax, coherence, and cohesion) is as yet insufficient to meeting the requirements of an FA. Here are its sentences.

General comment: The determiner "the" is most commonly used to refer to things that are a part of the writer's and the reader's shared world. (or Websters: "used as a function word to indicate that a following noun or noun equivalent refers to someone or something previously mentioned or clearly understood from the context or the situation.) (Or, OED: "Marking an item as having been mentioned before or as already known, or as contextually particularized) There seem to be several confusing uses of "the" in the lead.

  • Sentence 1: The Abbasid invasion of Asia Minor in 806 was the largest operation launched by the Abbasid Caliphate against the Byzantine Empire.
    • "The largest." We know nothing about these invasions, at this point. The definite article presumes familiarity with the context.
    • What is an "operation?" In general, it does not even connote a military operation. Did they overrun or merely infiltrate? Was it an army operation or naval or both. You need to be more specific.

— Fowler&fowler 20:35, 7 December 2019 — continues after insertion below

      • Re the second point, I've changed to "military operation". It is clearly stated to be an "invasion", which excludes the "infiltration" aspect; whether they overrun the Byzantines or not, by land or sea, that is why one should keep reading.
      • On the first point, I disagree. 'Familiarity with the context' is not a given in any article, and it is an impossible prerequisite to fulfill; if I read an article about a niche topic on the politics of Namibia, on which I don't know anything, I do not expect the article author to go out of his way to fill in my ignorance, especially not in the first sentence of the lede of all places. I will read on, try to visit the provided links, and gradually form a picture. IMO, the broad context is quite clearly given: it is a military operation between two historical states who are understood to have been engaged in a prolonged confrontation. The links to the states are there, and more context is provided later on. --Constantine ✍ 16:14, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • The "Byzantine Empire?" The page name makes no mention of the empire, whose geographical extent in 806 CE, in any case, is not a matter of common knowledge. The lead sentence needs to explain the terms in the page name, among other things.
    • Continuing in the same vein, where is "Asia Minor" in this explication? It doesn't help that Anatolia (to which it redirects) makes no mention of this invasion, incursion, expedition, or military operation.

— Fowler&fowler 20:35, 7 December 2019 — continues after insertion below

      • Re the title, it analogous to the "Allied invasion of Sicily", or the "Invasion of Normandy". Asia Minor was at the time either in Byzantine hands (to 90+%) or a disputed no-man's land (e.g. Cilicia). For the persons familiar with the period, the mention of the Byzantines is therefore redundant. Yes, we could rename the article to "Abbasid invasion of the Byzantine provinces of Asia Minor (806)", but why should we make things complicated? If it is impractical to provide (and unrealistic to expect) a complete explanation of the context in the first sentence of the lede, it is even less so in the title. You do raise a very good point about the role of Asia Minor in all of this, however, so I have added a further sentence to explain this.
      • On the non-inclusion of the operation in Anatolia, that means nothing. The article there has to cover a period beginning in the 24th century BC, and the Abbasid invasion is clearly not among the most significant things to have ever happened in Anatolia during the past 5000 years. Nor does this article claim so. I also note that the Byzantine, Seljuk, and Ottoman periods are generally almost non-existent in that article, which says a lot about the comprehensiveness of the article in question. --Constantine ✍ 16:14, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sentence 2: "The expedition was commanded in person by the Abbasid caliph, Harun al-Rashid (r. 786–809), who wished to retaliate for the Byzantine successes in the Caliphate's frontier region in the previous year and impress Abbasid might upon the Byzantine emperor, Nikephoros I (r. 802–811)."
    • Sentence 2 (part 1): The expedition was commanded in person ...
      • "The expedition?" Again, "the" assumes familiarity. All we know at this point is an invasion taking place. An expedition is different from an invasion, besides we have no idea how many expeditions took place concurrently.

— Fowler&fowler 20:35, 7 December 2019 — continues after insertion below

        • "The" expedition is the invasion just introduced. I don't think any one will get a different impression, if one is not actively looking to get a different impression. Still, I've changed it to "invasion". --Constantine ✍ 16:14, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • "In person," means, "by one's own action or physical presence." What other forms of command were available to an individual in the early medieval period?

— Fowler&fowler 20:35, 7 December 2019 — continues after insertion below

        • There are plenty of cases for rulers to have accompanied the troops to some border station and let their generals handle it from there, or simply tagged a long until some point and then returned home to claim victory. Plus, was not the whole point of the discussion above about not presuming prior knowledge on behalf of the average reader? This certainly does include "what other forms of command were available to an individual in the early medieval period". Furthermore, the mere fact of the caliph himself leading a campaign was unusual and ought to be stressed, as it is by the medieval sources (there is an extensive footnote to that effect). --Constantine ✍ 16:14, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sentence 2 (part 2): "who wished to retaliate for the Byzantine successes in the Caliphate's frontier region in the previous year ..."
      • "the Byzantine successes" We know nothing about them at this stage. The definite article presumes familiarity.
      • To retaliate means to take revenge for, or to avenge, an injury, harm, insult, etc. to a person, nation, etc. A "success" is too much of a euphemism for that injury, harm, or insult. You have to tell us more precisely which Byzantine action constituted an insult. Note I thought BrianB had suggested an improvement, but I don't see it implemented in the lead.
      • You probably want to say something like, "who wanted to avenge the loss of life, property, and livestock incurred during the Byzantine incursions of the previous year." (I'm making that up, but you get the idea.)
        • Or if you want to use retaliate: "the loss of life, property, and livestock of the previous year at the hand of the Byzantines, caused him to retaliate by invading Anatolia." ("Retaliate" does not go with "for," except very rarely.)
      • You probably don't want to mention the "frontier region," at this stage. Where else would an incursion have taken place in medieval times if not at a frontier? You especially don't want to link it to thughur which in turn redirects to al-ʿAwāṣim. Too much recondite information for a second sentence. You could point to direction if you like, e.g. "northeastern region," if that is the case.

— Fowler&fowler 20:35, 7 December 2019 — continues after insertion below

        • I have extensively rewritten the section in question. I disagree on "northeastern region" rather than frontier region because it again presumes prior knowledge of the Caliphate's geography, which is not a given. The frontier region may be a 'natural' place for hostilities, but military operations can also penetrate quite a bit beyond. So in our case, the Byzantine attacks being in the frontier area, whereas Harun retaliates by invading deep beyond that area, shows the respective strength (and intentions) of the two sides. --Constantine ✍ 16:14, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sentence 2 (part 3): and impress Abbasid might upon the Byzantine emperor, Nikephoros I (r. 802–811).
      • What does it mean to impress might upon? Are we saying after avenging an insult he wanted to insult in return, or to display a medieval version of shock and awe in return? This is all too vague.

— Fowler&fowler 20:35, 7 December 2019 — continues after insertion below

  • Sentence 3: "The huge Abbasid army—the Arab sources report, with exaggeration, that it numbered 135,000 men—set out from Raqqa on 11 June 806, crossed Cilicia and the Taurus Mountains, and invaded Cappadocia."
  • Sentence 3 (part 1): "The huge Abbasid army"
      • Again, "the" presumes we know about this army or about its relative numerical size.
      • Huge is an informal word, like gigantic, or enormous, meaning very numerous. How is a reader to know what constituted "huge" in 806?
    • Sentence 3 (part 2): "—the Arab sources report, with exaggeration, that it numbered 135,000 men—"
      • m-dashes, unless appearing in fiction, or creative non-fiction, should be replaceable with commas. That is not the case here. The third sentence in the lead is not the place for an off-handed aside.
      • "with exaggeration" generally implies that the exaggeration was a deliberate, or an invariant, feature of such estimates. Whether or not that is the case, the reader does not know that. How do we know it is an exaggeration? If there is a source that suggests that, then what is their more realistic estimate of the army's strength?
      • What are "Arab sources?" Do you mean "contemporaneous Arabic language sources?" Do you mean "historical Arabic language sources?" Do you mean Abbasid court historians? This is the first time you have used Arab. The reader is left confused.

— Fowler&fowler 20:35, 7 December 2019 — continues after insertion below

    • Sentence 3 (part 3): "set out from Raqqa on 11 June 806,
      • Here we are using Raqqa the modern name for a medieval city, (whereas elsewhere we are using medieval names for a modern region (such as Asia Minor for Anatolia) which is fine, but you should tell us what was Raqqa's significance. Why did the army set out from Raqqa?

— Fowler&fowler 20:35, 7 December 2019 — continues after insertion below

        • First, Raqqa was the name of the city in Abbasid times as well. Second, it is simply where Harun assembled his army, and he did that because it was his favourite residence (not the capital). Is that information necessary for the lede? No. --Constantine ✍ 16:14, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think you will be better off saying: "On 11 June 806, a large army, numbering 135,000 by some (optimistic) estimates, set out from the Abbasid capital of Raqqa."

— Fowler&fowler 20:35, 7 December 2019 — continues after insertion below

        • Raqqa was not the Abbasid capital, and "some (optimistic) estimates" is weird phrasing. This is not a prediction of future earnings, or estimate by a modern scholar, but a historical report from medieval sources. The chroniclers who reported these numbers were not optimistic or euphemistic, nor even impartial: they either took at face value numbers given by the Caliph's propaganda (which are impossible to verify today) or simply invented them outright to suit their respective narrative purposes. Theophanes, for example, reports 300,000 men, just to illustrate how much of a threat these unbelieving Saracens were. Again, have a look at my rewrite. --Constantine ✍ 16:14, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • These are just the first three sentences. But they point to the kind of issues appearing in many later sentences in the article. Besides, the lead is too short for the article. As BrianB has mentioned, the article is already too short. If I had more time, I would oppose its candidacy and stick around to help it improve, but I recommend that my critique be taken as a model of a longer one. Best, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:35, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A general discussion which is not relevant, as F&f is offering only a critique of the prose now
Hi Fowler&fowler, I will respond to your prose criticisms later, but I just want to point out that article length is not a criterion for Featured Article. Article comprehensiveness is, which has not been challenged by any editor thus far. Unless you know of information I have missed, the article length will therefore not change much. I am also rather confused by your final statement "If I had more time, I would oppose its candidacy and stick around to help it improve, but I recommend that my critique be taken as a model of a longer one". What exactly is this review in service of if you don't intend it as a basis for improving the article here and now? Do you suggest a quickfail based on prose and/or length? And your critique thus far does not touch anything that might actually increase article length (apart from a bigger lede, perhaps), so I fail to see how it can be taken as a "model of a longer one". Constantine ✍ 17:59, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I know the rules, but why are we in this business? To write something that is worth reading for an average layperson, or to Wikilawyer our way to a bronze star? There is obviously an unstated lower limit for length. You have two articles, Abbasid invasion of Asia Minor (782) and Abbasid invasion of Asia Minor (806). The first begins with, "Abbasid invasion of Asia Minor in 782 was one of the largest operations launched by the Abbasid Caliphate against the Byzantine Empire," the second with, "The Abbasid invasion of Asia Minor in 806 was the largest operation launched by the Abbasid Caliphate against the Byzantine Empire." Well, how many operations were there? If there is no lower limit, can we go lower? What I mean is, both articles are relatively short, use the same sources, have the same organization, and are part of the same context, involving the same Caliph, or would-be Caliph. Neither, for example, is mentioned in the Britannica article on Harun al Rashid. If there truly are no more sources, then why not combine the articles? The need for context in one of the FA criteria would almost require that. And even if you don't want to combine them, consider the one paragraph that I have read in the lead. It is already full of references, by way of either direct mention or the use of the definite article, to a wider context, which leaves the average reader puzzled. Examine the first sentence of the next section: "The deposition of Byzantine empress Irene of Athens in October 802 and the accession of Nikephoros I in her place marked the start of a more violent phase in the long history of the Arab–Byzantine wars." How does a deposition or accession by itself mark a violent phase? That long history, according to the link, lasted from the seventh century to the eleventh. Did the violent phase last from 802 until the end of the eleventh century? Imagine yourself in the shoes of an ordinary reader, who clicks on the link Arab–Byzantine wars and happens upon the paragraph:

"Wishing to emphasize his piety and role as the leader of the Muslim community, Caliph Harun al-Rashid (r. 786–809) in particular was the most energetic of the early Abbasid rulers in his pursuit of warfare against Byzantium: he established his seat at Raqqa close to the frontier, he complemented the thughur in 786 by forming a second defensive line along northern Syria, the al-'Awasim, and was reputed to be spending alternating years leading the Hajj and leading a campaign into Anatolia, including the largest expedition assembled under the Abbasids, in 806."

Though it needs tidying up, it at least explains the background. Do you see the issues? I could help you but there is some basic reorganization, expansion, and improvement of accessibility (for an ordinary reader) that you need to do yourself. You don't need new sources for that. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:13, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but if you think that my asking a few questions and challenging your approach is my "wikilawyering" after another bronze star, then you have a massive lack of WP:AGF. You can ask some other editors in this very review whether I "wikilawyer" myself though nominations or whether I insist on details and proper work before I pass any work, or indeed put my own work forward for judgment. But that is beside the point. What I object to is your arbitrarily moving (or inventing) the goalposts, and I have every right to be upset by this.
First, "There is obviously an unstated lower limit for length." is simply not true; either the rules prescribe a limit or they don't. Criterion four insists on an article being"focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and uses summary style". The topic is the 806 invasion, and the article deals, AFAIK, with it in the most comprehensive way. I repeat, if you find the article lacking in its treatment of the subject, i.e., the 806 invasion, be my guest to hold up the nomination for as long as it takes for me to address this deficiency. But you don't even try to make this argument. Instead you now propose to "combine the articles", because they "are part of the same context, involving the same Caliph, or would-be Caliph", even though they deal with events 24 years apart. This is, sorry to say, complete nonsense. By this argument, we should also merge the articles on the War of the Austrian Succession and the Seven Years War... Likewise, "Neither, for example, is mentioned in the Britannica article on Harun al Rashid." is yet another invented goalpost... You'd be surprised how much that is not mentioned in Britannica is actually mentioned in high-quality Wikipedia articles... FWIW, I usually don't even consider submitting an article to GA, let alone for FA, before it is considerably more complete than the best tertiary source I can find on it.
Now, on the heart of your complaints, as far as I can see they concern prose style. Prose is not a structural problem, it is a matter of adjusting the exposition of the content already in the article. That is precisely the sort of problem that can easily be addressed within the confines of a FA review. So please, if you think the prose has problems, point them out and let me try to correct them now. But summarily dismissing the article in toto because of "length" and prose problems in what amounts to an "I don't like it" review is neither useful to me, nor to the article, nor to this project. Constantine ✍ 13:50, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prose: Hello there.
    • General: The determiner "the" is most commonly used to refer to things that are a part of the writer's and the reader's shared world. (or Websters: "used as a function word to indicate that a following noun or noun equivalent refers to someone or something previously mentioned or clearly understood from the context or the situation.) (Or, OED: "Marking an item as having been mentioned before or as already known, or as contextually particularized) There seem to be several confusing uses of "the" in the article
  • Specific prose issues:
    • Fourth sentence, lead: "The Abbasids met no opposition and raided at will, capturing several towns and fortresses, most notably Herakleia.
      • At will means "as they wished" or "as and when it suited them." When there is no opposition, how else will they have raided?

— Fowler&fowler 21:24, 13 December 2019 — continues after insertion below

        • I don't see a problem. There is a causal link here: they raided at will because there was no opposition. If it were broken up into "The Abbasids met no opposition. They raided at will, ..." for example, you would probably not object to it, but it is the same thing. --Constantine ✍ 16:14, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • "several" is too vague in a description of military success. You need to give us a better idea.

— Fowler&fowler 21:24, 13 December 2019 — continues after insertion below

      • You need to tell us something about Herakleia, and why its capture was notable, why its capture would have precipitated a Abbasid impulse to seek peace, alluded to in "This" in the next sentence.

— Fowler&fowler 21:24, 13 December 2019 — continues after insertion below

— Fowler&fowler 21:24, 13 December 2019 — continues after insertion below

      • As you know the "peace" in the expressions "seek peace," "negotiate peace," "sign peace," is a count noun, meaning a treaty of peace, a pact to end a war, etc. The tribute is a part of the peace terms. You can't really seek peace terms in exchange for something that is a part of them. Was the tribute offered by the Abbasids or extracted from them by the Byzantines? (It is usually the latter.) That is not clear in the sentence.

— Fowler&fowler 21:24, 13 December 2019 — continues after insertion below

      • I am not sure I understand the distinction between tribute and personal tax in early- to mid medieval times in what most likely was a fiscal-military state. How could the peace terms ensure that the "personal tax" was somehow not passed on to (the medieval version of) taxpayers? Overall it would be better to say, "N. sought peace terms. These included ..." More soon. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:24, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • To this I can only say, once again: read further than the lede. The lede is not (meant to be) a complete article. And as to whether it was passed on to the taxpayers, why would that be a concern of Harun? The tax (if you read on) was a mark of personal submission for the emperor and his son, not a way to get his treasury full. The rewrite will have made this clearer, hopefully. --Constantine ✍ 16:14, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sixth sentence lead: "Following Harun's departure, however, Nikephoros violated the terms of the treaty and reoccupied the frontier forts he had been forced to abandon."
    • Sixth sentence lead (part 1): "Following Harun's departure, however, ..."
      • We know nothing, from what has been established thus far, about the extent of the agreed-upon retreat in the treaty, from how far forward to how far back. So "Following Harun's departure, however" stated matter-of-factly, comes as a surprise. Not all treaties involve retreats. Many simply agree to a cessation of hostilities at the existing lines of control.
      • In other words, you need to add a sentence about the terms of the treaty before "Following ..."

— Fowler&fowler 03:38, 14 December 2019 — continues after insertion below

        • That is a very 20th/21st-century way of seeing military operations, and, TBH, trying to read too much into a simple situation. The lede already states that Harun's intent was not to conquer territory, but to "impress his might" on Nikephoros, and get him to play nice, as Irene had done before. The peace terms mentioned also say nothing about any territorial concessions. So if there is peace, with the resumption of tribute, Hariun's aims are met and the invading party returns to its territory. --Constantine ✍ 16:14, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sixth sentence lead (part 2) "... Nikephoros violated the terms of the treaty and reoccupied the frontier forts"
      • the chronological order is: (a) N reoccupies the towns, (b) he violates the peace terms. not the other way round. In other words, you should be saying, "He reoccupied the frontier towns, thereby violating the peace terms."

— Fowler&fowler 03:38, 14 December 2019 — continues after insertion below

        • Rewritten to better reflect what happened. Also, I feel that the mention of border forts he was forced to abandoned played some role in you thinking about territorial changes above. If so, it was an unfortunate phrasing.
    • Sixth sentence lead (cont): "... he had been forced to abandon." --Constantine ✍ 16:14, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

— Fowler&fowler 03:38, 14 December 2019 — continues after insertion below

      • "forced to abandon" is both redundant and POV. It wasn't forced. He signed the treaty. Those were the terms.
  • Overall, you should be saying something like, "X-many days/weeks/months after the withdrawal of the Abbasid army, N. ordered his forces to reoccupy some frontier towns, thereby violating the terms of the treaty." But say this only after you have told us in one sentence earlier what the treaty entailed for either side. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:38, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

General observation: Sentences with long subjects or long dependent clauses) are creating issues of coherence in the prose.

  • Seventh sentence lead: "Harun's preoccupation with a rebellion in Khurasan, and his death three years later, prohibited a reprisal on a similar scale.
    • The subject here is the noun phrase: "Harun's preoccupation with a rebellion in Khurasan, and his death three years later,"
      • Again, we know nothing about a rebellion, let alone a preoccupation; we know nothing about who rebelled. We know nothing about his death, whether unexpected or after a long illness
      • So when the reader encounters the predicate, "prohibited a reprisal on a similar scale." They expect to read, "However, a reprisal on a lesser scale was conducted in ..." But nothing is mentioned. Question: Was there any reprisal? If there was, why is it not mentioned?
      • A coherent sentence would be: "However, a punitive invasion (on the scale of that of 806—add this only if there was a lesser reprisal) by Harun's army did not take place on account of a rebellion by < > soon thereafter in the province (?) of Khorasan, which was to keep the army engaged in its suppression. Nor did one take place later, as Harun was to die in 809." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:16, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Fowler&fowler: Thanks a lot for the detailed comments and suggestions, I will go through them over the next few days. Constantine ✍ 09:42, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A response, which in parts, is appearing three weeks after my initial post, after two editors whose reviews were posted after mine were answered. A response whose every step is controverting my points, even when accepting them, a dense response is not good enough. I am therefore changing my comment to a formal oppose. I will now be directly editing the article to improve the lead. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:18, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A note to the coordinators: Beyond the poor writing I encountered in the lead until I took a stab at improving it, I found the article to be too short and the editor to be argumentative. Needless to say, the nominator argued that it did not matter. I made my first edits here on 7 December. I made my last comment on 14 December. As you will have noticed, the nominator made a short post on 20 December. No apologies or explanations were offered. Two other editors posted here after me. He replied first to their posts, changing the sentences of my queries before he replied to me on 26 December. That is a long time for a reviewer to wait. As I say, I have edited the lead with a view to improving it. I will however not be returning to this review. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:24, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Fowler&fowler: Sorry for the delayed response, but I was a bit busy with digesting your points and with other work. I did not want to start doing this before I had cleared my board of other concerns. If you think the delay is unreasonable, I apologize, but there was no malicious intent here. Still, I need to answer some of the aspersions cast above:
  • "after two editors whose reviews were posted after mine were answered." is incorrect. I began working on your comments on December 24, but did not make any changes to the article (and confirm my replies to you above) until the 26th, because it took attention and work. I answered Mimihitam's concerns below on the 25th, because that was something I could do quickly, being something I had considered myself for some time. I did not start looking at/answering HaEr48's comments until after I had gotten off my first batch of replies to you. Again, this has nothing to do with you.
  • "A response whose every step is controverting my points, even when accepting them, a dense response is not good enough" So what is it? If I accept your points, how am I controverting them? What is "good enough"? The reality is simple: I am not obliged to agree with everything you say, and have a right to point out when I think you are wrong or have unreasonable expectations, just as much as you have a right to criticize this article. Our 'contention' is about prose style, which is a matter of personal preference (all the other reviewers didn't have a problem with it, for example), so of course there will be disagreement. You make some good points, and I think the lede has been much improved as a result (haven't gone through your last changes yet). But it became clear, as I read your comments, that you never proceeded beyond the lede to read the article itself. And I insist that it is a fallacy to assume that the lede will be a full explanation of a topic; it simply cannot be, from its very nature.
  • "I found the article to be too short and the editor to be argumentative" and I will be even more argumentative, because the former is no requirement or criterion for FAC, and I refuse to accept arbitrary demands.
  • "He replied first to their posts, changing the sentences of my queries" for the first, not true, see above. For the second, where did I change one iota of your queries? Please provide the diffs for this serious allegation. Constantine ✍ 08:04, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by HaEr48 (support)

[edit]

