Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/January 2023

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 28 January 2023 [1].

Great Gold Robbery

[edit]
Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 14:50, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A fascinating tale this. A robbery in 1855 on a moving train which netted over £1 million in today's money. They nearly got away with it too, but one of the robbers did the financial dirty on his ex-girlfriend and their child and the long arm of the Peelers got them in the end. This was rewritten two and a half years ago and has matured well since then; it's also been through a recent PR for a further polish. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 14:50, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Vami

[edit]

It may just be the size of the monitor, but this article seems too well-illustrated. The right side of the article is a near-constant stream of images and there is WP:SANDWICHing going on in "Immediate aftermath".

  • They were joined by the two planners of the crime, Edward Agar, a professional career criminal, and William Pierce, a former employee of SER who had been dismissed for being a gambler. "Two" here is to me redundant; the previous sentence already says there were four heisters. I suggest: "They were joined by Edward Agar, a professional career criminal, and William Pierce, a former employee of SER who had been dismissed for gambling, who planned the crime."
  • The word "police" is used 12 times in the article. How many times does it refer to a specific police force or organization?
  • Only twice do the sources point to the "railway police" (which we've pointed to in the text), with the rest too vague to identify a particular force, just a generic use of "police". If the repetition is an issue, I can go through the sources again to see if there are any references to "detectives" (or similar) rather than just "police"? - SchroCat (talk) 09:34, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agar was questioned and turned Queen's evidence. This could do with explaining for readers who are not British or otherwise familiar with this turn of phrase.
  • The lead by itself leaves me to wonder - was the gold ever recovered?
  • Annoyingly, none of sources say anything on the point. I presume not, but without a clear indication from the source, there's little clarification we can bring, unfortunately. SchroCat (talk) 09:34, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Best regards. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 05:15, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Vami_IV. I'm pondering how to deal with one of the phrases, and there's another question in there for you too. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:34, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The link to guard's van should move into the first sentence of the second paragraph of #Background.
  • Over time he picked up information about the gold shipments to Paris, [...] Were the shipments secret? If so - and one could understand why - it would be valuable to make a note of it in #South Eastern Railway
  • There's no reference to it in the sources. (I suspect it was a semi-open secret - ie people knew it happened, but didn't know when or the details of the security involved). I've tweaked the sentence to say "detailed information", which may help people. - SchroCat (talk) 11:40, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • [Pierce] relayed his thoughts to Agar before the latter's visit to the US; The previous allusion to Agar's life outside to the UK is an unspecified amount of time in the US and Australia. When did Pierce and Agar meet, by the way?
  • [...] and met Pierce and Agar in a beer house on Tooley Street [...] An "in London" here would be valuable for non-British readers.
  • #Robbery is the only section with a date in it.
  • Other sections don't need the precision, so have month and year, rather than the specific day something happened. (There are a few dates in the Immediate aftermath, Legal process and Later sections too, where the specific date is of importance). - SchroCat (talk) 11:33, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • [...] but thought that as staff at Folkestone had not mentioned it, then there seemed no reason for them to worry. Recommend, for brevity, some approximation of "there was no cause for concern."
  • A reward of £300 was soon advertised in several newspapers. For information regarding the case?
  • There is a second link to the Old Baily in #Legal process.
  • The history of the robbery can be found in The First Great Train Robbery, written by David C. Hanrahan in 2011. Why is this supported by an article from 2003?
  • [...] as a gentleman master criminal who eventually escapes. Escapes from...?
  • The robbery also featured as one of the themes in the mystery novel Kept by D. J. Taylor. When was Kept published?