Having read the article, in my opinion it is well written, well researched, well referenced, and informative. Thank you for working on this. It is probably an area of history unfamiliar to most people, but context is provided through the background section and links. Unlike another reviewer above, I find the prose easy to follow and I don't think there are fatal mistakes that make the article hard to understand. The lead certainly is well balanced between being accessible and not being distracted by too much explanation up front. I have some minor feedback below:

  • who wished to retaliate for the Byzantine successes in the Caliphate's frontier region: How about just "retaliate against the successful Byzantine raids in the Caliphate's frontier region"? "Retaliate for … success" reads kind of weird IMO
  • " including a personal tax levied on Nikephoros and his son and heir, Staurakios": what do you think about including "symbolic" and/or "jizya" in this sentence? "Symbolic" because in the body we found out the personal tax (in addition to the regular tribute) is added because of the symbolic meaning (making it sound like the emperor accept the caliph's suzerainity), and "jizya" might help people familiar with the topic to grasp the symbolic meaning.
    • Good point, this has been added now
  • " while a Byzantine-instigated rebellion against the local Arab garrison began in Cyprus, which for over a century had been an Arab–Byzantine condominium" : as context, is there anything that can be linked about the condominium situation in Cyprus? Seems quite unusual given that the two powers fought each other a lot.
    • Done
  • allegedly wearing a cap with the inscription "Warrior for the Faith and Pilgrim": Since you said "allegedly", can we attribute the historical source that mentions this anecdote?
    • Done
  • Why does Sharahil ibn Ma'n ibn Za'ida link to Ma'n ibn Za'ida al-Shaybani? The name probably implies Sharahil is the son of Ma'n, and not the same person?
    • Of course Sharahil is Ma'n's son. But as we don't have an article, and are not likely to get one, for Sharahil, I preferred to link to his father. If it causes confusion, I can simply link after the "ibn".
      • Personally I'd just leave it unlinked - I think it's very unusual to link to someone's father when their article doesn't exist, and a reader unfamiliar with Arabic name convention might think that they're just the short and long versions of the same name. But I'll leave it to you to decide. HaEr48 (talk) 16:25, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'll leave it redlinked for now; I don't think there is enough material for an article on him, but I'll have a look. In the worst case, Ma'n's page could get a 'Family' Section, and we could link there.
  • Rashid then recalled his forces: Harun (instead of Rashid) for consistency?
    • Done
  • Poem by Marwan ibn Abi Hafsa in praise of Harun al-Rashid's 806 expedition against Byzantium: There is no mention of this poem in the article body, is it possible to add some prose so that there's a connection to the text? Especially if we could mention who Marwan was and when (how long after the campaign) he composed it.
    • I've had a look, and Marwan actually died in 797/8, so the poem was written for one of Harun's earlier campaigns. It is nevertheless indicative of the attitude presented by court panegyrists (and official propaganda), and shows the place that jizya played in the rhetoric and public consciousness of the Muslim world. I've expanded a bit on the role Harun in particular played here, and linked to the footnote. Al-Tabari (pp. 241-244) and El-Cheikh (pp. 96-97) provide a couple of poems with more direct references to Nikephoros, which can be substituted if necessary.
      • I'd prefer substituting it with a poem more directly related to the 806 campaign if it was available. Using earlier poem sounds like we're going out of our way to emphasize one point. HaEr48 (talk) 15:42, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • Done
  • "If Harun had taken the advice offered by some of his lieutenants and proceeded further west to sack major cities, he could have inflicted long-lasting damage on Byzantium": can we name the source of this counterfactual analysis here?
    • Done
  • Also, can the advice to continue west and the decision to ignore it be discussed in "campaign" section too? Especially if there were reasons given for not following up, or more details surrounding what Harun and his generals were thinking during the campaign
    • Done, plus a bit of rewrite/additions in that area.
      • I mean, can you consider adding the episode in the #Campaign section, because it also had to do with the course of the operation? 15:42, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
        • The problem is that where Treadgold gets it from are the (semi-mythical) legends attached to the siege of Herakleia: one of the border emirs who Harun asked for advice said that Herakleia was unimportant and that he should attack some large city elsewhere, whereas another emir praised Herakleia as a strong and important fortress. Treadgold (most likely rightly) takes this to mean that there were in reality advisors who recommended that Herakleia was unimportant (which it was, despite the hype of Harun's propagandists) and that the Caliph should attack something more vital to the Byzantines. I can't really figure a way of putting this inside the 'Campaign' section without it feeling like too much exposition, so I've added it as a footnote.
  • Arabische Eroberung 2.jpg: According to WP:PIC, in order to make the image larger than normal "the size should be specified as a value relative to the user's preferred base size, using the upright parameter rather than pixel values." Please do so.
    • Done
  • Is there a good map of the entire Abbasid and Byzantine territory together, for context? Maybe something like File:Abasside-empire-vers-820-es.svg?
    • I wouldn't consider that a 'good map', TBH. Droysen's map serves that purpose (hopefully). It may be cluttered as it tries to cover four centuries in a single map, but it is rather reliable.
      • I like Droysen's map too, but I think the downside is: 1) it appears too late in the article 2) as you said it is cluttered so it's not immediately clear to a new reader which part is relevant. I take your objection to File:Abasside-empire-vers-820-es.svg, but at least it immediately show the user where the Abbasid Caliphate and Byzantine Empire are, and that they're two major neighboring powers in Eastern Mediterranean. HaEr48 (talk) 15:42, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • Give me a couple of days, I am preparing a new map.
  • Re sources, how sure are we about the reliability and neutrality of the two old work (Brooks 1923 & Canard 1926)? Is there a more recent scholarship we can use?
    • Brooks (and Bury) wrote the broad narrative on the Arab–Byzantine wars that is still being used today. That remains reliable, because the main sources we know today are the same ones they used (Tabari, Masudi, Theophanes, etc); where details are in question, I have eschewed using them, but I find no problem relying on them (many modern sources still reference them directly BTW). On Canard, much as for Brooks, he was one of the pioneers in his field, is still widely referenced, and is among the most reliable historians I've ever come across. Plus, the topic he is being used in here is not one where the information or interpretation changes much over time. Ditto for his 1962 work, now added, which forms the basis for pretty much every modern narrative of the campaign.
  • I note Bosworth 1989 is actually direct reference to al-Tabari's 10th century work . But it's probably okay because nearly all of them appears alongside one or more other citations.

Thank you. HaEr48 (talk) 04:31, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the thorough review and the kind words HaEr48. I'll start dealing with your points, as with the above, tomorrow. Constantine ✍ 19:45, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Cplakidas: Thank you for your reply and adjustments I've commented to some of them above, please take a look when you have the chance. HaEr48 (talk) 15:42, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to support now, although I still recommend adding the geopolitical context map. HaEr48 (talk) 21:53, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Mimihitam

[edit]

I have a concern with regard to the title, "Abbasid invasion of Asia Minor (806)". Is this title used by historians or academic sources? Because I have some concerns with regard to the scope of the article, both geographic and temporal.

  • From a geographic perspective, the title is "invasion of Asia Minor". However, the geographic scope of the invasion also includes the island of Cyprus. Furthermore, if we include Abbasid retaliations in 807, the geographic scope extends further to Rhodes and even the Peloponnese on the Greek mainland.
  • From a temporal perspective, the title mentions "806", however the article also includes Abbasid retaliations in 807.

My concern is that the title is not representative of the events described and that it is not a title commonly used in academic sources, so I think the author should seriously reconsider the title and if possible back it up with the term used by historians. Thank you. Mimihitam (talk) 10:06, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mimihitam. As stated above, I based this article on the equivalent article in the Encyclopedia of the Hellenic World, which is written by academics (this is the author). So yes, the title is used by historians and academic sources. Regarding the scope, it does indeed spill over a bit into the years preceding and following the 806 invasion, but the scale of the latter (as well as the importance it is given in historical and literary sources) makes it clearly the 'main event' of this period; everything else either leads up to it or is a denouement from it. The same applies to the raids in Cyprus and Greece; these are subsidiary operations at best, and the former in particular is clearly subordinated to the main event.
Of course, if we had more information from our sources for the other years than already included here, we might rename and rescope to something like Abbasid–Byzantine wars (803–808). Inevitably, however, the sources provide more details about the exceptionally big 806 operation, and far fewer for the other years, when 'normal' warfare took place, as it had done, and would continued to do for about three centuries. Have a look at the length that al-Tabari, for example, devotes to this event compared to the others mentioned here. In titling the article thus, I (and Ms. Kiapidou before me) merely follow the sources. This is nothing exceptional, BTW; the article on the Siege of Constantinople (717–718) also discusses what came before the siege itself and what followed it, but we happen to have much more information about the main event; the Battle of Akroinon has more content on what happened before and after than about the battle itself, etc. etc. Focusing on a few salient, impactful (and rather better documented) points is an inevitable way to tell a story where little information is otherwise available. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 19:45, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your well-thought explanation :) Mimihitam (talk) 20:15, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome. Happy holiday season! Constantine ✍ 11:57, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 14 January 2020 [33].

Megarachne

[edit]
Nominator(s): Ichthyovenator (talk) 14:20, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A famous ancient "sea scorpion" once thought to be a giant spider, Megarachne and the previously made FA Jaekelopterus are by far the most visited articles on Eurypterids. The article as it is has gone through a GA review and a peer review and to my knowledge includes all relevant information on the animal. Ichthyovenator (talk) 14:20, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

[edit]
  • "suggest that it dwelled in fresh water and not in marine environments" Suggest "suggest" → 'indicates'.
Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:50, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Megarachne was similar to other eurypterids within the Mycteropoidea, a rare group known primarily from South Africa and Scotland that had evolved a specialized method of feeding known as sweep-feeding in which they raked through the substrate of riverbeds in order to capture and eat smaller invertebrates" To my eye you are trying to get too much into this sentence. Consider breaking it.
Split this sentence into three smaller sentences. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:50, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "different developmental stages of the animal throughout its life" Consider "throughout" → 'during'.
Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:50, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Megarachne also preserves a large and circular second opisthosomal tergite" I am not sure about the use of "preserves"; do you mean 'possessed' or similar?
Yeah, changed to "possessed". Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:50, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "of which the function" → 'the function of which'.
Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:50, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and the subtrapezoid-shaped heads" Delete "the".
Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:50, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "accessioned" is an odd word. Is there a more accessible word or phrase which could be used?
Changed "accessioned to" to "stored at". Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:50, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Caption: "Muséum d'Histoire naturelle" → 'Muséum d'histoire naturelle'.
Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:50, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a locality dated to" I am not sure that "locality" is the correct description. And would it not be easier to say 'which has been dated to' or similar?
Changed to "which has been dated to". Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:50, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "what possibly is" → 'what is possibly'.
Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:50, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "located between the two eyes in the center of the head" → 'located in the center of the head between the two eyes'.
Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:50, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Hünicken's identification relied heavily on X-ray microtomography of the holotype and additional hidden structures–such as a sternum and labium, coxae and cheliceral fangs–were also extrapolated from the X-radiographs" Recommend replacing "and" with a semi colon. Or even a full stop.
Went with a full stop. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:50, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "far exceeding the goliath birdeater" Delete "far". I don't think that being 12% larger can be characterised as "far".
Done. Also removed the "only" before "around 30 centimetres" as 30 cm is pretty huge for a spider. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:50, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The discovery quickly became popular and various exhibits with reconstructions of Megarachne servinei, based on the detailed descriptions, reconstructions, plaster casts and illustrations made by Hünicken, and gigantic spiders were set up in museums around the world." Could you have a relook at this sentence? It seems a little crowded and/or confused to me.
Changed it around a bit, is it better now? Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:54, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes.
  • "doubted by some arachnologists such as Shear et al. 1989, who stated" Comma after "arachnologists".
Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:54, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is stated that one reason for the specimen being originally identified as a spider was a "structure in front of the carapace [being] identified as spatulate chelicerae"; later it is stated that "discrepancies in the morphology of the fossil that could not be accommodated with an arachnid identity ... include ... spatulate chelicerae. I am confused.
Yes, that is very strange. Reading the source it appears that Hünicken did identify these spatulate chelicerae in the original description but that he noted then that they were unknown in any other spider. I've removed it from the list of features used to identify the fossil as a spider and noted that this was noted by Hünicken at the second mention. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:54, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "access only to the plaster casts" Is there a reason for the "the"? If not, delete it.
Removed "the". Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:54, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Moved this into a footnote. Not sure if its necessary to link to the compression-impression section of the fossil article since "compression fossil" is already linked, but I can if you consider it necessary. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:54, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. That's fine.
  • "and counterpart housed in a private collection" 1. 'and a counterpart'; 2. this is not the appropriate place to cover where the counterpart is currently located.
Done, and removed "housed in a private collection".Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:54, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:54, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "now accessioned to the Museum of Paleontology at the National University of Cordoba" You have already said this. One of them needs to go.
Removed the second one. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:54, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and consisting of" Do you mean 'and also consisting of'?
Yes, fixed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:54, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "but was in fact a large eurypterid" Delete "in fact".
Removed "in fact" and restructured the surrounding text a bit so that it flows better. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:54, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Megarachne and Woodwardopterus were concluded to be part of" → 'it was concluded that Megarachne and Woodwardopterus were part of'.
Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:54, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "(different developmental stages of the animal throughout its life)" See above.
Fixed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:54, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the sparse mucrones of Megarachne might be because of its age as Megarachne is significantly larger than Woodwardopterus" Comma after "age".
Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:54, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "showcases the relationship" Do you mean 'shows the relationship'?
Yeah, changed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:54, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The environment in which the fossils of Megarachne have been recovered in was" 2 x "in"; delete the second.
Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:54, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "along the coastal areas" Why "coastal areas" if it was "a freshwater environment"?
Removed the "coastal areas" part. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:54, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "would have allowed it to sweep-feed to rake through the soft sediment of the rivers" The expression "to sweep-feed to rake through" seems clumsy to the point that I am not sure if it is not a typo.
Yeah, I agree. Changed it to "... to sweep-feed, raking through ...". Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:54, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which covers a timespan from 306.9 to 298.9 million years ago" Delete "a timespan from".
Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:54, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "beginning to completely fuse with the northern continents" I am not sure that the word "completely” is necessary.
Probably not, removed "completely". Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:54, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "but also more or less developed uniformly" I struggle to understand what this means. (Possibly delete "more or less"?)
Removed "more or less", the source says "The Late Carboniferous flora was described by Archangelsky (1986, 1990) as being of low diversity but uniformly developed across the Gondwanan continent ...". Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:54, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Late Carboniferous climate of Gondwana was relatively cold and periglacial at points." Have you not just said this?
Oops, yes. Removed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:54, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A grand article. I enjoyed that. Looks as if a lot of work has gone into it. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:23, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! It was a pleasure researching and writing this one. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:54, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This method involved raking through the substrate" Delete "method".
Done! Ichthyovenator (talk) 13:48, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for those changes. All good, but with one minor follow up point above. I am supporting nonetheless. Really good work. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:49, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

[edit]

I endorse the comment, above, about the overall quality of the work, but I have a number of sourcing points to raise:

  • No spotchecks carried out, mainly because in many cases the given page ranges are too wide for this to be feasible. See individual comments, below.
  • Links:
  • Ref 1: the link is to the unpaginated online version, published 15 Feb 2005, not to the print version, published 22 March to which the page range applies. You should specify date rather than year, & remove the range. For greater precision you could use section numbers to specify which parts of the source you are citing.
This was one of those auto-generated refs, specified the date and removed the page range. Is it 100 % required to specify which parts are cited? That means I'll have to split up the citations and since this is the most-used source that requires some extra work (not trying to wiggle out of that, just making sure). Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:10, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 4: Books published in 1955 didn't have ISBNs. The one which you give is for a later edition, but I'm not clear which. WorldCat does not list Størmer among the various authors of this book.
Removed ISBN. Størmer is among the authors (link). Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:10, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Formatting
  • Ref 2: A page range of 19–99 is too wide for verification purposes, and should be made more specific for the particular information cited.
  • Ref 5: Page range given "44–8" should, presumably, be "44–48"?
Yes, fixed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 11:12, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 7: Page ranges again not specific enough
  • Ref 8: The source is 294 pages long, but no page reference supplied.
Added page number. Ichthyovenator (talk) 11:12, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 9: Can you clarify publisher, separate from title, and add retrieval date?
Done (I think). Ichthyovenator (talk) 11:12, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 10: Again, concern about width of page range.
Shortened page range to the pages from which information is actually cited (461 to 469). Ichthyovenator (talk) 11:16, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quality/reliability: No issues: sources seem to meet the required FA quality/reliability criteria.

Brianboulton (talk) 23:42, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton: I have adressed most of the issues above but I no longer have access to the sources used for ref 2 and 7 so I'm a bit unsure of how to proceed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 11:19, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
With regard to 1. above, splitting the refs is by far the best solution to aid verification, and I can't honestly think of an alternative. I realise it will be a lot of work, but I believe that with an article of this quality, it's worth doing.
Brianboulton I've split the citations of the source by the sections; that should be all the current points addressed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 21:07, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Re. 2, is it possible to find an alternative source for the information cited, if you can't specify the page in the current range?
I think WP:RX would be the way to go there. FunkMonk (talk) 14:08, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I found an alternate source and replaced source 2, just splitting the big source left to do now. Ichthyovenator (talk) 20:26, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Re. 7, I think we can let that go.

I'm sorry I can't be more helpful. Brianboulton (talk) 13:30, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A. Parrot

[edit]

This seems like a good article that may suffer from lack of reviews. I don't have a lot to add. It doesn't seem that much is known about this species, so I doubt there's anything missing from the article's coverage. I just have two prose points to add to Gog's:

  • "…the fossil had been misidentified as a large prehistoric spider." I think "was" works better here than "had been".
Sure sounds better, yeah. Changed to "was". Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:57, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "…but as a freshwater predator these would likely not represent prey items for Megarachne." This is a misplaced modifier. I suggest "…but as a freshwater predator Megarachne would probably not have fed on them."
Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:57, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A. Parrot (talk) 20:16, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Super Dromaeosaurus

[edit]

The article is very good and now it could perfectly pass this review without any changes, but I have some suggestions. You don't have to do them all since they are quite perfectionist, especially the links (as usual). Super Ψ Dro 12:04, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • I would link ornamentation, scale, appendage, spider, aquatic environment, anterior, posterior, dorsal, ventral, paleontologist, Argentina, order, plaster cast, arachnid, deposits, South America, family, genera, cladogram, fossil (all of these in the main text), genus, extinct, deposits, Argentina, species, spider, fresh water, South Africa, Scotland and South America (lead).
I'm not sure how much I should link of this to avoid Wikipedia:OVERLINK. Ichthyovenator (talk) 13:09, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I have probably exaggerated a bit. I have removed some of little importance. Super Ψ Dro 14:39, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Linked all these terms (I think). Ichthyovenator (talk) 16:42, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Explain carapace, appendage, parabolic, hastate and anteroedian.
Explained carapace, appendage, hastate and anteroedian. Not sure if I need to explain parabolic as it's already a description of a shape. Ichthyovenator (talk) 13:09, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. Maybe coxa should be explained as well. Super Ψ Dro 14:39, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, explained coxa. Ichthyovenator (talk) 16:42, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I thought that the coxa was the point of attachment of the appendage and the body, and that the leg segments were known as podomeres. Is the coxa a podomere? In that case, it would be preferable to specify that the coxa is the podomere that joins the appendage with the body, or more simply, the proximalmost leg segment. Super Ψ Dro 10:57, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So "limb segment" is technically correct, but yes the "coxa" is the part which connects the rest of the leg to the body. Went with "proximalmost limb segment". Ichthyovenator (talk) 14:47, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "National University of Cordoba" should be "National University of Córdoba", a minor detail.
Fixed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 13:09, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is rather my opinion and you don't have to do this, but I think "(303.7 to 298.9 million years ago (Ma))" looks odd with brackets inside brackets, I always try to avoid this. Maybe you could add a comma or remove the abbreviation, but you don't have to.
I agree, changed to a comma. Ichthyovenator (talk) 13:09, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "With length of a 33.9 centimetres" With a length of 33.9 centimetres?
Yes, fixed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 13:09, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You completely removed the "a". Super Ψ Dro 14:39, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently I did, fixed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 16:42, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Shear et al. 1989", "Selden et al. (2005)", "Lamsdell et al. (2010)" et al. should be italicized.
Italicized all instances of et al.. Ichthyovenator (talk) 13:09, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would put the comma before the note in the last paragraph in the history section, but that's up to you.
That looks better, yes. Ichthyovenator (talk) 13:09, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • You use both "palaeontologist" and "paleontologist", so remove one.
Fixed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 13:09, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps you could say somewhere that eurypterids and arachnids were closely related, preferably replacing the sentence in which it's said eurypterids and horseshoe crabs were related.
Of course. Ichthyovenator (talk) 13:09, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be a good idea to mention in some way that Megarachne was classified in Arachnida before being recognized as eurypterid in the same sentence. At that point in the article it's kind of obvious, but it's to emphasize that Hünicken's interpretation was not very unrealistic or absurd. Super Ψ Dro 14:39, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, noted this. Ichthyovenator (talk) 16:42, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the second tergite of mycteroptid Woodwardopterus" the second tergite of the mycteroptid Woodwardopterus?
Added "the". Ichthyovenator (talk) 13:09, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and the size of the specimens" I would say "and the size of their specimens".
Gonna have to disagree on this one, I think "the" works just as well and flows better than "their morphology and the size of their specimens". Ichthyovenator (talk) 13:09, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, no problem. Super Ψ Dro 14:39, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "unlike typical eurypterids (especially the swimming eurypterids of the suborder Eurypterina) a freshwater environment" add a comma after the brackets.
Added comma. Ichthyovenator (talk) 13:09, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it necessary to say again the years that the Gzhelian stage covered in the paleoecology section?
Not really, removed the second instance of the dates. Ichthyovenator (talk) 13:09, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Mycteropoids" The mycteropoids.
Fixed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 13:09, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Megarachne and the other members of its family, Mycterops and Woodwardopterus" I would remove "the" since Hastimima (the only other mycteroptid genus) is apparently different from these three.
Yes, this was written before we found out about Hastimima's classification as a mycteroptid. Changed "the" to "two". Ichthyovenator (talk) 13:09, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you could mention Hastimima somewhere in the classification to make it clear that there's no other member in the family Mycteroptidae. Super Ψ Dro 14:42, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I can fit it in explicitly in a non-cumbersome way, but I added "three of the four genera that constitute the Mycteroptidae" under Classification, so that it is clear that there would still be more than one mycteroptid. Ichthyovenator (talk) 16:42, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This should be enough. Super Ψ Dro 10:57, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No it isn't! Good catch! The illustration used in the article is based on more detailed figures in a paper in which the metastoma is visible but no, it isn't visible from the view presented here. Ichthyovenator (talk) 14:47, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator notes

[edit]

@Ichthyovenator: This seems mostly moribund with only one support and no activity in the last month. I've added it to the Urgents list, but it will be archived soon if it does not receive significant attention. --Laser brain (talk) 13:30, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's a shame. I've posted this on the WikiProject Palaeontology page, hopefully this will see some spike in activity. Ichthyovenator (talk) 14:23, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I did the GA review with FAC in mind, and I think the article looks even better now. Usually I don't support articles I've GA reviewed, but it would be a shame if it was archived. I wonder if A. Parrot has seen the replies above? I think the footnote could get a citation also. FunkMonk (talk) 13:40, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps Dunkleosteus77, who peer reviewed, has something to add as well. FunkMonk (talk) 13:41, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Link groups like [[Type species|type]] [[species]] should be avoided, per MOS:SEAOFBLUE
Removed this link group. Ichthyovenator (talk) 09:30, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That one - there are others. Please check throughout. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:11, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I've caught all link groups now. Ichthyovenator (talk) 11:27, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There's another in the lead. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:41, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I assume this was caught by IJReid then, unless I'm blind I can't see any link groups remaining there. Ichthyovenator (talk) 16:04, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Ma range in the infobox doesn't match that in the article body
Fixed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 09:30, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's a keel? What's a subtrapezoid? What's a tubercle? What's spatulate? As a non-expert I'm having some trouble following the description
Added explanations for these terms; linked "tubercle". Ichthyovenator (talk) 14:18, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • When was the holotype recovered?
The sources don't specify. Not sure if the date it was excavated is needed (date the holotype was found is for instance not included in the FA Apatosaurus article). Ichthyovenator (talk) 14:18, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we really need the specimen identifier in body text?
Not really but I don't see how it detracts from the article. Ichthyovenator (talk) 14:18, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The article is rather technical so I think anything we can do to cut unnecessary jargon would be helpful. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:11, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't say that the specimen identifier of the holotype specimen is unnecessary jargon, but yes I can see how it increases the overall technical feel of the article so I've removed it. Ichthyovenator (talk) 11:27, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some additional MOS work needed - examples include unspaced endashes (should either be spaced or be converted to emdashes) and linking (eurypterid is linked in the third body sentence but appears unlinked in the second)
Fixed the dashes and the linking of "eurypterid". Ichthyovenator (talk) 14:19, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Again, examples only. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:11, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest adding alt text
Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 14:34, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it considered normal for holotypes to be placed in bank vaults?
Probably not but there is no commentary in the sources on why it was deposited in the vault. Ichthyovenator (talk) 14:18, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This extinct group of chelicerates are more commonly known as "sea scorpions" and were closely related to arachnids, making Hünicken's initial misinterpretation of the fossil not very absurd as the groups are closely related" - this could be made more concise, avoiding repeating "related" twice. I notice this type of repetition elsewhere as well - for example a couple of sentences later with "despite only being represented by two known specimens, Megarachne represents". Suggest checking throughout.
Redid this part, should be fine now. Ichthyovenator (talk) 14:34, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please check throughout. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:11, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, makes sense. Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 14:23, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nikki, if you're not too busy, did you have anything to add? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:12, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ian, for a couple of the issues mentioned above (MOS and prose), the examples mentioned have been fixed but others elsewhere in the article remain. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:41, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
IchthyovenatorNikkimaria I've made some changes to the article to adjust for what was suggested by this review, and also make the article a bit more readable. Eg, I undid the change to describe what sub-trapezoid is since its just a shape, unlinked things like deposits or million years ago from lead etc, added conversion templates, and rewrote sections to remove excessive bracketing of terms. If these changes are approved by the nominator, I think they should suffice to fulfill the FA review points. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 23:25, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think some of your changes were definitely helpful, but others not so much - for example I don't think many non-expert readers would understand "keel" in this particular context, nor what the difference is between a subtrapezoid vs just a regular trapezoid. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:41, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for being so slow with these; I've been busy with the holiday season. I added back the descriptions of "keel" and "sub-trapezoid"; I'm a bit uncertain of what remains to be done after IJReid's edit to the article. Ichthyovenator (talk) 16:04, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate IJReid's efforts at simplification but think that in the process some needed contextual links were lost - for example to terms like order and family. Some style issues remain - for example, ENGVAR inconsistencies (center vs programme). I also think the Paleoecology section would benefit from some more reorganization and rephrasing. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:10, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed "programme" to "program" and reorganized the paleoecology section a bit, if more changes need to be done it would be helpful with specific examples. Ichthyovenator (talk) 14:05, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coord notes

[edit]

I was going to promote this but a few quick quirks that should be fixed, besides the few issues remaining for Nikkimaria above.

  • Why is there a "ScienceBlogs" entry for the Switek ref but not for the other Biology Letters souces (Selden and Lamsdell)?
Yes this is strange, fixed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 14:17, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Pinto ref has an error message displaying.
I can't see any error messages but I added a bit more information to the ref. Ichthyovenator (talk) 14:17, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Purely subjective but could we have the huge Eurypterid template be default collapsed? It kinda overwhelms the article. This one shouldn't hold up promotion - it's purely a "I don't like that big blob of something" at the end and is a personal pet peeve of mine.
Makes sense, made it default collapsed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 14:17, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
When the above issues (including Nikki's) are taken care of, looks good to promote. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:30, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Jens Lallensack

[edit]

Sorry for jumping in so late, but I think the prose needs some more work, and comprehensibility can still be improved. See comments below.

  • the mucrones (a dividing ridge – "mucrones" is plural, but you explain it in singular?
The explanation here is for the entire "the cuticular sculpture of the mucrones" and not just "the mucrones". Ichthyovenator (talk) 12:11, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Despite only two known specimens having been recovered – more concise would be either "despite only two specimens are known" or "despite only two specimens having been recovered", but not "known" and "recovered" in the same sentence.
Removed "known". Ichthyovenator (talk) 11:58, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • cuticular – needs link or explanation.
Linked. Ichthyovenator (talk) 11:58, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • since these features are characteristic of eurypterids. – this part of the sentence is superfluous imo, and I also don't fully understand: Does this mean that the other features that hint to an eurypterid identity are not characteristic, and why would they be less important for this reason?
This follows this quote from the cited source: "Many features of Megarachne indicate its assignment to the Eurypterida; for example, the cuticular sculpture of mucrones and raised lunules are characteristic of eurypterids". Ichthyovenator (talk) 11:58, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • of their prosoma (the head plate), hastate (e.g. shaped like a gladius, a Roman sword) telsons (the posteriormost part of the body, often taking the shape of a spike or otherwise ornamented in eurypterids) with paired keels (keel-shaped outgrowths) on the underside, and sub-trapezoid (vaguely shaped like trapezoids) heads with small compound eyes. – This has too many brackets, which makes it difficult to read, and not all of them are necessary.
    • For example, using the term "sub-trapezoid" and then explaining it ("vaguely shaped like trapezoids") seems unnecessary; I would just write "heads with small compound eyes that were roughly trapezoidal in shape".
Yes, this flows better. Changed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 12:24, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • The part often taking the shape of a spike or otherwise ornamented in eurypterids is additional information going beyond the basic explanation of the term. This is not well placed in a bracket.
Removed this part as it isn't very significant to Megarachne specifically. Ichthyovenator (talk) 12:24, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • hastate (e.g. shaped like a gladius, a Roman sword) telsons (the posteriormost part of the body – suggest to combine these two glosses, otherwise the text is quite fragmented.
Yes, combined. Ichthyovenator (talk) 12:24, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • suggest to write "hindmost" instead of "posteriormost" here and at other occasions in the article. You explain terms in glosses, but use new terms while explaining, which does not help as much with the understanding as it could.
Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 12:24, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sometimes it can be helpful to skip a term altogether and just "translate" directly.
Yeah, I know. Writing based on research papers lends itself to the finished article becoming very technical. Ichthyovenator (talk) 12:24, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Here and in other parts of the article: with "e.g.", do you possibly mean "i.e."?
Ah, yeah. Changed instances of "e.g." to "i.e.". Ichthyovenator (talk) 13:36, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • with paired keels (keel-shaped outgrowths) – why not simply "with paired keel-shaped projections", avoiding the gloss? Also, "outgrowths" sounds as it would have been a pathology, maybe "projections", "extensions" or "ridges" is better wording).
Went with your first suggestion, I suppose I wanted to keep the terms used by the eurypterid researchers themselves but keel-shaped projections gets the idea across just as well. Ichthyovenator (talk) 13:36, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gzhelian Age – age should not be capitalised.
Fixed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 13:36, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shear et al. – suggest to avoid this and use "and colleagues" throughout the article.
Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 13:36, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 2005, a second, more complete specimen (a part,[n 1] featuring the carapace and poorly preserved parts of the anterior body as well as coxae possibly from the fourth pair of appendages, and a counterpart[6]) was recovered – with the gloss, and a footnote (the only one of the article) explaining a term used within the gloss, it gets quite convoluted. This can be avoided. I suggest "In 2005, a second, more complete specimen consisting of a part and counterpart (the matching halves of a compression fossil) was recovered, preserving parts of the front section of the body […]". The footnote section can be removed then, making it simpler.
Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 15:33, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would avoid "anterior" completely and just write "front" to improve comprehensibility.
Replaced all instances of "anterior". Ichthyovenator (talk) 15:33, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Selden (2005) concluded that – This paper is not included in the references. Do you mean "Selden and colleagues (2005)"?
Yes, fixed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 15:33, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • were part of the same family – link family at first mention
Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 15:34, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The plant life consisted of pteridosperms such as Nothorhacopteris, Triphyllopteris and Botrychiopsis, and lycopsids Malanzania, Lepidodendropsis and Bumbudendron. – A bit of background seems necessary here. What kind of plants are these, trees?
Yes they were trees; added. Ichthyovenator (talk) 14:17, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This information is under "classification", where its placement in its family and its relation to its other members is discussed. The issue here is that it is quite possible that it isn't distinguishable from related species (it might represent a different ontogenetic stage), apart from some small differences which is noted in that section Megarachne is virtually identical to known parts of Woodwardopterus. Ichthyovenator (talk) 15:39, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 3 January 2020 [34].

New Rochelle 250th Anniversary half dollar

[edit]
Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 13:45, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about... another commemorative, of a somewhat small town and a fatte calf ...Wehwalt (talk) 13:45, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Jim

[edit]

Just a few nitpicks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:47, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Gertrude K. Lathrop designed the coin; she was chosen after work by Lorrilard Wise —why is one red-linked (twice) and not the other?
I thought Lathrop was more clearly notable, she did design two commemorative coins. I would be surprised if there are any other people who designed two commemorative coins of the classic (pre 1954) era who lack an article. I've added a redlink in lede for Wise.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:29, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • fattened calf—in the lead, but fatted calf subsequently
Fixed.
OK.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:29, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • who hailed from —A bit informal, makes them sound like rappers instead of people fleeing religious persecution in their homeland, which you might briefly mention
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:29, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:29, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • polished planchets,—needs a link, I think. I didn't recognise the word, since coins are struck from "blanks" here
Done. I think that's everything.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:29, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
All looks good, changed to support above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:31, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SN54129

[edit]
The fatte calfe rocks  :) just a couple of points/suggestions.
  • Perhaps an explanatory footnote explaining low-mintage issues? As a non-numismatic reader, I have no idea what this means. It's a shame we dn't have an article on the phenomena.
It's really just supply and demand, and I've explained it that way. There were then many coin collectors, and an issue of 5,000 pieces would be taken up more easily (and increase in value faster than, say, one of 100,000.
  • Umm, I'm not wholly convinced as to the relevance of the Cincinnati coin, but I'll defer to consensus on that one.
It's the non-existent anniversary part.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:36, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest breaking up y mid-1936, Congress had reacted to these practices...to have a complete set, perhaps recasting from "Adding protections into a new sentence".
Done slightly differently.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:17, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1936 was certainly a busy year; we are told (re. my above point) that Congress moved against dodgy practices "by mid-1936}}. In the preceding paragraph, we are told that—also in 1936—Congress itself authorised an "explosion" in issuements, and that two other coins were reissued. Are we to understand that these all happened in (approximately) the first six months of the year (prior to mid-1936)?
Yes, the last coin bills for the year were enacted on June 26. The last day of the congressional session was June 20. I'll play with it a bit. Really, all the abusive ones happened in the first quarter. I've reviewed the source, Flynn says the first one with protections was the Long Island Tercentenary half dollar, enacted April 13. (and the Cincinnati issue seems to be the last without, March 31 btw) But remember the design and minting state spread these out over the remainder of 1936 and into 1937, as in the New Rochelle issue.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:59, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Such protections were in the New Rochelle half dollar bill -->"The New Rochelle half dollar bill maintained these protections", perhaps, or something similar.
Recast a bit differently.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:17, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...the moving force behind the New Rochelle coin was the Westchester County Coin Club, including coin collectors Julius Guttag. That's a lot of coin; suggest losing that third one—in the context of the sentence, I think it's clear what kind of collector Guttag was.
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:17, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • planned the issue to avoid the abuses of earlier commemorative coins, perhaps "planned the issue to avoid the abuses that befell earlier commemorations", again, the earlier commemorations have been established by now.
    I know this is about a coin, I just wonder if the word needs to be used >100 times  :)
    Back anon Wehwalt, many thanks for this! ——SN54129 16:07, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Use of "coin" cut back by roughly a third, keeping in mind that some of the remainder are in quotes or proper names. Changed "commemorative coins" to "commemoratives".--Wehwalt (talk) 13:55, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've covered everything. Thank you for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:17, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Anything outstanding from your perspective, SN? Not an exhortation to declare support, just checking everything's been addressed. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:02, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've re-read it, Ian Rose and it's only got better since I was last here. To be honest—and I'm always slightly uncomfortable complimenting experienced FACers, as it could sound completely patronizing—but after I mentioned the number of coin mentions, it occurred to me that maybe I was being unreasonable. After all, it is about a coin, and Wehwalt has been around block a few times on the topic and no mistake  :) but, yes, if I can say, I think it's much tighter now, and with no loss of meaning. This is a nice series. ——SN54129 23:15, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is the sort of thing I would never have thought of, but will look out for in future articles.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:32, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I greatly enjoyed this article, which is a v. good read, evidently comprehensive, relevantly illustrated, and carefully sourced. I laughed aloud at the "less fortunate" provider of the roast beef. The only small drafting point I can manage to find is "William Rodman Pell 2d" right at the end. Is "2d" a regular form for "Jr."? I have seen "II" but not "2d", which looks a bit odd to my eye (and of course to an elderly British eye it conjures up tuppence in old money). Be that as it may, the article seems to me to meet all the FA criteria, and I am glad to add my support. – Tim riley talk 15:23, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I just rendered how it appeared in the newspaper re the second. Yes, at least in the past, I would associate that sort of affectation with money. Thank you for the review and support.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:32, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Some of the details in the infobox don't appear to be sourced anywhere
They are now.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:36, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, although where there are measures with conversions, could the footnote(s) simply be placed after both numbers rather than repeated? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:26, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:31, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fn11 uses a proxied link which is useless to anyone not at that particular institution, and there's not sufficient information in the citation to figure out what kind of source is being cited without access to that database. FN17 has more detail but is also proxied, and why does this one have a subscription-needed tag when 11 does not?
I've removed the proxy, put explanatory parentheticals and made things consistent on the subscription.
Er, looks like the proxy's still there? It's not just the ID you removed but also the prefix. Also for 13 is there a publisher that is not the database? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:26, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Re publisher, it's a ProQuest congressional page, no other publisher. Can you specifically tell me what needs to be removed? This usually gets done by a bot I think.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:29, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Essentially what happens is that a proxied link appends an institutional proxy to the initial part of the link, and sometimes also creates an alteration in format - for example li-proquest-com.mutex.gmu.edu unproxied would be li.proquest.com. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:56, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Much obliged. Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:23, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent in whether page ranges are abbreviated
Got that I think.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:20, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN50 has its italicization misplaced
Fixed.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:20, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the Duffield piece is uncredited, where are you getting that credit from?
It is the editor's column and he was the editor. It just doesn't have his name on that page.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:52, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
He is a numismatic expert who has written quite a bit on coins.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:52, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's everything, I think. Thank you for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:20, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
That's been adjusted, thanks to the good people at the Graphics Lab.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:31, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:55, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

  • The period before the parenthetical CFA in the lead should be moved to after the abbreviation.
  • Preparation: It probably wouldn't hurt to link Wise in the body, since Lathrop already has red links in both the lead and body.
  • Minor point, but if you're shortening page numbers in multi-page refs throughout, ref 44 would probably be 203–04. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:44, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I've done those things.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:44, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Ergo Sum

[edit]

No issues stand out to me. An interesting read. Ergo Sum 20:48, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review and support.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:32, 3 January 2020 (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) 3 January 2020 [35].

Apollo 13

[edit]
Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk), Kees08 (talk) 11:52, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about... the only Apollo mission people remember that isn't Apollo 11. The film cemented people's interest in this one, and they come here to find out what "really happened". Many people, including participants at a well-attended peer review, have aided in this. For the nominators, we think it's worthy of the star.Wehwalt (talk) 11:52, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support and comments from Jim

[edit]

This excellent article has obviously been well picked over at PR, I made only a handful of notes, none critical. A few comments for your consideration Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:58, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • combustible Teflon—I think this is a little misleading; although it's strictly true, Teflon is pretty difficult to get to burn except under extreme conditions, which, along with its physical properties, is probably why it was used on Apollo
  • Apollo 8 through 12—I might be wrong here, but I thought US usage in this idiom was Apollo 8 through to 12. Ignore if I've misremembered
  • But the accident could have damaged the SPS... But Apollo 13...—two consecutive sentences beginning with "But"
  • free return trajectory—should it be free-return?

Thanks for your review. Kees08 (Talk) 15:39, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]
  • No spotchecks carried out
  • Links to sources working, per the checker tool
  • Formats - the usual dreary nitpicks:
  • Quality/reliability: No issues that I can see. Meet FA criteria.

Brianboulton (talk) 15:37, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Nick-D

[edit]

It's great to see this important article at FAC. However, it seems substantially less developed than other recent Apollo Program FACs. I've read through the first section and, to be really frank, it's simply not up to FA standard as it's needlessly vague and there seems to be a missing 'background' section. An over-arching comment from this section and skimming the later sections is that the article seems to assume that readers are very familiar with the Apollo Program. As such, this is a regretful oppose for now. I'd be pleased to continue the review when the below are addressed, and similar edits are made elsewhere to ensure that the article stands on its own feet.

  • "mission controllers worked feverishly to bring the crew home alive" - I'm not sure that "worked feverishly" is the appropriate term here: the various accounts I've read have emphasised that the work was extremely intensive, but also very well organised (hence why it's often held up as an excellent example of crisis management). This term suggests it was chaotic.
I've cut that word. I'll look through the sources to find a better one.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:26, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "An investigative review board found fault with the testing of the oxygen tank and the fact that Teflon was placed inside it" - bit vague. Can you tweak this so it says what the review's conclusions where?
    Vague because it is in the introduction, for more detail the reader should read the section on it. Kees08 (Talk) 00:55, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    We have severe space constraints in the lede. That is designed to give the reader a quick précis of what happened without having to go through the lengthy chain of events.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:26, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    A formulation which is specific about the review's findings would be much superior (e.g., "An investigative review board concluded that the accident was caused by .... and recommended ... ). Nick-D (talk) 04:34, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've done that. See if it suits you. Really, it's a question of, what can we say in a thumbnail version that will make sense to the reader.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:00, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That looks good. I've slightly tweaked what looks like unclear wording here though. Nick-D (talk) 10:05, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article should start with a background section which puts this mission in context (e.g. what was the Apollo Program? What stage of the program did this mission form part of? What was the program's record for safety/mechanical reliability like, what planning and preparations had been undertaken for the kind of contingency which occurred during this mission? etc). I'm very familiar with Apollo, but found jumping straight into the biographic details of the crew without any background to be disorientating. I note that the other Apollo FAs start with such a section, with Apollo 11#Background probably being a good model.
    I like the Apollo 15#Background section as a model since it bears more similarity than the Apollo 11 mission. The Apollo 11 mission background is highly detailed, and adding that much into this already lengthy article would be a bit much. I do not have the sources with me to write the section but can get to it next week. Kees08 (Talk) 03:02, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll be interested in the end result, but given the complexity of this mission more is likely to be needed than a single para. Nick-D (talk) 04:18, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm away from home right now but there are ample sources online, and I should get to this within a few days. I'm going to try to make it as short as possible and then we'll see if a little give and take is needed. I am not certain we need to go back to the beginning in the background section. More, "Now that they've landed on the Moon, what are they going to do?"--Wehwalt (talk) 04:45, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I started something so we can begin iterating on it; feel free to change as needed. Kees08 (Talk) 03:33, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I've added something on the development of Mission Control that I think in general fulfills what Nick is asking for.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:23, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    This is OK, but there's a bit of an abrupt change in topic between the second and third paras. Nick-D (talk) 10:05, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I've rearranged the paragraphs and played with the text to make it less abrupt.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:48, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the topic of mechanical reliability, Chaikin notes various issues with earlier Apollos and records several astronauts noting the emphasis they placed on keeping missions to the shortest possible time to reduce the odds of a major fault cropping up - they were more than willing to take extreme risks (and they and their families prepared for the very real possibility that they would die on each mission), but it seems to have been accepted that there was always a high likelihood of something going seriously wrong and a lot of emphasis was placed on managing this issue which paid off spectacularly well in this mission, as well as in other missions.
I'm not sure what you are asking for here.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:32, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Material noting that the Apollo missions were intrinsically risky enterprises. Nick-D (talk) 10:05, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've added something on that to "Background".--Wehwalt (talk) 09:29, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "held a B.S. in mechanical engineering and an M.S. in aerospace science" - what's a BS and a MS in this context?
    Are there people that don't know what they are? We had a few comments about the article being too long and have been cutting down where we can, and I presume that at least most people know what those are. I don't think a wikilink is needed but added it anyways. Kees08 (Talk) 00:55, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The para starting with "According to the standard Apollo crew rotation" is a bit confusing, as it expresses who the crew were in the context of who they weren't (and, again, without any background on Apollo this makes for heavy going). I'd suggest flipping this around.
Let's see how this looks once a background section is in place. I'm trying to clear away a lot of this so we can focus on the larger items like that.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:28, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think it doesn't come as much from left field with the background section in place.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:19, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I added a short note on the standard rotation. Kees08 (Talk) 00:29, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • On that topic, what was the role of the backup crew?
I've dropped a footnote to explain that one.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:08, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest consolidating these two notes - they cover the same topic, and having two notes for one sentence looks a bit odd. Nick-D (talk) 10:05, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The flight directors in Mission Control during Apollo had a one-sentence job description, "The flight director may take any actions necessary for crew safety and mission success." - what was the role of the flight director? Where they the boss of everything during their shift? Did they themselves have bosses during missions, or were they the final decision-maker?
This has been addressed in the Background section.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:23, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good Nick-D (talk) 10:05, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • This might be covered later in the article, but the flight directors were supported by a large staff, with specialist teams of controllers and (in back rooms and/or on call) teams of subject matter experts also playing key roles. Given that the survival of the Apollo 13 crew was largely due to the excellent system in place to handle problems, this should be explained. From a quick skim, the Training and preparation section doesn't seem to cover how Mission Control also prepared for the mission.
I've added something on this in Background.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:23, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good Nick-D (talk) 10:05, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments thus far, I will go through and respond or address as needed, percolating changes through the article as required. Kees08 (Talk) 00:55, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks also. If you want to act on the assumption that your comments will be addressed, and keep going, it might save time later.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:45, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll keep going (as I am confident the above will be resolved)