Happy to Support. What a tale! –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 11:45, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Vami, that's very good of you! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:46, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
  • Several of the images would benefit from being scaled up, particularly the map and the reward notice
  • What is Cruikshank's date of death?
  • File:Route_of_the_bullion_train_for_the_1855_Great_Gold_Robbery.png: what is the source of the route data used here?
  • File:Tester_Burgess_and_Agar_1855.jpg: source link is dead. (The tagging here might be useful for other images though). Nikkimaria (talk) 01:30, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done
  • Nothing definitive. Most sources have him fl. in 1880 with noting afterwards. (Some OR on an ancestry site suggests possibly 1907, but that could be a different Percy R Cruikshank). He was certainly born in 1817 (his father's DNB entry covers that), but there is no official reference to him after 1880 when we wrote a biography of his father. - SchroCat (talk) 08:23, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Nikkimaria, I'm much obliged, as always. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:23, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]
  • "The line ran at 8:00 am, 11:30 am and 4:30 pm" - probably better to say "The service ran at 8:00 am, 11:30 am and 4:30 pm". A line doesn't really "run".....
  • "The agents who arranged the carriage of the gold, including collecting the bullion from the three companies and delivering it to London Bridge were" - comma needed after Bridge
  • "Agar drank in the Rose Inn, a public house to the pier" - feels like there's a word missing here ("a pub to the pier" doesn't seem to make sense). Was it actually on the pier?
  • "telling friends he had won the capital by betting on Saucebox in the St Leger Stakes at long odds" - maybe clarify that this was a horse race? Great name for the horse, BTW :-)
  • Think that's all I got - great work! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:23, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - great work, and nice to read about something (albeit something criminal) that happened in my old stomping ground (I grew up in Kent and visited Folkestone quite often as a child) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:39, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review from Guerillero

[edit]

The article is fascinating. I will do a source review on sunday. I don't see a need to do spotchecks --In actu (Guerillero) Parlez Moi 14:56, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • The Bankers' Magazine, and Journal of the Money Market looks more like a bound academic journal to me rather than a book. XVII is the volume, not the edition. At least cite the chapter/article name
  • Google books suggests that Percy Cruikshank might be an author for A Full Report of the Great Gold Robbery.
  • For Griffiths 1899 I would move the volume number to the volume field, since it isn't part of the printed book title
  • For Storey 2007, I would write out the county name. Unlike US states, there is no consensus short version
  • For your 1800s newspaper sources, how did you access them? Can you provide a link or database name in the via field if they came from a digital database.
  • I understand what you are using the LOC card catalog for, but would it be possible to use a newspaper article to do the same thing. The link doesn't work for me and I have an uneasy feeling about using semi-published sources for these kinds of facts. See also my long-term objections to pop culture articles using retailers and streaming services for dates.
  • For the Old Bailey Proceedings, would it make more sense to cite the scanned book with pages and such and provide a link to the webpage where the text is digitized?
  • That's not as easy as it sounds... The site gives a background to the documents they worked from. Proceedings were published ten to twelve times a year, so although there is some information about the original source, the full details for this specific entry are not available. - SchroCat (talk) 13:09, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

--Guerillero Parlez Moi 12:16, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Harry

[edit]
  • I would make the source of the lead image clear in the caption; the current caption makes it sound like a photograph but it's obviously not a contemporary image but an artist's impression
  • Testify, witness, patent, alibi, betting shop are probably not necessary links; the average English speaker probably has enough idea of what those terms mean to understand this article.
  • no individual could hold two keys at the same time → could hold both keys?
  • Should the SER not take a definite article? (I know some people have violently strong opinions about the word "the" so please ignore me if you're one of them)
  • Unfortunately for the conspirators is editorialising
  • Tester was able to smuggle them out of the office briefly You haven't explicitly said above that Tester was involved with the plot
  • while the bag containing some of the gold was handed to Tester active voice would be preferable here. Ditto 'After the train left Redhill the other two boxes were examined.
  • threw the keys and tools into the English Channel surely just "the sea" would suffice here?
  • Footnote m feels like trivia
  • Was Tester's dismissal anything to do with the robbery? Probably worth specifying, even if it's unrelated.
  • He wasn't dismissed - we've got "That September he left the SER and became the general manager of a Swedish railway company" to explain his leaving - do you think it needs more? - SchroCat (talk) 11:26, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I meant his dismissal from the Swedish railway company. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:18, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah - of course - sorry: put that down to Saturday dopiness. It's not reported in the sources. There's some speculation, but nothing that looks good enough to use. - SchroCat (talk) 17:19, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • A subsequent feature film based on the novel Arguably not an incorrect use of "subsequently" but "later" would do.
  • Worth a link to Great Train Robbery (1963)? Was there any renewed interest in this event after that robbery?