  • "The Saturn V used to carry Apollo 13 to the Moon" - note what a Saturn V was
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:53, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would be worth noting in either the 'Launch vehicle and spacecraft' or the 'background' section that the CM and LM were essentially hand built and their production and testing was very closely supervised, including by the astronauts, due to the need for them to work almost perfectly in extreme conditions for a prolonged period. NASA went to great lengths to ensure they were as safe as they could be. How the bug which led to the disaster slipped through the testing could be noted here.
Isn't that explained in the investigation section? I'm not sure what you want here that wouldn't be a (lengthy) repetition of that.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:28, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Nick-D (talk) 10:05, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and to spread the Apollo missions over a longer period of time" - why was this done? (for budgetary reasons, or was it a measure to improve safety and planning, or both?)
Looks like budget and I've added a bit there. This could easily be shortened to "budgetary reasons" if you think what I wrote is long.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:20, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first para of the 'Training and preparation' could note that much of the training was devoted to simulating the responses to technical problems, including major malfunctions. It could also be noted here or in the Astronauts section that the three crew were used to solving difficult and dangerous technical problems under pressure given their previous roles as test pilots.
I've added a bit on simulations, which is meant to address the comment immediately below as well. I'm not sure we need to go into what test pilots do to that extent, there is a link, and I'm not sure we have that luxury of space.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:19, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The excellent article from IEEE notes that the astronauts' test pilot backgrounds were a key reason they survived (as it prepared them to do some very complicated things while under great pressure). Nick-D (talk) 10:05, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Got it. And agree with the excellence of the article.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:59, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • As noted above, the training the Mission Command team undertook could also be noted.
See above.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:19, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This looks good, but I'd suggest that the 'Training and preparation' section note the planning which went into preparing to use the LM as a lifeboat after a mission control simulation ended in failure - the IEEE article stresses that the development of checklists to make this work was hugely important as there was only a short time to save the crew after the explosion and the procedures couldn't have been developed in time without it. Nick-D (talk) 10:05, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've added something on that.
  • "to setting up the ALSEP scientific instruments" - briefly note what these were
I've added a brief mention that they were to be emplaced and left on the Moon, though I honestly think it's clear from context.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:53, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've tweaked this a bit - the name of the Apollo Lunar Surface Experiments Package seems helpful. Nick-D (talk) 10:05, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Included.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:35, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Apollo 13 timeline.svg is excellent, but the details in it don't seem to be sourced anywhere. I'd suggest checking this against the NASA timeline or similar and adding a reference.
I used this reference (Orloff & Harland). There are a number of minor (at most two seconds) discrepancies and the fourth midcourse correction gives a larger discrepancy. I'd hate to lose this image.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:07, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The good news is that is this is a SVG file, it's fairly easy to edit with Inkscape or similar. Nick-D (talk) 10:13, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at the Mission Report, page 3-2, all the figures hew to that except MCC4. That should read "137:39:52". It looks like the the minute and second figures were copied from the figure immediately on the left. If that could be changed (I do not know how), then the entire thing could be sourced to the mission report.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:33, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've made a request on this at Commons' Graphic Lab, here.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:00, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's been changed and I've added the source to the image page at Commons. So I think this is resolved.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:24, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this looks great. Nick-D (talk) 10:05, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "followed by a normal translunar injection " - not sure about the word 'normal' here given that a translunar injection is pretty unusual! 'Standard' perhaps?
I just cut the word "normal". There weren't any problems, and that really is all "normal" is intended to convey.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:52, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sentence beginning with "After TLI, Swigert" is very long and complex and a single-sentence para. I'd suggest splitting this.
Split.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:52, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's a "hybrid trajectory"?
I've tried to say why they used it.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:28, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thi looks good Nick-D (talk) 10:05, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "including changing the attitude of the craft to facilitate photography of Comet Bennett" - is "altitude" the right word here? (should this be something like "orientation"?)
Done that.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:53, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Attitude is the correct word but do not feel strongly about it. Should probably remain attitude though. Kees08 (Talk) 17:16, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I';ve restored "attitude".--Wehwalt (talk) 18:00, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • so did controllers supporting him in the "back room" - this is the first time the "back room" of experts is mentioned, and what it is isn't explained. As noted above, the article should explain this structure given that it was very important to the survival of the crew.
Wehwalt addressed this in the background section. Kees08 (Talk) 00:37, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good Nick-D (talk) 10:05, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Mission rules required all three fuel cells to be working if a lunar landing was to be attempted" - this has already been noted
Gotten rid of.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:28, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a randomly-placed comment, Chaikin notes that the crews of Apollos 11 and 12 were told by the head of NASA that they would fly the next mission if they had to abort their missions (to encourage them to not take unnecessary risks), but this promise wasn't made to later crews - this might be worth noting.
I'm not certain it needs to be there. It's basically something that didn't happen and we lack space for all the things that did happen.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:10, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Nick-D (talk) 10:05, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the spacecraft slowly drifted off course" - do we know why? (was this due to gasses venting from the damage, etc, or minor inaccuracies with the calculations of gravitational fields?)
It was due to the fact that the LM's sublimator, to cool the equipment, had a very slight propulsive effect that made no real difference in a normal mission, but did when no engine was being used for long periods. I'm not sure this needs to be conveyed to the reader.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:53, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough Nick-D (talk) 10:05, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:56, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "President Nixon cancelled his appointments, phoned the astronauts' families, and drove to NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland, where Apollo's tracking and communications were coordinated" - did Nixon devote himself 100% to Apollo 13 as this suggests?
I don't think it suggests he devoted himself full-time to Apollo. He did go to Goddard, which he didn't have to do, he could have been briefed at the WH by Anders and Collins. There's a story here and I've looked at the Presidential Daily Diary here. It looks like he spent at least three hours on Apollo 13 on April 14. I could delete the "his" in "cancelled his appointments" if it helps.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:03, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'd suggest doing that Nick-D (talk) 10:05, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:40, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The rescue received more public attention than most spaceflights to that point, other than the first Moon landing on Apollo 11" - should this be "The rescue received more public attention than any spaceflight other than the first Moon landing"? (the "most" doesn't seem to fit in with the "other than")
Fixed.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:56, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "With both SM oxygen tanks emptying, and with other damage to the SM, the mission had to be aborted" - as a fact, this is the third time this has been stated. However, am I right in thinking that the intent of it being noted in this section is that the review board endorsed the rule and decisions which led to the mission being aborted? If so, I'd suggest tweaking this accordingly.
Change to avoid mentioning the fuel cells.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:28, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did the review or subsequent proceses cover the crisis management and, if so, make any findings on it?
Yes. I've added something there.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:56, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good Nick-D (talk) 10:05, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It has been repeatedly called, "NASA's finest hour"" - can you say by whom? The three sources given here are all linked to NASA (two from NASA itself and one from Boeing), so attribution is significant.
This seems to be a pretty broadly used term, and was in the 1995 film in modified form. I haven't been able to find anything that really discusses the use of the phrase, and short of that, I don't see what we can do but repeat sources that use it. A google search showed the BBC using it, if it's a help. It doesn't seem exclusive to NASA.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:55, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Added a citation to Chaikin Kees08 (Talk) 00:01, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can more be said on how historians and other experts regard this mission?
I've added something on historian views. Kees08, if you have Chaikin handy, could you add something appropriate from him?--Wehwalt (talk) 18:00, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
He did not have a historical view of the mission in his book, but I added a note in about Nixon's advisers. Kees08 (Talk) 00:01, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is excellent Nick-D (talk) 10:05, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it possible to adjust the 'Popular culture and media' section to be a thematic discussion of how this mission has been portrayed rather than a listing of portrayals?
We'd have to get that from somewhere or it would be WP:SYNTH. I'm not aware of a source that says how the pop cult depiction of Apollo 13 has been over time.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:28, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I'm a bit surprised that no-one has written a PhD or book on how the Apollo program has been portrayed in popular media though. Nick-D (talk) 10:05, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Has the management of Apollo 13 been used prominently as a case study of crisis management? The Australian PM recently cited in in a speech as being a good example for the public service to follow ([36]), though he seems to have been referring to the movie!
I see some crisis management simulations (Deloitte) and essays online. I don't see much by way of commentary on them, which I feel should be a prerequisite for use. At least when we mention a film, it's inherently notable and has an article (or in the case of a TV episode, the series does). Not as sure about these.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:19, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK, this is sensible: random essays by consultant firms and things prime ministers remember from movies don't seem useful. Nick-D (talk) 10:05, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should only cut back by a few. Materials on Apollo are traditionally well-illustrated, whether books or articles. The biggest thing now is the mission control additions. Kees08, can you start a framework and I'll add on to it?--Wehwalt (talk) 21:56, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've pruned the images modestly. I think we've covered or addressed everything to some extent except matters in which we've asked for clarification. Kees08, could you look it over and change anything you feel needs changing before we ask for a second look?--Wehwalt (talk) 15:23, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The photos look good now. Nick-D (talk) 10:05, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Checked over it, changes look good to me. Kees08 (Talk) 00:57, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Nick-D: Think we are ready for you to take another look at this when you have time. Kees08 (Talk) 06:00, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping. I'll have a proper read either tonight or tomorrow, and have struck the oppose on the basis of my loose monitoring of the article. Nick-D (talk) 09:28, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As some extra comments" (comments on responses to my comments are above)

  • "The general public had grown apathetic towards the space program and opposed spending on high-tech government programs" - when was this?
  • "The S-IC stage's engines were rated at 440,000 newtons (100,000 lbf) less total thrust than Apollo 12's, though they remained within specifications." - is this necessary? If so, the wording is slightly confusing - did the engines generate 440,000 Newtons, or was this the difference between what they generated and Apollo 12's? Nick-D (talk) 10:05, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The latter. I've tried to clear that up. Someone more technical than me might want to look at it.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:25, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've slowly read it through and the way it reads now seems more coherent, like it tells a story, in the framework of crewed space flight from 1961 to 1972. At least so it seems to me. I think it is considerably improved, so thank you.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:24, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support My comments are now all addressed. Thanks for engaging with them in a constructive and positive way. Nick-D (talk) 04:46, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for caring enough to stand up for what you knew needed to be done.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:52, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Most of my points were addressed at the PR, and the article has tightened since then. Just one point: in the Lead you don't need "(KSC)" as the abbreviation isn't used again until the body when it has the full term to explain it. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 18:47, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the review and support.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:52, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Hawkeye7

[edit]

I looked at this one already at PR, but have an issue:

This says otherwise. I gather this is from an interviiew with Duke. But how do we account for the contrary information, that I've seen in other sources as well?--Wehwalt (talk) 13:22, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've cut where he got it from.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:30, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is the interview with Duke:
So about, I guess, 2 weeks or 3 weeks before flight, our son Tom was (let’s see now, that would be 1970)—he was 3. And he had a little friend named Paul House and—who was the son of some good friends of ours down in Houston. An architect. And so we were off for the weekend with the Houses. And sure enough, we came back a week later and Suzanne House called and said, “Paul has got the measles.” I said, “Oh Lord.” And anyway, I caught the measles from Paul, this little 3 year old.
Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:40, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Added, though I've avoided the name drop. The person is likely still alive.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:56, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support My only suggestion (and it is no more than that) is to move the Mission insignia and call signs section up to before the Launch vehicle and spacecraft section. This puts the naming in chronological order, and that way, they are explained before they appear in the narrative. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:32, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review and support. Let me play around with the positioning of the mission insignia etc.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:53, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
Wow, that is a lot of images:
  • The image is not detailed enough to really make out the story, though I can make out words such as the astronauts' names. It would be hard to say anyone's commercial interests are put at risk. Even if the newspaper was copyrighted, not all from that era were.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:15, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like each image is pertinent to the section.
Is that huge gallery really necessary?
@Wehwalt: Kees08 (Talk) 22:15, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'd rather cut it back, say to six or eight, rather than eliminate it entirely. It is below the text of the article and doesn't interfere.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:43, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Only one ALT text. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:12, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As a side note I made a request to fix all the broken links at Commons similar to these. Won't be able to automatically perform them all but should be able to get more than I could ever do on my own. Kees08 (Talk) 22:15, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Thanks for the review, sorry there were so many issues I thought I had gone through them all and must have misremembered. I believe I took care of everything except the gallery note, which Wehwalt may work on. Kees08 (Talk) 22:44, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from JennyOz

[edit]

Hello, Wehwalt and Kees08, I haven't seen the movie. My review is very much a layperson's. It's a mixture of MoSsy gnome stuff plus a few minor comments where I felt links and tiny expansions might be warranted. I did think of actioning some of the minor things myself but decided best all left to your call...

Done,without the hyphen.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:06, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:15, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • have to fire him - I think the 'on the spot' is needed here
Yes.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:15, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • monitoring telemetry from the spacecraft - wlink telemetry
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:15, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apollo 9 commander James McDivitt believed meetings that required a member of the flight crew were being missed, so for Apollo a third crew of astronauts was added, known as the support crew. - from Apollo 7?
There was one for Apollo 1 and also for the planned subsequent flights pre-fire. I think "for Apollo" is fair enough.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:15, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apollo 9 commander James McDivitt - Reads oddly with "Apollo 9 commander leading" if first time there was a support crew was Apollo 7... perhaps 'James McDivitt , who later commanded Apollo 9, believed
This is fair enough. This was pre-fire, so McDivitt was to command the second Apollo mission at that moment.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:40, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • believed meetings that required a member of the flight crew were being missed - does this mean the meetings weren't held or a crew member was missing? Was the crew member not invited or did they not bother?
I've expanded this. It's because Apollo facilities were all over the place and the astronauts had to train, too.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:40, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The plan was to devote the first of the two four-hour lunar surface EVAs to - spell out and wlink Extravehicular activity (EVA)
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:00, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not that I can see. It's not linked in Apollo 14, either, which went there (more or less).--Wehwalt (talk) 16:44, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done at "The structure to fly the flag"--Wehwalt (talk) 19:06, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • integration into the Apollo 13 vehicle.[81][76] - ref order
Reversed.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:05, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • such as Fra Mauro, to be reached..[85] - remove spare period
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:05, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Swigert initially thought that a meteoroid might have struck the LM, but he and Lovell quickly realized there was no leak - does this allude to leak from any impact damage?
Yes. I think it's pretty clear.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:05, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • checked the status of the three fuel cells, and found that two of the three were dead. Mission rules forbade entering lunar orbit unless all three fuel cells were operational - reduce mention of "three"? eg found that two of the three were dead
Done slightly differently.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:56, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedures for using the LM as lifeboat - 'a' lifeboat
Massaged away.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:56, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • crew was told that the S-IVB had impacted - move wlink up to here from below at Aftermath "vehicle's S-IVB (the Saturn V's third stage)"?
Done with some variation as I inserted the link on reference to the third stage.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:38, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • took their consoles for the PC+2 procedure - took 'to' their consoles?
I think this is OK in AmEng.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:38, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • light glinting off the many pieces of debris accompanying - no mention of any debris before?
I've added that.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:38, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • device as "the mailbox." The - move period to after quote marks
OK.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:37, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think we're OK on this. I'm reading "condensation there may have been being equipment panels" as the subject of that clause.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:48, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • there was great tension because of fear - insert "at Mission Control"?
Done, though I've recast the sentence a bit.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:53, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Odyssey regained radio contact and splashed down safely - ref 121 IEEE part3 gives weight to the next tension after contact regained... waiting to see if parachutes would deploy, worth adding?
I'm not sure it's necessary. We have to summarize somewhere.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:53, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Presidential Medal of Freedom the Apollo 13 - add missing 'to'
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:35, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:45, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:45, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • a report was written - this is not clear to me, does it mean the problem was documented?
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:45, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • to counteract pogo vibrations - oscillations?
Kees08 is better acquainted with such things than I, so I'll draw their attention to this.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:59, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think "to counteract pogo", "to counteract pogo oscillations", and "to counteract vibrations caused by pogo" would all be appropriate, so I just picked one. Feel free to pick any other. Kees08 (Talk) 14:16, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • and Odyssey is currently on display - not meant to use "currently"?
I think if they moved it, there are enough interested editors that it would be updated.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:59, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Milt Heflin - wlink (and authorlink)
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:59, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We refer to Apollo 20 so long before that I think "more" imposes on the reader's memory. I'd let it stand as is. The reader doesn't need Apollo 20 to understand the existing text.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:48, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "emphasized by the mission's motto, Ex Luna, Scientia (From the Moon, Knowledge)" v. "The motto, Ex luna, scientia means "From the Moon, knowledge";" - consistent caps?
Made consistent.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:58, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • and is now in the Capt. James A. Lovell Federal Healthcare Center - and 'it' is now
It's probably an ENGVAR thing, but it feels OK to me.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:43, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:43, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:43, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • saying it was "fictitious and in poor taste." - move period outside quotes
Yes.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:35, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:56, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note 4 (248,577 mi)at 7:34 pm - add space before "at"
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:11, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:11, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note 5, Hans M. Mark - wlink
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:11, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sources, Lovell, Jim / Lovell, James - swap alpha order
Did that.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:33, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gallery, Swap orders to be chronological? eg "Mission Control celebrates the successful splashdown" before "The crew on board the USS Iwo Jima following splashdown"
Done, more or less.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:48, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Caption "Replica of the plaque with Swigert's name..." - should this be mentioned in prose, or explain plaque with wlink to Lunar plaque
Linked in caption.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:48, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:03, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Did this one.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:11, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

JennyOz (talk) 15:38, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the very thorough review. We've done or responded to everything except I've left the "pogo" vibration vs. oscillation for Kees08.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:03, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
...which he's now done.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:28, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Off topic mostly, but is there a tool to detect British English? I found two more instances at a limited glance. Kees08 (Talk) 14:09, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I ran a script I found in my sidebar, thus, then reverted myself. It created an error and I don't agree with "improvization". But there may be something you can use there.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:32, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks both for considering my comments above. Just a few last nitpicks and questions...

  • I can't see where we say they moved back through the transfer tunnel into the CM from the LM lifeboat
They were back and forth quite a bit. The CM was not uninhabitable and they used it for sleep, etc, plus they seemed to often be fetching items from the CM (food, LiOH canisters)--Wehwalt (talk) 09:43, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Review board" subhead - maybe add 'findings'
But it also covers the establishment of the review board.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:01, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Only 3 alts, intentional?
I see Kees08 has added some.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:01, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • New drink bags that were attached inside the helmets and sipped from as the astronauts walked on the Moon - because they didn't walk, maybe 'inside the helmets and to be sipped from'
Done slightly differently.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:04, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nixon - is it worth noting (as in Apollo 11 with Borman) that Bill Anders was Nixon's appointed NASA liaison officer? (Ref 141 Nixon Foundation)
Anders had more of a connection with 11 as he was the backup CMP. I don't feel that he's worth mentioning, though he certainly briefed Nixon, watched the splashdown with him.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:54, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • service propulsion system - possible wlink?
I've linked and also capped to be consistent with other components of the Apollo CSM.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:43, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

some minor inconsistencies in units used, abbrevs, order, spelling

  • liquid "supply of 5 US gallons (19 l)" v. "was 0.2 liters of water per person"
I've flipped the first one.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:01, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

distances - large are mostly kilometers (mi), except:

  • 180,000 nautical miles (210,000 mi; 330,000 km)
  • and 6.5 km (3.5 nmi)
  • 100 km (60 mi)
  • sank 10 kilometers to the bottom
The last two I've done. The first one was in the article when we started work and I am inclined to let it stand rather than deprive the reader of information. The second one is a sea distance and the use of nmi is proper.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:39, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

smaller -

  • "0.3 meters (a foot)" v. "holes 3.0 metres (10 ft) deep" v. "at least 5 centimetres (2 in)"
I felt "a foot" read better than saying "1 foot". I've gone to US spelling on the third one, so no need to change the second one.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:06, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

times - most 24hr, except:

  • Earth at 7:21 pm EST
  • at 9 pm local time
  • 7:34 pm EST (00:34:13 UTC)
  • 02:13:00 PM EST (19:13:00 UTC) - PM?
I've lower cased the last one and stripped the leading zero. I think we are consistent in 24 hour time for UTC, which is conventional, and are not obliged to use 24 hour clock for Eastern time. I changed 9 to 9:00 and I don't see anything inconstant in taking it to seconds for something as exact as the timing of a rocket launch.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:37, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

other

  • consistent caps on the coloured teams "Gene Kranz, White team" v. "Kranz's White Team"
I've standardized with lower-case "team"s but could live with it the other way too if anyone wants to change it.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:30, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • tank caps eg "when Oxygen Tank 1 ran dry" I see when worded completely they are capped as a proper name but elsewhere tank not capped except this "oxygen in Tank 1 was consumed" - remove cap T on this one?
Yes, that is how we are trying to do it and I've made that change.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:06, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • consistency in logical quotations - there are 8 occurrences of ." (eg when their lives were on the line." ) Leave it to you to decide where LQ needed.

I reckon that's it from me. Thanks again, JennyOz (talk) 04:59, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Except as noted, those things are done. Thank you for going through with a fine-tooth comb. If I had been more careful, you would have had less to do.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:39, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, sorry I haven't been able to get back to this sooner (fires). I have much enjoyed this review. Thanks for the tweaks and I am happy to support. JennyOz (talk) 00:48, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NBSPing

[edit]

I think I got most of the WP:NBSPs,[37] but please carefully check that I didn't break any files or refs. Space flight articles are NBSP-dense. Recently <ahem> a GOCE reviewer on a TFA criticized that we should also provide NBSPs on dates. Disagree, not going there. I didn't look at anything else in the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:33, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:47, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If some GOCE type complains down the road that I didn't get them all, tell 'em you get what you pay for :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:50, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I will indeed :) --Wehwalt (talk) 00:39, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To quote Alan Shepard when he finally made it to Fra Mauro, "it's been a long way, but we're here". Unless there's something someone wants to insist upon, I think we're good to go.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:39, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note

[edit]

I removed a few duplinks that were in close proximity to the initial links, but have left a few others that seemed to be spaced well apart, given it's a reasonably long article -- you might check for yourselves though and rationalise where you can. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:29, 3 January 2020 (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 Ealdgyth via FACBot (talk) 28 January 2020 [38].

James Humphreys (pornographer)

[edit]
Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 09:17, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An insalubrious character, James Humphreys was a peddler of mucky mags, a strip club owner and a pimp. In order to carry on his business in the 60s and 70s he spent thousands on bribing the Dirty Squad, as the Obscene Publications Branch of the Met were called. Cars, cash, jewellery and holidays ensured the money kept rolling in from his Soho porn empire. Then it all went wrong and Humphreys used his records of bribes to get a shorter jail sentence after beating up his wife's lover. Thirteen bent coppers were banged up because of his evidence. This is a new article that's recently gone through GA. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 09:17, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review—pass

[edit]

Per previous review. buidhe 13:55, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Buidhe, I'm much obliged to you. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 16:42, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative Oppose by Fowler&fowler; looking to support, given progress

[edit]
Extended content
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The first FAC was archived on 2 January 2020, and a discussion was continued on the Talk page. This article has seen just one edit since. The GAC was conducted long before the first FAC was archived. I have not had time to even get much beyond the lead. The nominator made no effort to ping me. Surely that is not in consonance with WP:FAC rules. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:51, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please point out exactly where any action here "is not in consonance with WP:FAC rules". I am sure that the @FAC coordinators: will explain the basics to you, and that your oppose is unactionable, given there is no "specific rationale that can be addressed". And in future, please WP:AGF. - SchroCat (talk) 16:09, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This article has a major blind spot, a major gap: that of sexual exploitation and abuse of young women. He did that his entire life. There is no mention anywhere in the article. The article deadpans its way through. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:11, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We are clear as to exactly what he did. If you wish to provide reliable sources that directly link Humphreys to any additional exploitation or abuse (above the 'normal' levels of the sex industry), please provide them. - SchroCat (talk) 16:14, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

— Fowler&fowler 's reply at 16:29, 12 January 2020‎ — continues after insertion below

(edit conflict) The point is is that for that information to be included, we would need a specific source that directly and explicitly links Humphrey's to the exploitation of, etc. No-one (I'm sure) disagrees with your point in principle, but Wikipedia cannot be seen to make the link independently to the sources. That would be both original research and synthetic. The most that we could have without such a source is a (probably single sentence) piece of context in which it is noted that the 60s was a decade in which female rights came to the for, but so did pornography (or something). But it would be part of the general background rather than accusing Humphrey's personally. ——SN54129 16:37, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Where is that background? There are books written on sexual exploitation in Soho in the 1960s and 70s, often not just of underage women, but foreign women, who were more vulnerable. Where is there any mention of that? There are apparently "normal levels" of sex abuse in the porn industry (according to the nominator); there are also "normal levels" of corruption in the police. The article is entirely about the breaches of the latter. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:42, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
DO YOU HAVE ANY SOURCES THAT STATE HUMPHREYS WAS DIRECTLY RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY EXPLOITATION OR ABUSE? - SchroCat (talk) 16:46, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Who is "We?" And "additional?" Where is there any mention of sexual exploitation or abuse? Are you saying your article is comprehensive about sexual exploitation and abuse of young, and even underage, women for which James Humpherys was directly or indirectly responsible? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:29, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"We" is Wikipedia, (i.e.: the article is clear). Do you have any sources that state Humphreys was directly responsible for any exploitation or abuse (above the 'normal' levels of the sex industry)? If so, please could you provide them. - SchroCat (talk) 16:33, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What are the "normal" levels in the sex industry? I have no idea. Your article makes no explication of these standards. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:36, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you have no idea, how are you basing an oppose on it? The article links to various other articles which deal with the wider social impacts of the sex industry. I think we'd be going well outside the limits of a biography if we start looking at the social impact of pornography in this article.
So we're back to the question again: do you have any sources that state Humphreys was directly responsible for any exploitation or abuse (i.e. those that fall outside any general coverage that appears in the articles linked from this one)? - SchroCat (talk) 16:41, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I was alluding to the use of "normal" without telling us what constitutes that notion of normal under which James Humpherys was engaging in sexual exploitation. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:46, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any sources that state Humphreys was directly responsible for any exploitation or abuse? - SchroCat (talk) 16:49, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
F&F, you should also oppose because the article makes no mention of the Sociology of punishment or imprisonment either. ——SN54129 16:52, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If a man was a warden at Auschwitz and there is no source for his directly killing the inmates. Can we nominate a biography of his to FAC that does not tell us about the context, about what went on in Auschwitz? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:22, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wut. ——SN54129 17:32, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Take the suprious and straw men discussions elsewhere. Do you have any sources that state Humphreys was directly responsible for any exploitation or abuse? I am going to disengage from this line you are pushing now. I consider it increasingly disruptive as it is outside the scope of this biography. The socio-economic impact of pornography and the sex industry is dealt with in article linked directly from this one. Should you have any constructive comments to make about the article, I will deal with them, otherwise I have better things to do. - SchroCat (talk) 17:33, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
How is the latter half of the second paragraph in the Later life section a comprehensive summary of this report in The Independent? The Independent article says, "His wife, June, 59, who often acted as a maid to the prostitutes, forced the women to pay such high rents that they frequently had to work 12 hours a day, seven days a week to meet her demands, Southwark Crown Court in south London was told. ... The judge said he accepted they did not coerce or corrupt the women they used, but 'on any view the financial arrangements for them were extortionate'. Humphreys, of West Hampstead, north-west London, admitted living on immoral earnings; his wife, charged under her maiden name of Packard, admitted aiding and abetting him."? I have many more sources ... Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:11, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is actually a good point to make, and I've added something about the amount of time the women worked. - SchroCat (talk) 22:20, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As long as those sources aren't memoires of retired peelers, that's fine  :) ——SN54129 18:14, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, Serial Number, that's what comes of writing articles on what some people describe as "hobby topics". If you choose to do that, you'll end up being crucified here because you haven't written an article on a "vital" topic. It's that sort of mindset that makes for a less than smooth review process. - SchroCat (talk) 18:17, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It has nothing to do with either hobby or vital, and everything to do with a slanted, sanitized, and incomplete account. Have you, for example, used the sources I pointed out to you on the article's talk page:
Please do not lie: tThis article is not slanted, sanitised or incomplete. No, I have not used those sources. They are not about Humphreys, and the information they contain is too far away from this biography. We have articles about pornography and the sex industry that readers are able to read. They do not need to be given a lecture on the socio-economic impact of prostitution in this article: that is what other articles are for. If you wish to improve the other articles, or, indeed, create a new article the sex industry in 1970s London, please feel free, but it would fall outside the remit of this article, except for a link. - SchroCat (talk) 18:49, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The description of the sting in Cyprus in your summary begins with, "In January 1972 Drury, Humphreys and their wives travelled to Cyprus and Beirut for a fortnight's holiday." and continues with "A journalist flew to Cyprus and was given a copy of the hotel register; the newspaper hired a private investigator who visited the branch of Thomas Cook on Regent Street, where he obtained a duplicate of the receipt, which showed Humphreys had paid for Drury's ticket." But that is not how the narrative unfolded. There was no public awareness of that trip. It was uncovered in an investigation directed by Laurie Manifold, the head of the investigative team at The Sunday People. The description in Roy Greenslade (27 May 2008), "Subterfuge, set-ups, stings and stunts: how red-tops go about their investigations", in Hugu de Burgh (ed.), Investigative Journalism, Routledge, pp. 329–330, ISBN 978-1-134-06871-5 is fuller (I have italicized some important elements.)
Roy Greenslade's description

The starting point was a passing mention to Manifold by a freelance reporter with good underworld contacts ... That information was nowhere near sound enough to publish. Even though Humphreys confirmed it to Manifold, documentary proof was required. ... Manifold sent a reporter, Sid Foxcroft, to Cyprus to see if he could check the register, and he immediately had an amazing stroke of luck. On arrival at Nicosia airport, the Greek Cypriot taxi driver recognised Foxcroft as a former comrade in the 8th Army and offered him help. Within minutes of getting to the hotel the driver persuaded the manager to show his old friend the register, which recorded the fact that Drury and Humphreys, and their wives, had stayed at the hotel at the same time. But it did not show who paid the bill because it was a package tour pre-paid in Britain. Manifold guessed that the package tour operators were unlikely to provide a copy of a receipt if approached straightforwardly. He told me: ‘I thought there’s only way to get this, and we've got to break the law. You’ve got to take a chance sometimes’. So he hired a man he had used before, an ex-army officer with a shady past he knew as ‘Matt’, to bluff the clerk at Cook’s in Regent Street by pretending he was Drury’s accountant and that he’d lost his receipt. The clerk accepted the story and supplied him with a duplicate, which confirmed that Humphreys had paid for Mr and Mrs Drury’s holiday. The result was a sensational front page: ‘POLICE CHIEF AND THE PORN KING: Was it wise of Commander Drury of Scotland Yard to go on holiday with this old lag? ’ (The People, 6 February 1972).

Do you think your summary will be helped by accommodating the italicized sentences in Greenslade's account in some fashion? You may not have seen this source, but our imperative is to be comprehensive. Note: I will make my more detailed comments on the Talk page of the article and link them here, as this review might become too long. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:27, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) x 2 I am well aware of the Greenslade source (and, indeed, we use it in that section). The additional information is not core to Humphreys's biography and we cannot bloat this article out with extraneous detail of what the journalists did. What we have in the article is entirely correct. Where there is a question over how the information was passed to The People, we provide both alternatives. How they got confirmation from the London end, we clarify this. I don't see anything else useful for this article in what Greenslade has written. If you disagree, please bullet point exactly what facts you think are missing and why/how they are crucial to Humphreys's biography.
Please do NOT paste information both on the talk page and here: that way confusion lies. I am concerned that you think you will be making this article too long, but if we are going to discuss blocks of text that are extraneous to this article I can see how that would happen. - SchroCat (talk) 21:40, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Greenslade's account says nothing about being given a copy of the hotel register—the register, in any case, is a bulky thing—only that he was shown the register. It says nothing about a private investigator (not even an undercover investigator, only man with a shady past, who broke the law ...). It says nothing about paying for Drury's "ticket." A ticket is ambiguous because you make no mention of a package tour. And, it wasn't just Drury's ticket. Greenslade says, "Humphreys had paid for Mr and Mrs Drury’s holiday." I asked because I'm perplexed at the paraphrasing. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:39, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Greenslade's isn't the only account, and the weight of all the other sources differ at a few points to his. The other sources include input from people involved, investigative journalists, and people who have looked into this matter in depth, not in the limited way that Greenslade does. - SchroCat (talk) 22:44, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Greenslade is the only one who has been cited. Where are those other sources? Why have they not been cited? The ones that say, "He was given a copy of the hotel register," for example. You don't have to give me quotes, only the names of the references; I'll look them up to see if the description can be improved. Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:27, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There are a series of sources used in the text when discussing the holiday. Start there. - SchroCat (talk) 05:02, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed 'ticket' to 'holiday' and added a second source. Neither change is really needed, but given the needless pressure being applied when it doesn't need to be... - SchroCat (talk) 06:13, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am going to bed now. In the last FAC, I had barely covered the first paragraph of the lead and one paragraph of another section when the nominator withdrew his nomination. Because of my comments and queries, those paragraphs stand changed. I will be looking at the article more closely this coming week. My main concerns, which are the same as my concerns in the previous FAC, are:
    • (1) Vague and inaccurate summarizing of the source material. This is my major concern, not the prose. This was my major concern in the previous FAC as well.
    • (2) Inadequate background material on the sex industry in SOHO, London, in the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s, and especially of exploitation of women, including sexual abuse of them, in the industry. I am not convinced that the absence of source material (if that turns out to be the case) for James Humphreys's direct complicity in sexual crimes against women is an excuse to not discuss the indirect complicity of belonging to a milieu for which such crimes are documented.
    • (3) Besides, I am not convinced that there is no source material for his direct complicity. I will be examining all these issues more closely this coming week. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:30, 13 January 2020 (UTC) Updated with numbers for the issues listed. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:16, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, the paragraphs were changed, but for no reason other than me trying to get over an impasse. The article was not improved by the changes (and the clue was all the other reviewers who disagreed with you).
      • This article is NOT the venue for an examination of the abuse of women in the sex industry, unless you can find information that directly links Humphreys to specific acts.
      • "I am not convinced that there is no source material for his direct complicity". So you are speaking from a position of ignorance in your Oppose? (and I sincerely hope the FAC co-ords take note of that). I don't mind people opposing when they know what they are on about, but when they don't know the subject and haven't read the sources, but make up spurious claims that you think there is untapped source material, then it makes a review process something of a rather unfunny joke. I do hope this isn't going to be as disruptive a process as the last review, which I regret having withdrawn. - SchroCat (talk) 04:57, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry that was a note to the coordinators about the issues that have caused me to oppose this submission, the issues that I will be looking at more closely this week. I'm a little stapped for time now, but, in addition, I will also be looking at:
  • (4) The absence of Legacy. Most FA biographies have a paragraph or two about legacy; most have sections. There is nothing in the article about how history, his friends, his loved ones, and indeed he himself has judged James Humphreys. There is certainly no absence of data there. There is nothing about his character. There is again no absence of data there.
  • I have now numbered my FAC issues. As I go through them in more detail, I will be presenting my actionable suggestions here, Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:16, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is little actionable in anything you have said do far (aside from one or two minor points, and certainly very, very little given in good faith) that needs to be actioned SchroCat (talk) 21:23, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • A legacy section? I’m afraid this shows complete ignorance of the subject matter. If you can get to grips with the subject matter before making any more similar comments, it would be best for all. - SchroCat (talk) 15:42, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Continued note to the coordinators about (4)) By "legacy," I mean the extended usage, "a long-lasting effect of an event or process (OED)," the "lasting influence of a person or thing." I mean the summing up of a life or career. I mean the contemplation or retrospection of the lived life, the tributes, the criticisms, the aftermath. There is no shortage of those in the sources for James Humphreys. I will be making a list of those as well. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:19, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I look forward to seeing what unencyclopaedic dross you come up with in an attempt to justify this unjustifiable, oppose made in complete bad faith. This clutching at straws is all very second rate and disruptive.
And rather than sending notes to co-ordinators, perhaps you can drop the obstructive manner and address comments about the article to the nominator. Grandstanding has no place in any review. - SchroCat (talk) 03:19, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Ealdgyth, Laser brain, I wanted to let you know that my detailed review has not begun yet. I will start it once I have the literature I have requested from Inter-Library loan. I will respond to the relevant critiques some time thereafter, and in this section. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:29, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Fowler&fowler:

[edit]

Note1: I have possession of a couple of sources. While I wait for the rest to arrive through the inter-library loan, I thought it might be a good idea to begin the review. Could only the nominator reply here? All other editors, excepting the coordinators, please reply if you must, in your own subsections and either ping me or mention me in your edit summary. I will reply to you here. Note2: Can we collapse the discussion above? It is less relevant to my review which properly begins below. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:47, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Issue 1 Summarizing the cited source material.
[edit]
Section 1.1 Early life; beginnings of criminal career
  • Sentence1: James William Humphreys was born in Bermondsey, South London, on 7 January 1930.{{sfn|Cox|Shirley|Short|1977|p=145}}
    • Root, {{sfn|Root|2019}} which you are using significantly, says, "Born in Bermondsey in South London on 5 January 1930,
    • I can see that the date of birth of a James Humphreys (from his death record in the England and Wales data) was 7 January 1930, but why have you preferred Cox, Shirley and Short (1977) to Root (2019) absent the use of primary source data? If you are using the latter, then why has it not been cited?
      • Because we know the 7th is correct, so we're ignoring the incorrect. I could add another footnote to say that one source has the 5th, but as we know it's wrong, there seems little point in adding confusion to the matter. - SchroCat (talk) 08:31, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sorry, my error. I meant if you are using the primary source data to make the determination of accuracy, then it should be cited. (No footnote is needed, nor should Root be cited; but the birth or baptismal record you are using should be cited along with Cox et al) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:12, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • There's no need for that. We have a solid source that gives the date. Extra sources are not needed. - SchroCat (talk) 23:17, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
            • You have two solid sources. One, Root, which you have cited 15 times in the article; the other, Cox et al, which you have cited 13 times in the article. They have conflicting dates of birth for Humphreys. I asked why you have preferred Cox et al in this instance. If it is because of some knowledge from primary source data, then that data needs to be cited. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:04, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Sentence 2) He left school at age 14 and began a career of petty criminality;
    • Root says, "Humphreys’ rap sheet in the Metropolitan Police files is interesting reading and shows how he developed from petty crime as a youngster, before graduating to more serious crime."
      • One could, for instance, say, "X passed his law school exams in 1945 and began a career in law." Or you could say, "Y joined the Syndicate at age 15 and began a career in crime." Or one can develop, in Root's words, and the evidence of the development can be seen in retrospect in a rap sheet, but how does one begin a career, i.e. take the first steps of a course of continued progress in a domain whose organization is not described? (Note this is not a stylistic issue) In the end, as you well know, from November 1945 to October 1962, which constituted some 17 years, he spent more than 11 years in various prisons or reform schools. What was the career then that he had begun in November 1945, that of a petty criminal or a long-serving convict?
        • One could not say that. There is nothing about a "syndicate", or anything close to that in the sources. - SchroCat (talk) 08:31, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • The sentences beginning with X and Y are examples of correct usage for "career," implying that "career" cannot be applied to what Humphreys. Again, how can someone who between November 1945 and October 1962, i.e. 17 years, spent 11 years in correctional institutions, be said to have embarked in 1945 on a career of petty criminality? Do you mean, "he fell to petty crime?" Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:20, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
            • I'm afraid you are again selecting a very narrow definition of a word that has much wider use. I suggest you check the OED, which supports the use of the term we have here. I am afraid that if I came across the phrase "he fell to petty crime" I'd be both confused by what it meant, and think that the writer is trying way to hard to write purple prose. - SchroCat (talk) 23:23, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
              • OK, if you don't like that. How about, "He began to get involved in petty crime?" Or, if you like "criminality," "He began to engage in acts of petty criminality." There was no prognostication of a career in 1945. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:04, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
                • The wording is absolutely fine as it is. You may have done it differently, but there are several different ways it could have been done. This is a non-discussion point. Move on. - SchroCat (talk) 00:23, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
                  • This is not a question of prose style, but of accurately reflecting the sources. He spent two-thirds of the time between the ages of 15 and 32 in different forms and sites of incarceration. When he stepped out of Dartmoor in 1962, he had spent three-quarters of his adult years in incarceration. A "career" is determined by the record, not by intentions. In no meaning of the word "career" did he begin a career in petty criminality. Serving time in jail is neither a career nor a profession. I request sincerely that you change the sentence to, "He began to engage in acts of petty criminality." If you want "career," you will need to situate it in some form of referring back. You could say, "He began what was to become a youthful career in crime most of which was spent in incarceration." The crime was not all petty either. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:55, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
                    • The sources are adequately reflected. You may have done it differently, but there are several different ways it could have been done. This is a non-discussion point. Move on. - SchroCat (talk) 23:05, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
                      • I have just received Cox, Shirley, and Short, your second-most-used source. They say on page 145, "James William Humphreys had spent most of his life in the criminal world, though to judge from his record, he was not one of nature's successful villains. He was what the newspapers, rather unkindly, referred to as "an old lag." (OED: "Lag (n): A convict who has been transported or sentenced to penal servitude;" Webster's Unabridged: "lag (n): slang, chiefly British: a person transported for crime or sent to penal servitude: one who is serving or has served a term in prison: convict, jailbird.") You can use "career" when referring back to the record. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:12, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
                        • This section is closed, and you are tilting at windmills. Please spend your time coming up with some new (and CONSTRUCTIVE points), not rehashing things that don't need to be rehashed. Respect the hatting of the section, move on and do the rest of the review: the co-ords will decide if this is actionable or not. - SchroCat (talk) 23:21, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Sentence 1, cont): while still a teenager he became friends with Frankie Fraser, the London gangland enforcer.
    • Root says, "Humphreys left school at the age of fourteen, and while still in his teens became friendly with the notorious gangland figure ‘Mad’ Frankie Fraser." For Root, this is a literary device to weave in a theme that he thinks is important--that Humphreys was a snitch, a cop informer, in the opinion of some, including Root himself. Root continues after that sentence,

      "But later events would change this feeling of friendship. ... (In 2012, Frankie's son) David Fraser said that Humphreys, who died in 2003, had been no friend of Frankie’s for many years, and that James Humphreys was ‘a grass’. As this book will prove, Humphreys was, with no doubt, a police informer, and in some high-profile cases too."