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:50, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support and comments from Jim

[edit]

A fascinating article, particularly as I've been to London Bridge, Folkestone, Boulogne and the Gare du Nord at various times. Happy to support, but a couple of comments to show I've read it Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:14, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • a tidal ferry service — how did this differ from the links to the scheduled sailings to Boulogne? Was it to somewhere else?
  • Cambridge Villa. is mentioned several times, can we get a bit more idea where it was?
  • American gold Eagles... American Eagles In its own article, the $10 coin involved in the robbery is lc gold eagle, perhaps there has been confusion with the bullion American Gold Eagle where both words are capped? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:14, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll look into this one. I originally had this at a different value until someone changed it, pointing to our own article. I'll have to go back to the sources to see exactly which coins were present. Thanks for your thoughts and comments. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:15, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 26 January 2023 [2].

When Megan Went Away

[edit]
Nominator(s): —⁠Collint c 18:19, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you were around in the United States in the late '80s or early '90s, you may recall a fracas about early children's picturebooks like Heather Has Two Mommies (1989) or Daddy's Roommate (1990) that drew heat from conservative interests for depicting gay parents. Causing significantly less of a fracas, however, was the first picturebook to ever depict an LGBT+ character, 1979's When Megan Went Away by Jane Severance. Flying under the radar because of meager promotion from its independent publisher, mediocre reception for its story and art, and less than happy subject matter (the protagonist's mother separating from her lover), Megan nonetheless offers a window into lesbian life in Severance's community in the late '70s and stands as an important first step for the medium of queer kids' books which continue to receive challenge and derision from conservative interests as the number and diversity of these stories expand. This article was a major project of mine four years ago and benefitted from some additional edits and restructuring from CadeCaggiano during a 2021 WikiEdu course project. I look forward to ensuring this page is to FA standards and welcome any comments. Thanks, and happy new year! —⁠Collint c 18:19, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SC

[edit]
I don’t often oppose articles, but I am close with this one. There’s nothing terribly wrong with the article as a whole, but the prose is lumpy in places, and I’m not sure FAC would be the best place to fix it.
Having said that, maybe I’m being harsh (I’m in pain with a seized back and suffering from a lack of sleep), but there are a few pointers for you to consider:
Lead
  • The fact it’s a children’s book should be mentioned in para 1, probably in the first sentence.
  • Link independent press
  • “Concerns the child (or preteen) Shannon” - clarify on the first reference
  • “young lesbian working in a feminist bookstore in Denver in her early twenties”: “young” isn’t needed (and is a relative term anyway) when you tell us she was in her early 20s
  • “she perceived” isn’t needed
Background
  • “Severance's grandmother, Dorothy, imparted her love for reading to her children”: so how did it work its way to her grandchildren? Do you mean to include them too, or should her mother also be referenced? (Can you impart love? You can impart knowledge, but “sharing love” feels more natural)
  • “family to pursue writing”: can one “pursue writing”? “pursue writing as a career”, maybe?
  • “what she later characterized”: don’t need “later”
  • There’s something not right with the sentence “Severance's life, in her words, "was all about being a lesbian" and she identified a need for picture book content about children with lesbian mothers like those around her”, but I can’t put my finger on it at the moment.
  • “Further, she noted” -> “She also noted” (Further makes it look like a recently found additional fact jammed onto the end).

These are the main points I’ve noted from two sections, although there are more I could probably pick up. As it stands it not FA-worthy, but whether it’s close enough for final polishing during the FAC is another matter. - SchroCat (talk) 05:18, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SchroCat, thanks for taking the time to look at this and offer these useful comments. I've gone through and incorporated your notes for the first three sections (including trimming some of the bits about the grandmother) and have further reworded and reworked the other sections, especially Plot and Reception which I agree felt clunkier than desired. If you like, I can ping you again further on down the review if you'd like to take another look once others have had the chance to offer thoughts. Sleep well and feel better soon! Kindly —⁠Collint c 06:34, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good work on the clear up so far - it's in much better shape that when it first came to FAC. A few other thoughts for you:

Lead
  • "as of the 2010s": we're now in the 2020s – is there anything that updates to a more current position?
  • Anecdotally, there's been no real change; the book hasn't been republished or reissued. However, no recent scholarship has addressed this so "as of the 2010s" is the most recent citable info I have to offer.
Background
  • "[...]": You don't need the square brackets (per WP:ELLIPSES), but I don't push the point too much
  • "Severance's community": "The community", maybe? Using her name makes it sound like she's a community leader, rather than being part of it. Again, I don't push this point, and if you retain for clarity, that's fine.
Publication history
  • Link to gender stereotypes?
  • "change the names "Shannon" and "Megan", lest readers get the impression that 'only women with Irish heritage were lesbians'": I struggle with this, and realise it's just the ignorance of the publisher – but it still grates a bit. The issue I have is that the 1. "Megan" is a Welsh name, not Irish; and 2. "Shannon" is a child about whom we have no idea of their sexuality. I'm not sure there is much we can do about, but it still grates!
  • I've added a note about the name "Megan"; agreed that there's not much to be done about the other point.
  • Anything to add about the wonderfully monikered "Tea Schook"?
  • Really good question. I'd also wondered this but hadn't previously identified much beyond that she unsuccessfully ran for a city council seat in Denver a few years back. However, if these archival papers are hers, then we can understand that she also unsuccessfully ran for Colorado governor in 1990 and also was a student at Loretto Heights College at the time of illustrating this book. I feel like at least the latter point might be worth mentioning if you feel comfortable that this is the same Tea Schook (how many Tea Schooks in Denver in the 1970s can there be?)
  • While it’s highly unlikely that there are two of them, it’s probably best not to make the connection without some confirmation (It’s always a vague possibility it’s a pseudonym or some other reason, but I tend to be more safety first on points such as these. - SchroCat (talk) 16:38, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sounds good to err on caution's side here. Thanks SchroCat. The catalog notes for this archive mention that among the collection are drawings; if I'm ever in Denver I'll try and go explore this resource to see if I can definitively link it (e.g., if perhaps the drawings are from Megan). —⁠Collint c 16:48, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Legacy
  • "no LGBT characters": remove the link from here and move it up to "Lesléa Newman, a fellow LGBTQ children's author" instead.

I hope these help. - SchroCat (talk) 09:14, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey SchroCat, thanks again for these comments; I've addressed them all or left comments if not. Let me know what you think about the Schook source; if you agree that that's probably the same Schook then I can add a bit of info on her. —⁠Collint c 15:58, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ceranthor

[edit]
  • Wonderful to see this article at FAC. I have a few comments on prose, sources, and the image.
  • "In Denver, she became involved with what she characterized as "a very small subset of the lesbian community [...], the very young lesbian feminists" who ran a production company, a newspaper, a feminist bookstore (Woman to Woman), and organized protests and marches." - as is this sentence doesn't work grammatically. I would suggest switching the order at the end to "the very young lesbian feminists who organized protests and marches and ran production companies, newspapers, or feminist bookstores" since I assume the sentence is meant to imply they were doing one of these things, not necessarily all at once. Hopefully that thought makes sense, please don't hesitate to ask me to clarify if not!
  • "the lack of older lesbian role models, dearth of education, plus poverty, mental illness, and substance abuse " - similar issue here; very clunky as is. Was it widespread poverty, mental illness, and substance abuse? If so, I'd suggest something like "the lack of lesbian role models, compounded by a dearth of education and widespread poverty, mental illness, and substance abuse". Also, is it a lack of formal education, or education in parenting techniques?
  • "None of the lesbian mothers Severance knew had had planned children with their female partners," - double had, only need one.
  • "children in her community instead being a result of their mothers' past relationships with men.[4]" - seems a bit impersonal. What about "partners, most of their children instead from their mothers' past relationships with men"
  • "lesbian mothers, like those in her community.[5] " - no need for last bit after the comma, it's implied
  • "Retrospectively, she described feeling that the publication process was completely foreign to her." - No need to clarify retrospectively
  • "During the editing process, the publisher rewrote a section of the book, which Severance objected to." - which part?
  • I wish we knew but it's not stated in the source!
  • "the book did not receive a wide distribution" - any idea where it was published specifically?
  • Not specifically. Books of this type were likely sold through some combination of mail order via community newsletters/bulletins and in-person via feminist bookstores but I don't have sources to support either concretely.
  • "However, several smaller magazines did review the work." - somewhat clunky phrasing. "When Megan Went Away received no coverage from major book review magazines upon its publication,[8] but it did garner reviews from several smaller magazines" perhaps with a different verb than garner would be better.
  • "Carrie Dearborn wrote in Gay Community News that the book had had an emotional impact " - don't need both "had"s here
  • I'm too much a sucker for the double hads, thanks for pointing this out.
  • "In response to such criticism, Severance stated in an interview published in 2010" - lots of extra words. "a 2010 interview" should do the trick.
  • "Citing its success and notoriety, Severance has expressed the desire that Newman identify Heather as "the first successful book about lesbian mothers".[6]" - careful with pronouns, because it sort of sounds like you're describing Severance as "it" here. maybe better to move "citing [...] notoriety" to the end of the sentence.
  • For the sources, link University Press of Mississippi, American Library Association
  • Image and alt text look fine.