      • Why are you mentioning the friendship with Fraser here, and doing so in fragmentary form, when you don't mention it again anywhere in the article? What information is the mention of friendship meant to convey to the reader? Why the "still?" What meaning does that impart? They grew up in the same neighborhood after all. (See sentence 8 below.)
        • We're mentioning it because it shows the milieu in which he was brought up without thrashing the point beyond any relevent meaning. We say they were friends when they were young: we put no spin onto the point, and your interpretation of Root is into OR territory or reading behind the author's intent. - SchroCat (talk) 08:31, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sentence 3: When he was 15 Humphreys was arrested for housebreaking, and was fined £5.
  • Sentence 4: Seven months later he was sent to an approved school—a reformatory school in which children who had committed crimes were one of the classes of inmates[1]—for stealing a car.
    • (I can give you the grammatical reasons if you'd like, but) you can't put a long appositive, "a reformatory school ...classes of inmates," between two prepositional phrases without creating ambiguity and diminishing comprehension.
  • Sentence 5: He was released the following year, but was sent back in October 1947 for a series of offences.
    • Root has: "Humphreys was returned there in October 1947 for receiving a stolen motorcar, clothing, tools, housebreaking and stealing a sewing machine."
      • Your phrasing is too general. In other words, why is there reason to mention the offense(s) at all if the description is to be so general? He would not have been returned there without some good cause in the realm of offenses. Besides from Root, it is not clear if it was a series of offenses or just one offense involving disparate aspects.
        • I think we're OK with the general term, without the shopping list. - SchroCat (talk) 08:31, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • Again, how does what Root describes constitute a series of offenses? (Note: (OED) Series (n): A number of discrete things of one kind (esp. events or actions) following one another in succession over time, or in order of appearance or presentation. OED attested examples: 1958 W. S. Churchill Hist. Eng.-speaking Peoples IV. v A more immediate cause of the rising was a series of defeats and reverses suffered by the British. 1987 M. Das Cyclones i. 2 They held another series of meetings. 2011 New Yorker 14 Feb. 95/3 He had a series of liaisons, each of which he confessed.) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:04, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sentence 6: In 1948 Humphreys was sentenced to three years in Rochester Borstal for theft; he was released in February 1950.
    • Root has, "In June 1948 he was given three years in Borstal for stealing a roll of cloth, and again for taking a motorcar without consent, being released early in February 1950."
      • The starting month presumably fell through the cracks of a previous revision.
      • From a novice reader's perspective, such as mine, "theft" is too general when following specific mention of a wiki-linked-prison. There is nothing wrong with adding the roll of cloth, etc.. If anything, from a modern perspective, when the offenses are detailed, the sentence seems too harsh. It gives the reader a window into the making of a criminal in the 1950s' Britain.
  • Sentence 7: Nine months later he was sent to prison for a year for aiding and abetting other criminals, and released in June 1951.[2][3]
    • Root has, "In November 1950, he was sentenced to his first adult prison term of twelve months, now aged 20, for ‘assisting and comforting’ two others who had stolen goods worth £22 4s 6d."
      • "Adult prison term" is an important detail.
        • That's lazy writing. Prison is an adult punishment. For minors it is/was approved school, Secure Children's Home, borstal or (for slightly older prisoners) Young Offenders Institute. - SchroCat (talk) 08:31, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • The Government of the UK uses the term "adult prison," here, "Young people aged 18 are treated as an adult by the law. If they’re sent to prison, they’ll be sent to a place that holds 18 to 25-year-olds, not a full adult prison." Root says this was his first "adult prison term." He was 20. The Wikipedia pages Young Offenders Institute and Her Majesty's Young Offender Institution describe themselves as prisons for those who have not attained the age of majority. If a "prison" unambiguously meant a place for incarceration of adults, those descriptions would be self-contradictory. Neither the OED nor Britannica makes such a delimitation in their definitions of the term "prison." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:04, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
            • We do not need to go into this in minute detail (aside from pointing out that 18 is an adult in UK law). We do not need to be so lazy or stupid as to use the awful phrase "adult prison". This is a non-discussion point. Move on. - SchroCat (talk) 00:23, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sentence 8: In July 1951 Humphreys married June Driscoll, but the couple soon divorced.[4][5]
    • Root has an offhanded later mention ca 1962: "When Jimmy Humphreys was released on 26 October 1962, he was 32 years old. Handsome and desperate to ‘make it’, he had already been married once, to a woman called June Driscoll."
    • I can see the marriage record in the England and Wales data.
      • Where are you getting the divorce information? Why "soon," and not a firm date, if you actually have the information?
        • I can't find the record for the moment, so I've removed this temporarily. It will raise questions from readers asking why we don't mention the divorce before he remarries, but hopefully I can dig out the source before then. - SchroCat (talk) 08:51, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • Why is there even a need to mention June Driscoll so perfunctorily, i.e. by name and by month of her marriage (rummaged from primary sources)? It is beginning to border on original research. Why not simply say when mentioning his second marriage that he had been married once before and citing Root in a correct paraphrasing? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:04, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
            • Her marriage is in the chronologically correct position. It's perfunctory because the sources have no further information. Just because Root puts it in a different place, there is no need for us to follow suit. - SchroCat (talk) 00:23, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
              • You mentioned the bit about milieu, which your sentence does not have anything about. Besides Root has much more, about how the relationship did not last. Fraser below has more: that Jimmy and June had a baby. Why the selective ambiguous mention? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:55, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • (An aside, whose theme I will pick up in a different section: Mad Frankie Fraser has a much more evocative description in his diary co-authored with James Morton, Random House, 2001, 2019):

        "Jimmy Humphreys, Eva’s husband Jimmy and me had nicked a lorry load of tea from outside what was the Ministry of Health building by the Elephant. I knew Jimmy Humphreys because he was a local boy; came from Southwark and he’s a few years younger than me. He’ll be about 70 now; very presentable, smart dresser, a very good appearance. Did all the usual things, a bit of approved school, a bit of burglary. ... When my sister Eva got married and was living in Great Dover Street, Jimmy Humphreys and his first wife June were down on their luck and Eva, through the kindness of her heart, had them and the baby to stay for about four months until they got on their feet. He wasn't a bad fellow then. A good thief until he broke up with June and after that, he went bad."

        More later, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:47, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fowler, there is little point in going round in circles with you demanding changes are made your way when there is no benefit to the article. If you have new points to raise, please do so below, but there is no merit in relitigating the same points over and over. I have given my reasons why things have not been changed, and I see no reason to alter that position solely to satisfy your whim. - SchroCat (talk) 00:26, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It has nothing to do with my whim. You are violating WP guidelines. It is my duty to point them out. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:55, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What sanctimonious rubbish. You've been pushing your preference (your whim) since day 1, and been aggressively playing "GOTCHA!" with your battlefield approach since I turned down your early suggestions. You have no duty to act like a disruptive troll, but that is exactly how you are coming across with this nonsense. - SchroCat (talk) 16:35, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • (sentence) His crimes became more serious and the sentences increased as he got older.
    • Root has, "Then in October 1952, it got more serious, and Humphreys got twenty-one months at the Central Criminal Court for receiving a quantity of stolen goods and assault with intent to resist arrest."
      • That his crimes (i.e. in the plural) became more serious is your interpretation. Root is talking only about the instance of October 1952. Had there been a period (full stop) after "more serious" in Root, your interpretation might have been valid, but not in this instance.
      • That his "sentences increased as he got older" is again your interpretation. The sentences were: 21 months, conditional discharge of 1 year (which is also a sentence), two years and three months, and six years. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:55, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • (sentence) After being arrested for loitering with intent to steal cars in November 1954, he was given a conditional discharge of a year.
    • Root has, "Coming out in December 1953, he was given a conditional discharge of twelve months in November 1954 for ‘loitering with intent to steal from unattended motorcars’.
      • The discharge was given in November 1953. We don't know when the arrest for loitering took place. Please correct. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:55, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have moved a comma. - SchroCat (talk) 16:43, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • You now have: "... he was released in December 1953. After being arrested for loitering with intent to steal cars, in November 1954 he was given a conditional discharge of a year." Typically, the most natural position for an adjunct (in this case a prepositional phrase of time) is the end position, i.e., after the verb. But it doesn't have to be as long it doesn't wedge itself between the subordinate clause and the main. You want: "After being arrested for loitering with intent to steal cars, he was given a conditional discharge of a year in November 1954," "In November 1954, after being arrested for loitering with intent to steal cars, he was given a conditional discharge of a year," "He was arrested again, and in November 1954 was given a conditional discharge of a year," or "He was arrested again, and given a conditional discharge of a year in November 1954." The choice may depend on what has gone before. Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:12, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Section 1.2 Strip club and sex shop owner
[edit]
  • (sentence 1) On his release from Dartmoor Humphreys changed the direction of his profession and opened a strip club in Old Compton Street, Soho, which was frequented by fellow criminals.{{sfn|Morton|2008|p=212}}
    • The cited source says, "By the 1960s Humphreys had nine convictions, including house and office breaking in 1958, when he received six years. Released in the Autumn of 1962, he took the least of a property." The second-most cited source in the article, Cox, Shirley and Short, say, "He was not one of nature's successful villains. He was rather what the newspapers, rather unkindly, referred to as 'an old lag.'" (OED lag (n): A convict who has been transported or sentenced to penal servitude.") and later, "Now 32, with some of his best years wasted in prison, he turned his attention to building a career in the seedy, though legal, business of striptease." Of such an individual, we cannot claim that he was changing "the direction of his profession" at age 32. What profession is it whose directions include both penal servitude and striptease club ownership? This is not an issue of prose. It is one of accurately summarizing the sources. Please remove "profession." Please add some paraphrase of "he turned his attention to building a career in the business of striptease." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:13, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • "which was frequented by fellow criminals" is an incorrect paraphrase of a source, which in any case is not the most reliable (see below). A home (away) from home is a hangout, a place of comfort, a haunt. "Frequented" is a poor substitute. They weren't fellow criminals. He was not much of a criminal in the first place. I can suggest a more accurate paraphrase, e.g. "which became a gathering place for his criminal friends," but see below first for a much better source:
      • Cox, Shirley and Short (with Google scholar citation index 124 is far more authoritative than Morton (with Google scholar index 7. It says, "He formed a private company, Humphreys Entertainments Ltd, and took a lease on a crumbling property in Old Compton Street. The club was no more successful than Humphreys's thieving had been. It was quie simply a disastrous site. Humphreys' friends rallied round him, however, and for a time the club at least stayed on its feet." This is a much fuller account. It also partially answers a question I had asked in the first FAC about how a man freshly out of a long prison sentence manages to open a club. (See here).
        • Please write: "He formed a private company and was able to lease a run-down property on Old Compton Street in Soho. The club was in a poor location, but his friends turned out to make it their gathering place, enabling it to survive for a while." (cited to Cox, Shirley and Short) (There is no reason to add the "criminal and quasi criminal," as in Morton or "faces" in Root). It is evident that a man who has had nine convictions and spent most of his adult years in prison will have some criminals among his friends. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:37, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Sentence 2:) Soho was the area of London that, with a proliferation of sex shops and sex workers, was the centre of the city's sexual economy.{{sfn|Carter|2018|p=6}}
    • It is not at all obvious what "sexual economy" means. It has an old 19th-century meaning related to abstinence. It has a modern meaning related to reproductive practices especially when applied to racially selective ones. It has another meaning related to the economics of sex work. The last is an expression of Frank Mort author of Capital Affairs: London and the making of the permissive society, Yale, 2010, (Google scholar citation index 167) The sentence has been cited to a recent paper of Oliver Carter, Google scholar index 0, which says, "According to Mort (2010) Soho was the central location for London’s sexual economy, with pornography and sex work being its defining feature." I will suggest a rephrase when Mort's book arrives, hopefully, tomorrow. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:20, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Sentences 3, 4, and 5): "Humphreys rekindled a relationship with a former girlfriend, June Packard, who had renamed herself Rusty Gaynor: Rusty after the colour of her hair, Gaynor after the actress Mitzi Gaynor. She had previously worked as a barmaid and model, but was employed as a stripper by the time she and Humphreys resumed their relationship. The couple married in May 1963.{{sfn|Root|2019|loc=419}}{{sfn|Campbell|2019|p=237}}
    • Here too the account of Cox, Shirley and Short is much fuller: "... the best thing that the Old Compton Street venture did, however, was to re-acquaint him with June 'Rusty' Gaynor, an old girl friend from his criminal days. Rusty had first met Humphreys at the end of 1951, after one of his many releases from prison. She was seventeen, and serving at the snacks counter of the Black Prince public house , on the Rochester Way, Sidcup, near her home. Now in November 1962, the couple were re-united. Rusty had developed a successful career as a stripper, and, hearing on the grape vine that a new club was opening, she went to audition for work. In the intervening years they had both been married, had children and separated. Rusty had begun an affair with a man called Peter Garfath, ... but the old affection was still strong, and soon she and Humphreys were living together. In May 1963 they were married in Caxton Hall. Humphreys continued to manage the Old Compton Street Club; Rusty danced for him." (p 146)
      • As Cox, Shirley, and Short are one of three highly cited sources for Humphreys's biography, I will hereafter not quote from it, but simply paraphrase my suggestion and cite the page number. I will also mention the three highly cited sources in the Sources Section below.
      • Please add some version of: One of the dancers who successfully auditioned at the Old Compton Street Club, which Humphreys was managing, was an old girl-friend June Packard. Humphreys had first met her in 1951 when he was between prison terms and she was 17 and serving snacks at a pub. They had both been married to different spouses, had children, and separated. She had refashioned herself into a stripper, "Rusty" Gaynor—the name "Gaynor" chosen after the popular 1950s Hollywood actress, singer, and dancer Mitzi Gaynor. They began to live together, and were married in May 1953 in Caxton Hall." (I don't know that we need to explain "Rusty;" most people know it's a redhead. Caxton Hall implies that they had a civil marriage.) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:50, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Issue 2 Preponderance of Primary Sources (FA Criteria: 1 c and d)
[edit]
  • 82 of the 162 citations in the article are to contemporaneous primary sources, dating to between 1972 and 1994, most of which are topical newspaper stories, but one is a video of a Channel 4 "documentary" which has been cited half a dozen times with timestamp data. In the video, the various leading actors of the James Humphreys saga, he himself, his wife Rusty, another strip/sex club owner, a freelance investigator, the journalist Laurie Manifold, are all reminiscing. In particular, in the Attack on Peter Garfath section, more than half a dozen paragraphs are reliant on them. My hypothesis, which will require to be negated, is that such preponderance has slanted the article into overly focusing on police corruption, which was the particular preoccupation of the topical popular press during that time, rather than James Humphreys other biographical assets and liabilities, which as a consequence have not been given due weight Let me start with a general question and a more focused one:
  • Sentence: (Attack on Peter Garfath): "The relationship between Humphreys and his wife, Rusty, was sometimes turbulent.{{sfn|Campbell|1994b|p=T2}}
    • is based on a sentence, "Then in the 70s, there was an interlude caused by the sometimes stormy relationship between Rusty and Jimmy," in an interview with Rusty Humpherys by Duncan Cambpell in the Guardian (6 July 1994), conducted two days after her conviction, and whose main picture, that of Rusty Humpherys lounging on a couch has the caption: "Fallen empress of sleaze ... Rusty Humpherys, once free to do as she liked in Soho, savours her last moments before being jailed last week."
  • Since, per WP:STICKTOSOURCE, mainstream newspapers are (with some exceptions, of course) reliable sources, this section can be hatted with no response required from the nom. Cheers, ——SN54129 15:52, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Serial Number 54129: Please move your comment to your section per my request above. I will reply here if I think it requires a response. Thank you. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:10, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
SN (or anyone else) is allowed to post where he wants on the page. Please don't try to tell people where to post things. Not everything on WP has to be done exactly to your demands. The rest of us work to normal accepted practice. - SchroCat (talk) 16:32, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Put it another way, this isn't Arbcom. ——SN54129 16:45, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Sentence) Often Humphreys would entertain and bribe different policemen three times a day: lunch, dinner and nightclubs, and often the bribes were not money, but cars or jewellery for police officers' wives." cited to Rusty Humphreys's reminiscence in the video {{sfn|''Secret History'', 18 May 1998|loc=Event occurs at 31:50–32:10}}
    • This is rendered in reported speech, not a direct quote. Do we have any secondary source that supports this, especially the bit about buying "cars" (in the plural)? If so, why has it not been added? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:08, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's a documentary, so it is a secondary source, not a primary one.
Do you have anything that casts doubt on the claim about bribing policemen with either a singular car or no cars at all? If not, this is a moot point. And why are you pushing the Fraser primary source so hard in other parts of the review, but you're dead set against this secondary one? - SchroCat (talk) 09:53, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Inadequate and selective presentation of context (FA Criteria: 1 b and c)
[edit]

I now have some more sources from inter-library loan: These are: 1) Paul Bleakley, "Cleaning up the Dirty Squad: Using the Obscene Publications Act as a Weapon of Social Control, State Crime Journal, Vol. 8, No. 1 (2019), pp. 19-38 2) Melissa Tyler, Soho at Work, Cambridge, 2020; 3) Colin Manchester, Sex shops and the law, Gower, 1986; 4) Nigel Yates, Love Now, Pay Later?: Sex And Religion In The Fifties And Sixties, SPCN, 2011; and Judith Walkowitz, Nights Out: Life in Cosmopolitan London, Yale, 2012. I have a number of queries, but let me start with a general question, and I will follow up with more focused ones later:

    • Why is there so little by way of context (a requirement in FA criteria 1 b) in the article; in particular, why is there very little in the article about James Humpherys being considered a police informer, not only by the underworld and the police, but by the very authors which are being used substantially in the article? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:39, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) @FAC coordinators: I'm sorry, but I don't know what to do with crap like this (particularly the previous two new sub-sections). There is too much bad faith in this review for me to go through every point in detail. The best sources are available and they deal with the subject within the bounds exected both on WP generally and FAC in particular. This particular reviewer has not shown any evidence that they can act in a positive manner towards this article. It may be a "hobby topic" (as they have dismissed many articles that don't fall under the extremely dubious "vital" citeria on WP), but that does not mean that any editor should start making up standards and criteria. I refute most of what this editor has posted on this page and the previous review, and I am still waiting for anything resembling an honest basis for an oppose. So far it's all second rate rubbish with absolutely no benefit at all. We're deep in grounds of disruptive behaviour now. – SchroCat (talk) 16:13, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • The source Root, Neil (2019), Crossing the Line of Duty: How Corruption, Greed and Sleaze Brought Down the Flying Squad, History Press, ISBN 978-0-7509-9098-1, which you have cited 15 times in this article, more than any other source, says at 8 locations (using your ebook locations), not counting 6 more which involve Drury's allegations, and which can be discounted:
      • "Most interestingly, the Metropolitan Police files show that while DC Drury was based at ‘L’ Division in south London, on 19 September 1951, he pulled Humphreys’ criminal record file out of the Met’s file system, ‘to assist him in a case of robbery’. The robbery had taken place in Clapham on 6 September that year, and Humphreys was not arrested after Drury read his file. Twenty years later, Drury and Humphreys would enjoy a lucrative and mutually corrupt friendship, before it turned sour" (location 287)
      • "As this book will prove, Humphreys was, with no doubt, a police informer, and in some high-profile cases too." (location 398)
      • "As well as developing corrupt ties with powerful police officers, it can be said with certainty that Humphreys was a police informer, as has been the underworld view since the 1970s." (location 1316)
      • "Humphreys was also acting as a police informer for Drury specifically on occasion." (location 1407)
      • "But most interesting were Manifold’s comments about Humphreys admitting to him that he had been a police informant. Humphreys had told him that he ‘had given considerable help to the police" (location 1500)
      • "This reference to a murder in Reading, Berkshire, and Humphreys acting as a police informant in relation to it was also mentioned by both Humphreys and Drury in their police statements." (location 1510)
      • "So, as has long been thought in the underworld, the criminally very well-connected Humphreys acted as a serial police informant. This was something which Humphreys would of course have wanted to keep very quiet. Therefore, not only was Humphreys paying enormous sums to police officers, he was aiding the apprehension of fellow criminals to lubricate the free running of his own vice activities." (location 1766)
      • "Humphreys had been in solitary confinement towards the end of his sentence, after being attacked by a fellow prisoner who accused him of being a ‘grass’. So whilst Drury had gone to prison largely through Humphreys’ allegations, Drury’s 21 May 1972 Sunday People insinuations that Humphreys was a police informer had severely compromised Jimmy's status in the underworld." (location 2852)

Hold the phone! Hurrah and huzzah with dig shiny brass knobs on! Ten thousand words of nonsense and finally, finally we get round to a proper point that needs to be addressed properly! It's a shame we had to go through all the rest of the nonsense to get here, particularly as you've had Root for so long. I'll add a line about this in the morning. - SchroCat (talk) 21:30, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit conflict) Fowler this ego trip is tedious and disruptive. You have pasted around 400 words just to make the simple point that you think a sentence or two is needed to say that Humphreys was a police informant. I have a long memory and I have not forgotten your similar disruptive comments here [39]. Graham Beards (talk) 21:36, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@SchroCat: That Humphreys was a police informant is not a matter of just one line, two or three. It the major argument of the major secondary source employed in an article that otherwise relies very largely on primary sources whose improper use I will be detailing in the section above. Its author Neil Root is quoted by name in the article. It calls into question the reliability of a large part of the article. The fact has gone selectively unmentioned in sections which have otherwise been paraphrased from Root so faithfully, sentence for sentence, as to border on close paraphrasing:
      • "In November 1950, he was sentenced to his first adult prison term of twelve months, now aged 20, for ‘assisting and comforting’ two others who had stolen goods worth £22 4s 6d. He was released in June 1951. This is the period in which then DC Kenneth Drury of ‘L’ Division pulled out his file." (location 405)
      • "... and while still in his teens became friendly with the notorious gangland figure ‘Mad’ Frankie Fraser. But later events would change this feeling of friendship. In a telephone conversation with David Fraser, Frankie’s son, in late 2012, this author asked to interview Frankie about his old friend Jimmy Humphreys. David Fraser said that Humphreys, who died in 2003, had been no friend of Frankie’s for many years, and that James Humphreys was ‘a grass’." (location 398) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:38, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • (edit conflict) No, it's a matter of a sentence or so, nothing more. I'm bored of your silly games, so unless you have something positive or constructive to say, just pipe down - or at least wait until I've added something before you criticise (again, it's indicative that you're in attack mode, rather than any constructive approach to article development). "It calls into question the reliability of a large part of the article"? Only from the mindset of a disruptive troll who is determined to sink a review at any cost. The two excepts quoted directly above: the first says Drury "pulled out his file": that's it. There is no reference to Humphreys being a grass, or even that there was any contact between the two, just that Drury "pulled out his file". The second is a 'well, duh' comment. It says Fraser's son called Humphreys a grass. Apart from the third hand nature of the information, of course Humphreys was a grass: he gave his fucking diaries to the police and appeared against them in court. With no dates as to when Fraser's son was referring to, it's a useless piece of nonsense, much like most of this review. A line or two is all that is needed, and I will add this in the morning, as I have already said. - SchroCat (talk) 23:28, 26 January 2020 (UTC) (edited to correct auto-correct) - SchroCat (talk) 07:18, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • It is a reference to the previous mention, ""Most interestingly, the Metropolitan Police files show that while DC Drury was based at ‘L’ Division in south London, on 19 September 1951, he pulled Humphreys’ criminal record file out of the Met’s file system, ‘to assist him in a case of robbery’. The robbery had taken place in Clapham on 6 September that year, and Humphreys was not arrested after Drury read his file. Twenty years later, Drury and Humphreys would enjoy a lucrative and mutually corrupt friendship, before it turned sour" (location 287)" May I request also that you not use intemperate language, and not attribute motives to my undertaking this review. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:11, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
            • FFS... I said I would deal with it in the morning, and you've still kept banging on about it (and missing the point yet again). Yet again it makes no reference to Humphreys being a grass or even any suggestion that the two even spoke. It still just refers to Drury pulling the file.
            • Everyone else was patient enough to wait for you to start your proper review (after 12 days of barking up the wrong tree and walls of text complaining about the exploitation of women), so don't expect me to go without sleep to start editing at the drop of a hat just because you want something adding; you can show just a fraction of the patience that everone else has done. And you may request as much as you like about my language, I really don't fucking care enough about your wishes to comply: you've been too disruptive in this process for me to give you any leeway. - SchroCat (talk) 06:37, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
            • Now, we already mention the fact that Humphreys was accused of being a paid informer, but as it's lost where it is (and it could be read as being an accusation made in sour grapes), I'll add a couple of sentences further up the page. The point about him being an informant is a good one, but it is a shame you have had to drive people to such a point of frustration and anger with your approach and behaviour. You may not mean it to, but it comes across in a sub-standard way (battlefield, "GOTCHA!" and the arrogance that it has to be your way or no other – and you'll throw in a spiteful Oppose on the basis that two points you raised weren't adopted). If you could be a less confrontational in your approach (and take on board that you don't necessarily know best) you will find that people respond to you in kind. – SchroCat (talk) 08:31, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Graham Beards: You requested me to not post in your section. I have respected that request. Please show the same courtesy to my several requests asking the same above. Please post in your section. If I feel your post warrants a reply, I will post here, as I have already explained in my post above to two of the FAC coordinators. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:40, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No. I said "please do not ping me, or attempt to lobby me when I have already declared my support. Address your comments to the nominator." I'll post where I see fit. As for your comment "If I feel your post warrants a reply", this speaks volumes regarding your arrogant and disruptive behaviour. Graham Beards (talk) 23:09, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is Francis Fraser's Diary (Fraser, Frankie; Morton, James (2019), Mad Frank's Diary: The Confessions of Britain’s Most Notorious Villain, Random House, ISBN 978-0-7535-5404-3) not mentioned at all, when Rusty Humphreys's reminiscences on video are summarized at extraordinary length on six occasions? (See section above) Fraser says, "Humphreys wasn’t only paying money to Challenor he was also his grass. Humphreys had been paying protection money to Challenor as well as providing him with tidbits of information on Soho life. Humphreys was a double dealer as well, because once he was in Macclesfield Street and Challenor asked for more money Humphreys paid him over two lots of £25 – and then made a complaint to the Commissioner." The book is published by Penguin and Random House and its co-author James Morton, Guardian journalist and author of many books is cited quite a few times in this article. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:34, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Question for Fowler&fowler:
[edit]
Just for information's sake (and this is honestly with no pressure to speed you up), how long do you thing you will take to finish your review? - SchroCat (talk) 23:24, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dear SchroCat I have nothing against you or the topic of this article. I might not be excessively collegial or mentoring in my style, but I am genuinely trying to improve the article. You have done splendid work in collecting the disparate sources. The newspaper stories alone number in the dozens and I can only imagine the hard work you would have done in ferreting them out. For many are no longer available even in digital archives. I know because I tried, and it took a lot more effort than I had anticipated. However, your very success in finding those sources has created an issue of undue weight. Wikipedia articles are ultimately beholden to the reporting and interpretation of events and ideas in secondary sources, supplemented with some primary sources here and there in matters of straightforward reporting of fact or of direct quotations. I have most of the sources now, at least all the secondary sources being employed in this article, a few that are not. (i) the article does not accurately summarize the secondary sources (it is moreover not an issue of prose style; I don't have any issues with your prose style, by the way.) (ii) it relies too much on primary sources, (more than half the citations are to them) and (iii) it does not adequately cover the context. Maybe, we somehow got off the wrong foot, but I'm sure both you and I can see that this back and forth is not improving the article. I have a proposal. I have stayed away from editing the article myself in part because I do not like edit wars. Why don't you let me edit the article for two weeks, and give me feedback but not edit war with me? I'm not looking to claim any credit for myself. I'm not looking to mangle the article. I don't have a lot of time, but howsoever far I get at the end of the two weeks, incorporating your feedback, I will be delighted to support the article. Pinging @Ealdgyth, Laser brain, and Ian Rose: Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:32, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
PS I would have said a week, but I have to travel during this time. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:40, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
While I cannot stop anyone editing any article, I would prefer it ifyou did not. Your comments in this and the previous FAC have not given me any confidence that you have the necessary skill, neutrality, knowledge or ability to approach this in the right way. Most of your suggestions so far would not have improved the article – indeed they would have worsened both prose and misrepresented the source material, let alone gone into who knows what areas of tangential information on, for example, the fact that 'pornography is a bad thing' or that 'women in the sex industry are exploited'. I am afraid that your approach has destroyed any basis or good faith or trust. I'll give you two small examples: above, you spent 400 words playing a "Gotcha!" game about Humphreys being a paid source, but it was something already covered in the article, so a smimple request to make it more prominent would have sufficed. You've played silly games over the (primary) Fraser source - while also bemoaning the use of primary sources elsewhere. If you want to know how to treat people properly, have a look at the PR on Randall Davidson. You took part in that review, and three people suggested new sources to Tim riley. Not in the aggressive way you did to try and force a point, but in a collegiate way to help develop the article. You trumpeted your primary source to claim the article was incomplete and should therefore fail. You can claim you're trying to help this article, but I see no real evidence of this from your behaviour, which has been deplorable from the first FAC onwards.
Carry on with your review here. To let you get through the material in a timely fashion, I will hold off any further comments until the weekend, unless I see anything particularly ridiculous or false that needs dealing with straightaway. - SchroCat (talk) 01:03, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and by the way, the newspaper articles are all in digital archives. I know, because I found them all. - SchroCat (talk) 01:07, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As this review is supposed to be about this article, I will refrain from responding to your off-topic comments. OK, I will continue my review here. I can't put a time limit on it though. There is none in FAC reviews. Please do not hat off or collapse my comments. I am not done with them. Your saying, "This is a non-discussion point. Move on." is not a resolution. I request also that you not engage in ascribing motives to me, nor breaking out into intemperate language. Whatever you need to say, please say it politely. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:32, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't want to learn the difference between positive collegiate reviewing and being a tendentious and disruptive pain in the arse, then fine, don't look at the other review, but it'll just mean we carry on with your stupid games and me reacting to them. Me saying to move on is a resolution: I will not deal with those points because they are either ridiculous, pointless, not an improvement or outside the scope of an FAC – about which you seem to be making up your own rules. You can request all you like, but as I've said above I really don't fucking care enough about your wishes to comply: you've been too disruptive in this process for me to give you any leeway. I'll be back at the weekend to deal with anything useful you've put down (unless I see anything particularly stupid I have to deal with). - SchroCat (talk) 07:24, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sources