I think I'll need to read through again, but there are definitely some issues with prose clunkiness and redundancy. Will leave more comments after these are addressed. ceranthor 17:37, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ceranthor, thanks for lending your time to this. I've incorporated all the above comments except those that I'm unable to source; these I've commented on in your list. If you have any other tweaks or changes, please don't hesitate to let me know. Thank you! Kindly —⁠Collint c 00:30, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd briefly mention the pseudonym in the lead
  • " The book, published by the independent press Lollipop Power, concerns a child named Shannon" - why concerns and not depicts?
  • "with the separation of her mother and Megan, her mother's former partner." - what about rephrasing this to "her mother and her mother's partner Megan"? I think former partner is implied given separation
  • "It is regarded as the first picture book to include LGBT characters" - cut regarded as
  • "not widely distributed upon publication and proved divisive, with some praising the story for being an anti-sexist example of lesbian life and others finding its depiction of same-sex separation poorly timed," - provided divisive among critics, with some
  • "who organized protests and marches and ran a production company, a newspaper, and the feminist bookstore Woman to Woman.[3]" - this is still clunky and I think it's because I don't understand the meaning. Are you trying to say that they were the type of lesbian feminists doing these things?
  • Broke this into two sentences; let me know if it scans better.
  • "When Megan Went Away focuses on Shannon" - again, I think depicts would be better here
  • "mother's partner, Megan, has recently separated from Shannon's unnamed mother." - so wordy. What about "whose mother has recently separated from her partner Megan"
  • "Shannon continues to reminisce about what life was like before the separation" - cut continues to and change to reminisces
  • "Lollipop Power did not do enough publicity for the book, limiting its reach.[13]" - limiting its reach is rather vague... does the source clarify into the LGBT community or any other specific group it failed to reach, perhaps the mainstream population?
  • "Severance stated in a 2009 interview that when writing the story, she was intent on depicting lesbians as similar to nonlesbians rather than focusing on the differences.[5]" - clunky. Could say the same with fewer words easily
  • " distinction instead given to Lesléa Newman's Heather Has Two Mommies, not published until a decade later in 1989.[28]" - similarly could cut down some verbiage here
  • "to have attracted any challenges or attempts to ban it like Heather and other later picture books featuring LGBT characters have faced.[32] " - clunky
  • "The children's literature researcher Thomas Crisp noted in the Children's Literature Association Quarterly that Severance's career and books" - how does her career do this? I would just say her books
  • "Crisp also reported that copies of When Megan Went Away were difficult to find at the time of writing." - just replace "at the time of writing" with the year

Might need to do one final pass after these are addressed. ceranthor 14:37, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again Ceranthor, I've incorporated all but two of these. To your first point, do you mean that "R. Minta Day" should be mentioned in the lead? To your point about "limiting its reach", this isn't super clear in the source. Here's the relevant text: "I think that unfortunately Lollipop Power did not do a lot of publicity about those two books [Megan and Severance's later book Lots of Mommies], and I don't think they had a wide reach, even though When Megan Went Away initially appeared in Ms. Magazine as a story." —Newman qtd. in Peel 2015. Note that Newman's assertion that the work was published in Ms. "initially" is not true. I'm happy to adjust this slightly; maybe "limiting its potential readership" or similar? Thanks! —⁠Collint c 15:49, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes to the first point. Maybe mentioned as "first published under the pseudonym R. Minta Day". And then I think "limiting its potential readership" is better. ceranthor 16:15, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done and done; added a sentence at the end of the first lede para about the republication in Ms. —⁠Collint c 16:43, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think maybe the second and third sentences in the lead could be switched. Thoughts? ceranthor 18:32, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't hate it! I've switched them, and also moved the bit about the Ms. republication to the second para where I think it fits better. —⁠Collint c 18:58, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support I'm happy with the progress made for the prose. Nice work! ceranthor 19:37, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review: pass