  1. ^ Cox 2016, pp. 80–81.
  2. ^ Root 2019, 398.
  3. ^ Weir 1994, p. 2.
  4. ^ Root 2019, 420.
  5. ^ "James W Humphreys". Ancestry.

Graham Beards

[edit]

Support unreservedly. This article was ready for promotion at the last FAC nomination, which was withdrawn because of a confrontational review based on the usage of a couple of adverbs.Graham Beards (talk) 17:07, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Graham, your kind words during the last review, and subsequently, have been very much appreciated. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 17:09, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Graham Beards: Are you suggesting that the article is comprehensive with respect to the topic of sexual exploitation of young and underage women? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:15, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The topic is not "The sexual exploitation of young and underage women", the topic is James Humphreys (pornographer). Also, please do not ping me, or attempt to lobby me when I have already declared my support. Address your comments to the nominator.Graham Beards (talk) 17:34, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Cassianto

[edit]

Without a doubt, as per Graham. This article meets all the criteria. It's a pity to see Fowler&fowler, engaging in this rather immature and stupid line of rhetoric. I would encourage the coords to examine this oppose against the FA criteria and subsequently kick it into a ditch where it belongs. CassiantoTalk 18:01, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cass, thanks very much for your second review on this article. It is much appreciated. - SchroCat (talk) 18:49, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I note Fowler&fowler's 8,511 bytes of utter feet stomping that the article has not gone their way, above. I maintain my support, unreservedly. CassiantoTalk 08:04, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

coord note

[edit]

Did I miss the request to run this early? The previous candidate received was archived on 2 January, and its only 12 January. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:51, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ealdgyth, the bot was late to run. Ian closed the last FAC on the 30th. So it is a little early, but only a few hours. Graham Beards (talk) 17:55, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ealdgyth, In addition to the slow bot, I emailed Ian, who gave me the green light. Thanks. - SchroCat (talk) 17:56, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is my fault. A markup error on the nomination page meant that the Bot could not see Ian's close. Because of the time of year, I did not correct the problem until 2 January. My apologies. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:33, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a problem Hawkeye, (and thanks for the explanation). It would explain why edits made 'post close' have largely been ignored by the sole opposer to this article, with the unfortunate and entirely erroneous claim of "only one" edit having been made. - SchroCat (talk) 21:29, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed all that in the articlehistory. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:50, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

′’’Everyone’’’ if you don’t want me refactoring your comments, please do so by striking thru all commentary on other editors. There is no need for editors to discuss other editors motives. If it doesn’t stop, it’s going to require outside intervention. And Mama Ealdgyth really does mean everybody here. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:08, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, Moder Ealdgyth...unless you're feeling particularly God-like (quite apt, I think this FAC might need some divine intervention), in which case ALL HAIL Modoreynd Ealdgyth to whom we lowly FACers are mere Módoru... :) ——SN54129 19:38, 12 January 2020 (UTC) [reply]
Ealdgyth is out on the road with hubby in semi truck. First day, hasn’t even had a chance to find the laptop in the pile of stuff on the bunk...so yes, Ealdgyth is CRANKY. Let’s not make her have to dig for the laptop while barreling down the highway at 63 miles per hour (101 km/h). She should have the truck cleaned and arranged by tomorrow and won’t have to edit from the iPad then...and if you think hubby invites Ealdgyth along just to organize the truck, you may be on to something....Ealdgyth - Talk 20:04, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Cass, it isn’t necessary to comment on other editors. This comment here isn’t helpful. Or do you think the FAC coords are incapable of actually reading the nomination and seeing which reviews are based on the criteria? That is, after all, our job. We don’t need nominators and reviewers muddying up the nomination commenting on other editors. If other editors are not engaging with the criteria, we’ll know and judge accordingly. So please strike any comments on other editors. Thank you. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:22, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And it's unnecessary to oppose an article that does not fail the FACR. The oppose here isn't helpful, either. Of course I think the coords are capable of reading a nomination and judging it against the criteria, which is why I find it puzzling that there has been a tumbleweed moment with regards to Fowler&fowler's oppose, and a very vocal challenge over people daring to talk about it in this candidacy. CassiantoTalk 22:06, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
at this point, an oppose isn’t a nomination closer, so for now, let’s let the discussion develop, without unnecessary commentary on other editors. If folks don’t refactor their comments by mid a day tomorrow, I’ll take my red pen to anything that isn’t helpful. I’d prefer that folks do it themselves, and I’m trusting that we all are adults and can discuss content without attacking or feeling attacked, as long as the comments stay on the content. It is possible to disagree with other editors without it being a battleground. Prose is the most subjective of the criteria and as a coord, I’m much less worried about differences over prose than I am about the other aspects of the criteria, especially when other reviewers do not agree on the nature of prose concerns...I.e, if a reviewer opposes on prose and word choices but many other reviewers do not agree that the prose concerns are a concern, it not something that should hold up a nom. Note, that is all hypothetical..and I have no idea if that situation applies here or not. The nom is only 12 hours or so old. At this point, my main concern is productive discussion that doesn’t focus on editors. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:20, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just backing up a point that Ealdgyth has made here... folks can and do disagree on subjective prose matters all the time. As a coord, I'm going to consider opposition over subjective prose matters to be a matter of consensus. I'm hoping the discourse can stay civil and comments can remain about the subject and not about other editors. A nomination that turns into a bloodbath is more likely to be archived than one where there is civil disagreement over the prose. --Laser brain (talk) 12:44, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Off-topic commentary
It would have been a lot better if the first comment in this review was not a spurious oppose made - and I am sorry to say it - in bad faith. No good reasons have been given for the oppose and there has been such an unconstructive attitude from the very start that it is unsurprising that some heat has been generated by it. You'll note, I hope, that every single other reviewer in both this FAC and the previous one has approached the review in a constructive and collegiate manner, making suggestions and comments, all of which have had the best intentions of the article in mind. Those comments have been dealt with in the manner in which they were made. There is only one area which has not been a smooth ride, and it is when a reviewer has started with bad faith, a BATTLEFIELD approach and playing "Gotcha!". To oppose because we haven't added a lecture on 'pornography is bad' and then to say there must be sources to say Humphreys was an abuser - when there is complete ignorance on the subject - makes it extremely difficult to any normal, rational editor to deal with it in any other way than to consider that part of the review as something of a farce. While reviewers need to be protected in order to undertake a thorough review, there needs to be protection for nominators from spurious reviews in which a reviewer is more keen on grandstanding to the co-ords, rather than providing a good faith review. LB, Ealdgyth, Sorry for the rant, and feel free to collapse it or delete it in toto, but there are times when dealing with such bollocks just isn't worth it. I'm sure the reviewer would be delighted if this review is archived for any excuse - it would stop them having to admit there are, for example, no sources that say Humphreys was an abuser. - SchroCat (talk) 13:15, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with SC here. I struck my comments not because I was ordered to do so, but because I want this article to pass, relatively drama free, and in the hope that (the person who shall not be named) would have their oppose omitted from the final tally based on it not falling within the scope of the criteria. CassiantoTalk 16:38, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Coordinators: My oppose has little to do with the prose, although there are issues with the prose which I have not addressed. My oppose, as I've indicated above, has to do with (i) vague and inaccurate paraphrasing, (ii) inadequate background to the strip club business in SOHO in the 1960s and 70s, porn-shops, and prostitution. That business was specific enough to 1960s SOHO, that it is not explained away by making a reader click out to a generic striptease or other link. My contention, moreover, is that the nominator by so doing in several sections has inadvertently sanitized instances of Humphreys's corruptness or venality, which is the counterpose to police corruption, (iii), etc. ... there are other issues, which the coordinators will be able to read about in my oppose section. The nominator cannot first withdraw his nomination on a whim in the middle of my last review, then abruptly renominate again 10 days later with one change, and expect me to be responsive in real-time. It is only today that the nominator in a series of edits has implemented my critique in the days following his withdrawal. He has, moreover, made no acknowledgment of it on this page for a coordinator to read, or for that matter anywhere else. So, as I've said above, this is a busy time for me. I will round up the sources, not all of which are easy to find, a large number of which are primary sources—including videos of the pornographer, his wife, his cohorts, and journalists, reminiscing—and in the next week or ten days complete my review. Given the circumstances, my request if very fair. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:22, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Can you stop being so rude and ignoring me, the nominator, simply to grandstand to the co-ords? You have shown an extremely poor attitude in both FACs and have not approached either of them in any form of good attitude. Instead you have been intransigent, obstructive and shown a BATTLEFIELD approach that does absolutely no-one any favours. Your post above contains so many inaccuracies that my AGF is stretched too far to think that they are not deliberate mischaracterisations of the situation. I have not, for example, in any way or in any location said, hinted or given any indication that you need to be "responsive in real time". It is a falsehood to claim that I have done so. I have not added the information you have requested at all: you have asked for entirely different information to be added - things way outside what anyone would expect in a standard biography. Now drop the obnoxious attitude, try not to continue playing "Gotcha!", learn that the name is Soho, not SOHO, and spend less time writing 'notes' to the co-ords and more time treating other editors like they are not something you have had to scrape off your shoe. - SchroCat (talk) 20:51, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
:) Believe it or not, I am trying to help you. Or rather your article. As long as you understand that my review won't be done in a day or two, I will be happy. In fact, my review may not even begin for a day or two, until some books I have requested from Inter-Library loan arrive. But my sole goal remains making the article for which you have done much work even better. I apologize for capitalizing Soho, but I have been reading Melissa Tyler's new book, SOHO at WORK, Cambridge, 2020. It is the content that is important. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:22, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Given your attitude and approach so far, I struggle to believe that you are trying to help in any way. (As an aside, that is not the first time you have called this "your article". As I had to point out last time, this is not my article. It is an article on which I have worked. Nothing more. To keep calling it "your article" does suggest a degree of ownership that does not exist.)
There is no rush on any review (and I have not given any indication at any point that there is), as articles are not promoted until a very minimum of two weeks have passed, and normally much longer. If your obstructive approach and inflexibility is lessened then this will become much less of a trial for all concerned. - SchroCat (talk) 08:30, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Tim riley

[edit]

I am puzzled and distressed at the clash, above, between two editors I much admire. I have looked closely at all the points made, and I can in conscience only repeat that to my mind, and after a further careful reading, the article meets the FA criteria, and with the exception of Fowler&fowler the other contributions so far (both from editors I respect greatly) express the same opinion – quite emphatically. I didn't think the first nomination should have been withdrawn, and I support this second one. Tim riley talk 18:43, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tim, thanks very much for your second review on this article. It is much appreciated. - SchroCat (talk) 18:49, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Still supporting. The additional load of comments from Fowler&fowler seem to me to amount to "I'd do it this way". As I am entirely happy with the way SchroCat has done it, meeting, imo, all the FA criteria, I continue to support. Tim riley talk 07:33, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
  • Suggest scaling up the map, and an inset might be helpful to give a wider perspective on where in London this neighbourhood is situated
  • Suggest adding alt text
  • File:James_Humphries,_1972.jpg: the source link has some more information on provenance that would be worth copying into the image description
Support per my support of last time. I also think that the first nom should not have been archived.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:52, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks Wehwalt. Yes, in hindsight, I should have let things run, but I was trying to avoid disruption. It seems it has just been delayed, rather than dissipated, unfortunately. - SchroCat (talk) 08:45, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I also supported the last nomination and my opinion has not changed. Moisejp (talk) 06:05, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks, Moisejp, for your comments and tweaks on this article on two occasions. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:39, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Sarastro

[edit]

Support: I've read over this, and I can find no major issues. There are a few tweaks I would perhaps make, listed below, but none of them affect my support and I think they can all be safely ignored if required. Sarastro (talk) 20:50, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • ”The severity of his crimes increased”: I wonder would tweaking to “increased over time” or similar be a little better here?
  • ”Humphreys had to bribe the police to ensure they did not close the business down. When he expanded into other areas of the sex industry—sex shops and book shops selling obscene material—he had to pay an increasing number of policemen to be able to operate.” I also wonder, as we are twice talking about the bribery, could this perhaps be combined into one sentence? Something like (but not necessarily exactly) “As Humphreys expanded his business and moved into other areas of the sex industry, he had to bribe an increasing number of policemen to be able to operate.”
  • ”Seven months later he was sent to an approved school “: Perhaps we could add a word or two on what an approved school was for the benefit of the lazy reader like me who doesn’t want to click?
  • ”In July 1951 Humphreys married June Driscoll, but the couple were soon divorced.”: Do we need “were”?
  • ”assaulting the police in the process”: One policeman? Or several, as it looks like here?
  • ”changed the direction of his profession”: Doesn’t sound quite right to me. “Changed direction” by itself, or “changed the focus of his profession” would sound more natural. But perhaps it’s just me.
    • The original version - that "Humphreys changed direction professionally" was probably the best way to phrase it, but someone had conniptions about the use of the word "profesionally" (that's 1,800 words of my life I'll never get back), so we had to take a backward step to the current version. I'll ponder on a more suitable rewording. - SchroCat (talk) 09:08, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Without wishing to reignite any wars or create another 1,800 words, I think the original version was better but understand that compromise is often necessary but rarely satisfactory! Whatever you decide won't affect my support in any way. Sarastro (talk) 09:26, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • ”Rusty performed in three acts a day”: I always think “per day” looks more elegant.
  • ”Within the next three years Humphreys owned between six and ten other sex shops.”: This doesn’t sound quite right to me. It feels like it should be more along the lines of “Over the next three years Humphreys acquired/opened…”
  • ”The head of the Flying Squad, Ken Drury, dined with Humphreys so often, the officers under his command noticed how much weight he was putting on; Humphreys bought him an exercise bicycle and a rowing machine to help him keep the weight down”: No issues, I just feel that I should feel more appalled than I do… this made me laugh out loud.
  • ”the owners would receive a coded telephone message”: Could this not just be “owners received”?
  • ”The squad which gave obsceity a meaning of own”: I’m assuming that’s a typo in the newspaper sources list… although it is the Guardian, so maybe not. Sarastro (talk) 20:50, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On the issues above: I notice that no-one is really addressing the oppose other than the nominator. As I read it, F&F objects on four areas. This is my take on his objections, in case the coordinators or anyone else is looking for other opinions on the matter.

  • Vague and inaccurate summarizing of the source material: I'm afraid I don't see this. The examples which F&F says are vague and inaccurate do not appear to be either to me. Yes, the source contains more than the article, but this is a summary. We can't have every detail from every source about every person in the story.
  • Inadequate background material on the sex industry in SOHO, London, in the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s: As others have said, I don't believe that this or any biography should be giving detailed background on the times/places in which the person operated. We have a summary in this article, which is adequate for the purpose unless/until someone writes something which comments on Humphreys' role in exploiting women or in the sex industry. As far as I can tell, most sources seem to look at him from the viewpoint of police corruption rather than a giant of the sex industry, but I may be wrong as that was from a cursory look. I had a look myself to see if there was anything which linked Humphreys and the sex industry, but nothing jumped out, including a look at JSTOR. The only thing I found was "Cleaning up the Dirty Squad", an article that I can't access without coughing up money, but which is not directly about Humphreys and once again is looking at it from the police corruption POV. And to reiterate, this is not an article about the Soho sex industry. Too much about that, which isn't directly concerned with Humphreys, would be undue in my opinion.
  • Besides, I am not convinced that there is no source material for his direct complicity: Umm... That is an interesting reason to oppose, which I would argue is not related to WP:WIAFA. I am not convinced that Joe Root should be England captain as it is destroying his batting. Unlike this grounds for opposition though, I could immediately find many good sources that expressed that opinion were I ever to take his article to FAC. A gut feeling is not a grounds for oppose, and I see that examples of these sources have not been produced by F&F. Nor could I find any.
  • The absence of Legacy. Most FA biographies have a paragraph or two about legacy: Well, putting aside WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, I would strongly disagree that a biography MUST have a legacy. If the person HAS a legacy, fantastic. But if there is no legacy... you can't have a legacy section. Opposing on these grounds is pure personal preference and I don't think helps to take this forward.

Overall, I do not really see what F&F sees, and would not personally consider them valid grounds for oppose. Fortunately, I'm no longer a coordinator. Sarastro (talk) 20:50, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sarastro, thank you very much for these comments. I will work through the top layers containing the suggestions, most of which look advantageous. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:42, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with all your comments regarding the lone "oppose". As I said above that the topic is not about "the sexual exploitation of young and underage women", the topic is "James Humphreys (pornographer)." But the opposer seems to disagree with me. I have been reluctant to engage with them any further because after the article's first FAC, a singularly nasty personal attack was made against me on their TalkPage [40]. Also note that they describe their review as giving the nominator "a hard time". Graham Beards (talk) 22:20, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree too, although as someone who lives in a city where most forms of pornography and prostitution are legal, I founds some parts of the text puzzling. The article provides an explanation of the situation with reference to pornography; but it is far from clear what the legal status of his brothels was. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:55, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comment Hawkeye. I thought the details of arrest/court case would have given enough detail, but I'll look at a sentence or footnote to clarify. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:42, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Now added. - SchroCat (talk) 12:13, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Article seems fine to me. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:35, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

[edit]

It looked pretty sound to me on a first read through and a bit of background study. A couple of suggestions to book my place are below. None of them are points which I would wish to go to the barricades over.

  • "Humphreys was arrested for assault on his wife's former lover" Reads a little oddly. Maybe 'assaulting'?
  • "but the couple soon divorced" Is any more precision available?
  • "Colin Manchester, the professor of law" It may just be me, but that reads a little oddly. Maybe 'Colin Manchester, a professor of law', or 'the professor of law, Colin Manchester'?
  • "It was suspected that the Richardson Gang—the South London criminal organisation" A picky point, but perhaps 'a South London ... '?

Gog the Mild (talk) 15:58, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the fragmentary nature of my comments. I keep getting distracted with background reading. Next up:

  • "Between 1969 and 1972 Humphreys made £216,000 profit from his shops" Is that what Humphreys "made" before or after deducting the bribes?
  • "gave him the advice "Get them when they're young", as they would still be amenable to bribes when older" I feel that this needs a little more detail. Perhaps 'as they would then remain amenable ... '?
  • "help him keep the weight down" 'his weight'?