[edit]
  • Formatting: all good; sfn used throughout, all citations are consistent. Formatting of the source list is also consistent
  • Reliability: all sources are reliable.
  • Spot checks show material is adequately supported by relevant citations.
  • No examples of close phrasing were found and copyvio checks show no issues
  • Searches for unused sources have identified nothing of additional value. There were some sources located, but reference to the book was only in passing, or repeated information that was already in the article in equally reliable sources.
  • There is a copy of the book at https://archive.org/details/combinepdf_202009/mode/2up: this link should be added to the sources. There are also a couple of the other sources that are available either on Google Books or the Internet Archive: these should probably be added for consistency with the existing links in the sources.

Hope these help. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:37, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks SchroCat! Good call on the Archive.org links, I hadn't thoroughly searched the books available there but all available links have been added. —⁠Collint c 14:16, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No problems - that’s a pass. - SchroCat (talk) 08:10, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review: pass

[edit]

Comments by Ian

[edit]

Recusing coord duties to review...

  • A nice succinct article that seems comprehensive (I say this having never heard of the subject) and is neutral in tone.
  • Although I performed my habitual copyedit, the article reads well, due in part no doubt to some heavy lifting undertaken in concert with the earlier reviewers.
  • In summary, no reason not to support. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:37, 26 January 2023 (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) 25 January 2023 [3].

2022 World Snooker Championship

[edit]
Nominator(s): User:HurricaneHiggins, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:17, 12 December 2022 (UTC) [reply]

This article is about the 2022 edition of the World Snooker Championship. Let me know your thoughts. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:17, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from HAL

[edit]

It's been a week after nomination, and this is still dormant, so I'll throw my hat in:

  • No complaints in lead.
  • Fergal O'Brien, Martin O'Donnell, Sunny Akani, and Andrew Higginson Maybe alphabetize
  • What's a 137 break?
MOS:NOFORCELINK: Do use a link wherever appropriate, but as far as possible do not force a reader to use that link to understand the sentence. The text needs to make sense to readers who cannot follow links. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:52, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, I get that - but the idea of explaining what a break is, would be similar to explaining what a yellow card is in football, or what a cannon is in warfare. Whilst we should expect articles to explain highly jargon terms (or avoid altogether) we shouldn't be adding in explainations for the most common of terms for the subject matter. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:01, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Er, this is an encyclopedia. The reason we're here is to explain unfamiliar concepts. It's our job to explain the common terms of the subject matter! Besides which, the MoS doesn't give an exemption for common terms. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:29, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You could make that exact argument about literally any article. I don't think you could point to any FA where this isn't the case. Do you have a wording that would make sense here? If we don't have "an exemption" for common terms, then we would have to explain every single thing that isn't completely obvious in prose. That would not be improving the encyclopedia, it would make all things so much harder to read. I would oppose an FA that went out of its way to explain the minutia of every term as being not well written. To this end, I've started a topic at the MOS talk page as I've heard this argument a few times and I've never seen it applied outside of sports articles. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:17, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. Could you provide a link? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:21, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Found it. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:50, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, I was still composing it. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:12, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fourth and final round of qualifying, billed as "Judgement Day", was As they are multiple rounds, i.e. plural, should it be "were"?
  • a 17 percent increase over the previous year. Overall, the event attracted a 30 percent greater share of the BBC's viewing audience than the previous year. What's the difference?
    • This says the final session (the last few hours of the 17 days) was 17 per cent larger, whilst the event as a whole had 30 per cent higher audience (on the BBC at least).
  • Should that be "Snooker.org" rather than "snooker.org"?

The subject isn't exactly my forte, but this article is really immaculate work. Very nice job. ~ HAL333 01:41, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to support. ~ HAL333 18:35, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from ChrisTheDude

[edit]

Image review

- the only image I've found is a print of the official match program, which I've used before. See cuetracker.net/tournaments/world-championship/2022/4888. (link is blacklisted for citations, should be fine for showing where the image came from). Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 23:19, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think the nom has been open long enough, by all means pursue and double-check with Nikki if necessary afterwards. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 20:37, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from BennyOnTheLoose

[edit]
  • Snooker Scene (which reported extensively on the tournament in the June 2022 issue) seems like an omission from the sources. There probably isn't too much more to add about the background and matches, but perhaps something like Clive Everton's view on O'Sullivan's victory could be added? Or maybe there are more details from the magazine's article "O'Sullivan tops all lists" that provide further context?
    • Yeah, I no longer have the Snooker Scene for that month, I'm looking into getting a copy but since Everton left I've not been all that interested in renewing my subscription. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:02, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'll add some quotes here, which you can use or not. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:04, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Ronnie O'Sullivan's seventh world title, equalling Stephen Hendry's television era record, emphasises his standing as snooker's answer to Tiger Woods in golf or Roger Federer in tennis. He is 'the greatest' in snooker’s history just as Muhammad Ali remains 'the greatest' in boxing's 6 years after his death." (Everton, Clive, "Ronnie O'Sullivan: The Greatest", Snooker Scene, June 2020, p.29) BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:56, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Ronnie O'Sullivan is now top of all the lists that matter, underlining his status as the greatest player of all time." 39 titles, now 3 ahead of Hendry on 36; 61 ranking finals, ahead of Hendry on 57; 62 century breaks in the season, one ahead of Robertson; 1,169 career centuries, ahead of J. Higgins on 897; £822,000 prize money in the season, ahead of Robertson on £755,600 ("O'Sullivan tops all lists", Snooker Scene, June 2020, p.3) BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:56, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've added a piece on the first part, which is good commentary review. The second part is a bit too stats for prose imo. I'd rather that was in the snooker season article. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:46, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I ran Ohconfucius/dashes.js and incorporated the suggested changes - please revert if you disagreee.
  • I amended the curly quote after "victories" in the Wilson quote.
  • There are a couple of duplicate links (which I think you can pick up using the script - let me know if not)
  • I don't think you need both snookerscene.co.uk and Snooker Scene in the same reference.
  • There are some references specifying "WST" or "World Snooker Tour", while others for the same site have "World Snooker"
  • Shouldn't the title "Race to the Crucible WPBSA Snooker" just be Race to the Crucible?
  • Adding the ISSN for The Times is probably unnecessary - there's no ISSN for The Guardian specified, for example.
  • Why no "pictured in.." for the Bond and Marteel images, which are older than the Marco Fu one?
  • "Welsh amateur", "Veteran Welsh player" "his Welsh compatriot" - the "Welsh" seems irrelevant. ("compatriot" appears six times, four in connection with Welsh players.) I'm not sure that the "six Welsh players reached the Crucible, the most since 1990" and the previous sentence are necessary.
  • Seems to be a stray "Ivan" on the "Top Ten Matches Of 2022" ref.

Background

Qualifying

Main stage

Source review

[edit]

Before getting started, I went back to a previous source review I did of one of your snooker articles to see what sources we'd discussed, to avoid asking again about sources you've already demonstrated are reliable. A couple of sources used here were removed from the earlier FAC when I questioned them because they were easy to replace, rather than because you felt they were not reliable:

  • globalsnookercentre.co.uk
  • snookerhq.com

Can you take a look at these and either remove them or make a case for keeping them this time? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:16, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Footnote numbers refer to this version.

  • You use domain names in some cases rather than website names; livesnooker.com should be Live Snooker, for example. Others are worldsnooker.com, worldsnookerdata.com sportinglife.com, snooker.org.
  • What's the logic behind your use of the publisher and website/work parameters for web citations? It seems you're using publisher for the World Snooker Tour and almost nothing else. The publisher is not italicized but the website/work parameter is italicized, so it's a question of consistency in presentation. I can see that for something like Sporting Life you might treat that as the website name, as that's what readers will recognize, whereas for WST the publisher is the recognizable name. Is that the reasoning? If so, FN 14 is inconsistent, and I'm not sure why you're using publisher for Snooker Scene and SBC News, but I think everything else works.
  • Any reason why you give a publisher location for FN 5, but not for any other citations?
  • FN 46 has the title in italics.

Will look at reliability and links next. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:32, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Links all work, though the internet archive is giving me multi-minute response times at the moment so I wasn't able to test the archive links, and the sources are all reliable, so just the points above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:20, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay. I've looked at the above. Some of this citation style stuff confuses me, so I hope I understood it Mike Christie Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:27, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pass. Fixes look good. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:01, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 25 January 2023 [4].