Gog the Mild (talk) 16:40, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • "The report continued on the inside pages with the statement" Perhaps 'The report continued on the inside pages, including the statement'
  • "Eric Mason–an owner of ten sex shops" Perhaps "an" → 'the'?
  • "In September 1972 she received a three-month gaol sentence for possession of a firearm; there were some reports that she may have been threatening Humphreys with it at the time" In the context of the sentence, could "at the time" be rephrased or recast?
  • "Humphreys said he would drop pornography over central London" Do we know if this was as in dropping from his pocket or as in an air drop?
  • "Frank Mifsud—a Maltese criminal who ran a string of brothels—travelled to Ireland and then Brazil" Is there any point in giving Mifsud this walk-on part?
  • I think so. He is a notable enough individual to have his own article as he appears in several of the sources. I've red linked him and will put something together to cover the basics (as well as those of the red linked policemen too) - SchroCat (talk) 14:59, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Grumble, mutter.
  • "11 people were arrested, one of them Rusty Humphreys, at the couple's Brook Street residence" Were all 11 arrested at Brook Street? If not, perhaps a semi colon. If so, perhaps swap the order of the last two clauses.
  • "When Rusty was arrested, police searched the premises" I assume the premises refers to Brook St, but with Greek St having intervened, 'police searched the Brook Street premises' may help keep things straight for a reader.
  • "All but one were found guilty" Which one, which one - I can't stand the tension. Was it "one other". (Why is he (or she) nameless anyway?)
Fair enough.
  • "the couple were arrested in November 1993.[14] The couple, who were living in West Hampstead" Possibly change one "the couple" to 'both'?
  • Note I: "£216,000 in 1972 equates to approximately £2,799,000 in 2020" If we are being approximate then '£2,800,000' perhaps.

Gog the Mild (talk) 18:10, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Having finished my comments I read through Fowler&fowler's grounds for their object. I struggle a little to relate these clearly to any of the FA criteria, so it is probably best if I leave their consideration to better brains than mine.

Nb: it is my intention to claim points in the WikiCup for this review.

Gog the Mild (talk) 18:40, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your usual tight, well written, informative offering. Captures the spirit of the times well and doesn't contradict any of the sources I have consulted. Nicely balanced in my opinion, although you must have been spoilt for choice for quotes from Mars-Jones's summing up. Happy to support.
Gog the Mild (talk) 15:53, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Gog; I'm much obliged! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 16:19, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from SN54129

[edit]

Piling on, I know, but I supported the first time around, and nothing has changed for me to otherwise affirm and attest to that view. I seem to have missed the oppose in the previous FAC, but, reading that then and this now, I see they are effectively the same arguments which have been resoundingly refuted by Sarastro1 above. While I respect the emphasis the opposer paces on social and equality issues—a stance which certainly does them credit—I note my own suggestion, tongue-in-cheek but otherwise deliberate, that the level of extraneous context that the opposer appears to require would be UNDUE at best, and at worse necessitate a completely different article. It would be the equivalent of demanding that a brief history of greengrocery is inserted somewhere into this. ——SN54129 11:43, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks SN - much appreciated for the second time. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 16:19, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Epicgenius

[edit]

I don't have any major issues. It looks good from my American standpoint, and reading the above comments, I don't think a Legacy section is needed - it would be tangential to the actual subject. Mostly, I agree with the supporters who have already commented.

I did have a few queries:

  • There are a couple of places where links are right next to each other, e.g. gangland enforcer Frankie Fraser, giving the impression that there might be just one link.
  • Silver, Humphreys and Eric Mason–the owner of ten sex shops— - inconsistent dash usage, the first is an en-dash.
  • I meant to just copy and paste the second dash. Currently, this is the first dash: – and this is the second dash: — It's more pronounced when it's in plain text. Anyway, this is a minor nitpick, not anything to delay a support for.
  • She was released in late October.[72] - if I'm counting correctly, this was two months out of the three-month sentence. Was the sentence shortened?
  • In the 1996 BBC television series Our Friends in the North the character Benny Barrett, played by Malcolm McDowell, was based on Humphreys.[121] In 1999 Humphreys discussed the possibility of their life story being made into a film with Film4 Productions, who gave the film the provisional title Rusty; as at 2019 the film remains unmade - the two sentences have an abrupt transition. I suppose this was intended to be a paragraph for media mentions, but then Humphrey's death is mentioned in the next sentence.

These are all the comments I have for now. epicgenius (talk) 22:08, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from KJP1

[edit]

I've read this through three times, once at its earlier appearance, and have gone through it side-by-side with the FAC criteria. I'm clear it meets these, hence the Support. I don't want to add fuel to the debate above, and fully acknowledge the differing view expressed. If I'm reading it correctly, and my apologies if I'm not, the concerns relate to 1b, Comprehensiveness, and that the article fails to fully represent James Humphrey's villainy. On the first point, I think the article does cover all of the major incidents of Humphreys' life and sets these in the context of the criminal, and certainly exploitative, environment of 60s/70s Soho. More could certainly be written on this point but, in my view, it doesn't need to be, for 1b to be met. On the second point, I do have a concern of my own re. wording. The opening sentence of the lead describes Humphreys as "an English businessman". The opening line of the "Strip club and sex shop owner" section speaks of Humphreys "chang[ing] the direction of his profession". I'm not sure I'd use either term. The article title is "James Humphreys (pornographer)", and I don't think Profession is the right term to describe how Humphreys made his living. Wikipedia, and the dictionaries I've checked, define a profession as "an occupation involving training and a formal qualification". The Cambridge Online dictionary goes as far as to define it as work "that is respected because it involves a high level of education". The article makes clear that Humphreys' formal education ended at age 14, and his subsequent life was certainly not respectable. If I look for a comparison, Paul Raymond, who was never convicted of any criminal offence, is described in the article lead as "an English strip-club owner, publisher of pornography and property developer", and I think he could more fittingly be described as a businessman than Humphreys. All in all, I'd call a spade a spade, Humphreys a pornographer and his business the sex trade; thus "James William Humphreys (7 January 1930 – September 2003) was an English pornographer...On his release from Dartmoor Humphreys changed the focus of his activities and..." My support isn't conditional on these changes being made, but I do think they'd improve the article. KJP1 (talk) 13:42, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As always KJP1, many thanks for your thoughts on this. There was some extensive discussion on the point of "profession", but the OED is quite clear with one of their several definitions: "professional, adj. and n. Of a person or persons: that engages in a specified occupation or activity for money or as a means of earning a living, rather than as a pastime. Contrasted with amateur.", so I am not sure we have a problem with the use of that word.
The opening is something that could be considered a little more. Raymond, as far as I am aware (although I am not an expert on the point!), was only ever a strip-club owner, publisher of pornography and property developer and had no other business interests; Humphreys had a much more diverse career: safebreaker, strip-club owner, publisher of pornography, restaurateur, drug dealer and owner of a number of brothels. It was this diverse range of interests that led me to use "businessman". We could tweak it to say he "was an English businessman and criminal who owned... etc". Would the addition of those two words overcome your concerns? Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:00, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
SchroCat - It's your call, as I say we're discussing preferences not deal breakers. But for me, safebreaker + strip-club owner + pornographer + drug dealer + pimp + repeatedly-convicted felon = criminal, not businessman, even allowing for his restaurant. And in normal usage I would describe none of those activities as a profession. KJP1 (talk) 17:12, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Without expressing a preference one way or the other on this - for I have no strong views on the point - I merely observe that prostitution has long been called "the oldest profession". Tim riley talk 17:27, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Quite so, and due to Kipling, according to our article. But surely in a literary/ironical/euphemistic, rather than an encyclopaedic, sense? KJP1 (talk) 18:46, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just a suggestion, how about "...the direction of his nefarious activities" ? Graham Beards (talk) 19:33, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nefarious soundtrack cued... ——SN54129 19:42, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Cwmhiraeth

[edit]

I would like to suggest that "James Humphreys (criminal)" would be a better title for this article. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 21:12, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cwmhiraeth, let me have a think on that and (much more importantly) read the policy on titles. I thought they were supposed to reflect their main reason for being in the encyclopaedia (in which case pornographer just about shades criminal), but I may be completely wrong on that. Much of his activity was legal, although rather seedy (the strip clubs were all legitimate lines of business, as were a few other of his lines of business - the sex shops were a mix of legal (softcore pornography) and illegal (the more explicit work)). I'll look into it and get back.
@FAC coordinators: if we decide a change of title is needed (although that's only at the discussion stage here), is it better done during a review, after it, or does it not matter? I'm not sure it's in the FAC criteria, but I'm thinking more from a technical point of view in having the review and the article under different names.
Cheers to you all. - SchroCat (talk) 10:28, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I was wondering what exactly a pornographer was, and the definition seems to be "a person who makes or sells pornography". Humphreys did that, but did a lot of other seedy / illegal things too. He was certainly a criminal, having served several terms in prison. If you thought there was merit in my suggestion, you could start a move discussion on the talk page, but I would have thought that could wait until after the conclusion of this FAC. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:50, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK - we can wait until later, that's absolutely fine with me, and would probably suit the co-ords too. My gut reaction is that "criminal" may not be the best way, but I think I' could be easily swayed on that; it is certainly a good topic for further discussion (I'm not married to the term "pornographer", and if it goes it wouldn't be any great loss to me - we just have to make sure we get the right name to change into). Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:54, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, there's certainly precedents for changing an article title after the FAC, and it's a lot easier in terms of closure, FACbot and so on. If it was something people felt strongly enough to oppose over I'd probably say let's bite the bullet now -- or at least let's have it out and get consensus now, even if we change it afterwards -- but I don't think that's the case here... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:18, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Ian - I'll hold off opening the discussion etc until after the FAC. There is enough of a rough consensus to keep it as it is until later, but we can always revisit the point afterwards. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 21:50, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I suggest waiting until the FAC is closed and then having a discussion. For what it is worth, I prefer the current title. Graham Beards (talk) 11:50, 21 January 2020 (UTC)~[reply]
The current title is fine. “Pornographer” is by an overwhelming majority his label in the sources. I am traveling and without my sources, but will elaborate on all this and more in my oppose above when I return on Thursday. The article title, in my view, is not even remotely an issue. It was not for nothing that he was called the Emperor of Porn. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:49, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I too prefer "pornographer". If the sources call him a "pornographer" and we call him a "criminal" that would suggest to those not familiar with his story that pornography was/is illegal in the UK, which of course it wasn't/isn't. CassiantoTalk 18:20, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I concur with Graham Beards, Fowler&fowler and Cassianto. The OED defines "pornographer" as "A person who produces or provides pornography; a pornographic writer, publisher, or artist". This seems to me more precise, and more helpful to the reader, than "criminal", which by comparison is a bit vague. But I also agree that this is perhaps not the forum in which to debate the title. Tim riley talk 18:23, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GB to co-ords

[edit]

@FAC coordinators: Having gained 11 supports from respected FAC participants, IMHO this article has gained consensus for promotion. The points repeatedly raised in the single "oppose" are not a barrier to promotion and can be dealt with post-promotion. There are precedents for this. The debate is getting unnecessarily heated and further coordinator input is justified in any case. Graham Beards (talk) 08:22, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My review began on the 24th. I informed the coordinators about it. The eleven supports had appeared a week or more before I began.
The debate is not "getting heated," rather the nominator is becoming increasingly impatient and abusive. On any other page, he would have been blocked for repeatedly using four-letter and other epithets. I'm sure the coordinators can see that and there is no need for me to provide diffs. The points have not been "repeatedly raised." My first review was entirely a review of prose and that only of the lead. I had not had a chance to examine the sources then, as I have now.
Major issues remain. A Wikipedia article cannot have more than half its citations to primary sources. We can't cite videos of "documentaries" with timestamp, not once but six times. Why is it that it took me to point out that the major conclusion in the most cited source in this article is that James Humphreys was a police informer, a serial one? There is inadequate or inaccurate context: of the legal jumble that the pornographers were able to employ to their benefit; of the sudden explosion of pornography in the late 1960s; of the concurrent suppression of the politically radical publications for whose protection the laws had been designed. I have not got to any of that yet. Those are not things that can be covered after promotion. Those are not things that can be accommodated in footnotes. I'm happy to have an independent academic evaluation of my review once it is complete. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:43, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your review began on the 12th. The "supports" were added on the same day or later. Why should you have "an independent academic evaluation" of your review. No one else does. The valid points in your paragraph above have all been dealt with. Your are behaving like a troll (again Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Samuel_Johnson's_early_life). Stop it. Graham Beards (talk) 12:56, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I said I'd stay away until there was something silly for me to reply to; sadly this is it (already!). Again there are too many untruths in what you say. "The eleven supports had appeared a week or more before I began". You were the SECOND person to comment and your second edit was your oppose. That means that every single support came after you begin you "review" That would make most people pause for thought, at least.

"We can't cite videos of "documentaries" with timestamp": yes we can. "A Wikipedia article cannot have more than half its citations to primary sources": yes it can (and this article doesn't: it depends which sources you are classing as primary; funnily enough the other reviewers, which include two former FA co-ords and several holders of multiple FAs have not said there is a problem with the quantity or quality of the sources, which should tell you something). "Why is it that it took me to point out that the major conclusion in the most cited source in this article is that James Humphreys was a police informer": it didn't. The information was already in the article. "inadequate or inaccurate context": Bullshit. This is a biography of an individual, not a history of pornography or the law in 1960s/70 Britain. Everyone else has managed to grasp that simple point except you.

Now pipe down with complaining about what other people are doing and get on with the bloody review. I will wait until the weekend before I address any comments you care to make about the article by that time. - SchroCat (talk) 13:09, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can't reply to the off-topic comments above, to the abusive comments above, especially not to diffs of 11 years ago, which I have not examined. Anyone who doubts my motives can examine my recent FAC reviews in Cactus Wren, Horologium (constellation), Randall Davidson (you may examine my detailed PR there), or Coropuna? The first comments were place holders, as the FAC had been withdrawn and then ten days later resubmitted without any change. I posted a note to the coordinators on the 16th. My review began on the 24th. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:50, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There was nothing off topic there, (except your list of reviews where you weren't disruptive). But to pick up on yet another untruth that I've had to correct before: "the FAC had been withdrawn and then ten days later resubmitted without any change."
The first FAC was closed at 13:10, 30 December 2019; this one was opened at 09:17, 12 January 2020. In that two week period the edit history shows the following:
  • 09:16, 12 January 2020‎ SchroCat talk contribs‎ 50,142 bytes +71‎ →‎Strip club and sex shop owner undo
  • 15:33, 1 January 2020‎ SchroCat talk contribs‎ 50,071 bytes +10‎ →‎Strip club and sex shop owner undo
  • 14:11, 1 January 2020‎ SchroCat talk contribs‎ 50,061 bytes +7‎ →‎Strip club and sex shop owner: Ditto. Enough twatting about with minutae that 99.9999% of the world will understand as being entirely good use of language. Only one foul reader will ever have problems with this phrasing, so hopefully they will be less obnoxious about how they deal with people from now on (fat chance) undo
  • 14:09, 1 January 2020‎ SchroCat talk contribs‎ 50,054 bytes -64‎ →‎Strip club and sex shop owner: Trying to stop the BATTLEFIELD troll with the inflexible approach who NEEDS to win everything undo
  • 19:46, 30 December 2019‎ SchroCat talk contribs‎ 50,118 bytes -3‎ →‎Strip club and sex shop owner: may as well put this in line with the lead undo
  • 19:38, 30 December 2019‎ 7&6=thirteen talk contribs‎ 50,121 bytes -6‎ →‎Strip club and sex shop owner: copy edit undothank
  • 19:35, 30 December 2019‎ 7&6=thirteen talk contribs‎ 50,127 bytes -5‎ copy edit for readability undothank
That all adds up to these changes. "resubmitted without any change" contains as much veracity as claiming you didn't begin reviewing until two weeks after you actually did. Your second edit was to oppose: if putting in an oppose isn't classed as part of review, was it just being disruptive, or is there another reason? But, I tell you what: don't bother answering or wasting your time in reworking reality to fix what you think you wnat to say: get on with the bloody review so we can bring this to a close before next Christmas or I entirely lose the will to live, whichever comes first. - SchroCat (talk) 14:05, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, that's enough. This entire thread and the topic needs to STOP BEING DISCUSSED. I just got up ... i'm trying to work from the cab of a semi truck traveling in winter through the midwest. I.e. my ability to type is compromised and its going to be a bit before I get to settling this whole cluster-fuck. But its on my plate so the pings can STOP, as can the emails. So can everyone just shut up so I can actually try to figure out what is worth looking at and what's just plain noise and what should really not be happening at all (hint for those dense - there should be no discussion of other editors taking place.) Ealdgyth - Talk 14:13, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note from coord

[edit]

Okay, I'm promoting this, but before I do so, I want to put on my lecture cap and try to salvage something from this train wreck. Hopefully everyone involved can read this and take the issues on board so that in the future we can avoid situations like this.

One: There should never be any need for anyone involved with an FAC to discuss what they consider to be the motivations of other editors. Or to discuss other editors past actions. Or, frankly, to discuss other editors period. If you have a problem with something another editor does at an FAC, the important thing to remember is that FAC is not a battleground. The goal is to improve articles. It isn't a right that an article gets a shiny star. It is almost always best to remember that this is a text medium, not face to face. Try to assume that the other editor is also here to improve articles.

Two: People are different. Not everyone is going to approach things the way you do. It is important to allow for the fact that other editors are going to phrase things in ways that you may consider insulting - but they may very well not have intended an insult at all. The "tone" of conversations in a text medium makes this more difficult - we miss important context by communicating only through text. Rather than immediately assuming the worst - take a step back and ask for clarification. Also, if people are continually pointing out that they don't quite understand your points - perhaps it might be a sign that perhaps your text communication style needs some adjustment.

Three: The FAC criteria are purposefully a bit "loose" to allow for some judgement. That means that sometimes reviewers and nominators will disagree with whether something brought up by a reviewer is actionable by the criteria or not. When this happens, the best thing to do is ... agree to disagree and see if other reviewers take up the issue. The worst thing to do is to dig in and start a long back and forth over the issue, because invariably that leads to things becoming heated and the discussion becomes centered on editors rather than edits.

Four: The FAC coords are not your parents. We don't really have a remit to come swooping in to a FAC and declare for one side of a dispute. We judge consensus to promote.

Five: Prose issues. English writing does not have hard and fast rules for prose style. There is room for different stylistic takes. Just because you think something should be written one way does not make that the only correct way to phrase it. Yes, there are hard and fast grammar rules, but usually those aren't at issue.

Six: Content: Because the criteria are vague, it means that what is required to meet the comprehensiveness requirement is also a bit loose. Some reviewers will expect a LOT of background material - basing this on the criteria requirement for comprehensiveness. Some will expect little background - basing this on the criteria requirement for using summary style. Obviously, this can lead to conflict. This can best be resolved by NOT getting into long back and forths between the reviewer and nominator, but rather by agreeing that it is a point that needs to be considered and dealt with by other reviewers and taking that consensus of other reviewers as what should happen.

Seven: Consensus: Consensus works best when it's arrived at by a dispassionate discussion of the merits of the things under discussion. Its very hard to arrive at consensus when folks come in to "help" one side or another in an editing dispute. This just fuels the battleground mentality and gets everyone's backs up. And it can then lead to further disputes in future discussions. It may help in the short run if people "take sides" but in the end all it does is make the environment more toxic. It's a short term fix that leads to much bigger long term problems. The classic example on wikipedia is of course, our friend the "infobox dispute" ... where the vast majority of wikipedians would actually like to chuck the various disputants into the nearest freezing cold lake because its just dragged on so long and is so entrenched that it turns the entire subject toxic.

Okay, so that's some impersonal points I'm bringing up to whack the whole lot of you over the head with. I'm going to assume that most of you can at least pay lip service to those ideals, right?

Well, obviously they've been thrown out the window here. There's been entirely too much discussion of other editors and what their motivations are. Too much assuming that "it's correct because I said so and I'm not going to listen at all to what you're saying because it's wrong". Too much insisting that there is one "correct" way to phrase things and that the "other" is wrong.

I'll be frank - much of F&F's prose issues are stylistic points on which editors can differ. There probably are some good points within all of the points that were raised, but.. F&F - you write way too much and you come across as a dogmatic preservationist. Your writing and communicating style reminds me of the worst professors I ever had, who seemed to think that if they just expended enough words they could overwhelm the opposition by sheer number of words. Your reviews would be received much better if you didn't come across this way and if you cut down the verbiage by about two-thirds.

But, F&F has a good point about the reliance on newspaper and interviews. We are an encyclopedia which means we summarize SECONDARY sources. We too often loose track of this, because we do allow for the use of newspapers and interviews. But, strictly speaking, we should be using them sparingly. It is a historian's job to read and digest the primary sources and it is an encyclopedia's job to read and digest and summarize the products of the historian. In this FAC, because of all the other issues that have lead to a battleground mentality, F&F's point was dismissed as wrong, when quite honestly ... if I was going to review the article for sources, I'd be concerned about it. I have no idea if I'd oppose or not based on it, but it IS a valid concern that should be addressed properly, not swept under the rug by the nominator and other reviewers because of issues with who brought it up.

Too many on the "nominators" side have approached this FAC as a battleground. I'm not going to dig to find out why this is so - it appears that some of it is from the previous FAC for this article, but at least some of it is coming from previous interactions with F&F that really should have nothing to do with THIS FAC. In an ideal world, these sorts of things would have no impact, but we're not in Candide's world, we're in ours, and the best we can do as editors is try to NOT bring those issues into other discussions. While as an FAC coord, I expect a bit of leakage of personality disputes to leak into FAC, this FAC went way beyond what I consider to be acceptable. It frankly was excessive and attempts to stop it seem to have been ignored. Folks, the personalizing of disputes is just not helpful at all. It's how you burn out FAC coords... having to read vitriol is one of the surest ways to drive volunteers away. The classic example is right here - us three FAC coords have tried to gently steer the discussion away from unproductive avenues but its never lasted long. I'm sure it must be stressful for all involved - and there's no good reason for it. It certainly doesn't help make the FAC coords job any easier.

One further point - I was not impressed that F&F's attempts to discuss issues on the talk page between FAC1 and FAC2 went no where. Yes, he brought up a lot of stuff that was insanely nit picky and often not "wrong" but ... the solution is to go "I do not agree, we can see what other reviewers think when it comes back to FAC. However, your input is helpful, can you continue?" and for F&F to go "okay, you don't agree, lets go on to the next point " and lay out the next point rather than expending vast quantities of verbiage on a extremely minor point of style.

FAC is not "let me go through this article word by word and make the nominator revise it to be phrased exactly as I would". The prose criteria is not supposed to deal with that sort of minutiae. The prose should convey the meaning clearly, but HOW it does that is often a matter of personal style choices and reviewers need to understand that not everything they bring up is going to be actionable or even supported by other reviewers. When disagreement arises between a nominator and reviewer over a style issue, step back and let others weigh in. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:28, 28 January 2020 (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/January_2020&oldid=938333064"