Constantine (son of Basil I)

[edit]
Nominator(s): Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 23:21, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a junior Byzantine emperor that managed to be at the center of an alleged and very complex political scheme, the son of Emperor Basil, who was allegedly cuckolded by his co-ruler, Michael, with either a woman that possibly doesn't exist or Michael's alleged lover. A seemingly well-trained heir that was much loved by his father, over the other children, he died early and therefore fell to the wayside of history, and has largely become an obscure figure nevertheless intricately tied to the aforementioned conspiracy. Article has passed GAN and recently a MILHIST A-class review. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 23:21, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review—pass

[edit]

No issues with licensing found (t · c) buidhe 00:07, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Buidhe, I don't see that the licensing for either image covers the use of the original work. What am I missing? Gog the Mild (talk) 15:22, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In the interest of not gaslighting Gog, making a note that I've now tagged the images with the license for the coins themselves. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 15:36, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I tend not to be super strict on the licensing when it comes to works that are hundreds of years old and obviously public domain. (t · c) buidhe 18:12, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review—pass

[edit]

I don't see any issues with the sources. No checks done. (t · c) buidhe 00:07, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Unlimitedlead

[edit]
  • "His parentage is a matter of debate, but he is generally assumed to be the son of Byzantine Emperor Basil I..." Assumed by whom? Historians?
    Done
  • Also, in that sentence, I don't think you need to say that Basil was the Byzantine Emperor, seeing that it was already made abundantly clear in the first sentence.
    Done
  • "Constantine was made co-emperor by his father in c. January 868" The previous sentences have stated that Constantine's parentage is unknown, so this sentence is ambiguous. Maybe replace "his father" with one specific name.
    Fixed
  • Is there an appropriate link for "Syria"?
    Done
  • "As emperor, he served in several campaigns alongside his father... and accompanied him on military campaigns..." Repetition; please try to merge these sentences, seeing as they are about similar events.
    Done
  • Add WP:ALT to File:Solidus-Basil I with Constantine and Eudoxia-sb1703 (reverse).jpg
    Done
  • Link "Parakoimomenos".
    Done
  • In the "Parentage" section, Emperor Michael is mentioned early on, but the hyperlink to his actual article appears further in the text, which is somewhat confusing to readers. Please link Michael III upon first mention.
    Done
  • "Historian Cyril Mango states his belief..." Add "the" before historian (false title).
    Done
  • "Judith Herrin, instead, argues a different date for the marriage of Basil and Eudokia..." Judith Herrin is introduced with little context, with the previous sentences implying that maybe she is also a historian. Maybe try "the British archaeologist" or "the British byzantinist", or something of that nature.
    Done
  • "Historians Lynda Garland and Shaun Tougher do not take a position in their 2007 work..." Watch out for false titles again.
    Done
  • "Tougher in his 1994 Ph.D. thesis supports the theory that Constantine was the son of Basil and Eudokia." -> "In his 1994 Ph.D. thesis, Tougher supports the theory that Constantine was the son of Basil and Eudokia." would be a phrasing that is less confusing.
    Done
  • "...a tool to explain why, Leo, but not Constantine, is said to be hated by Basil, as Basil would therefore consider Constantine his true son." The use of the word "is" implies that Leo is still alive, when clearly he is not.
    Done.
  • "...and that Michael does not seem to have viewed Leo in any paternal way, stating that "this in itself is telling"." I'm questioning the usage of the quotation. It feels out of place and personally, I did not gain a new undertsanding of the subject matter from reading it. I would remove it, but that's up to you.
    I personally find it useful; I'm not opposed to removing it but I don't see any real reason to
  • Link "born in the purple".
    Done
  • Link "crowned" to Coronation of the Byzantine emperor
    Done
  • "Constantine is thought to have received more direct education and attention from Basil, whereas his other brothers may have been accompanied by court eunuchs." Thought by whom?
    Done
  • Also, link eunuchs.
    Done
  • If you do add the aforementioned link to Coronation of the Byzantine emperor, remove the one currently at "Some historians date the coronation to 6 January 868...".
    Done
  • "Historians Charles Previté-Orton and Werner Ohnsorge take the position..." False titles
    Done
  • "Basil was severely effected by Constantine's death, and declared a period of mourning after this, possibly lasting up to six months." needs a citation.
    This should be covered by Tougher, but I'll double check.
    It is indeed covered by Tougher 1997 p.53; I've also added the ending date of the mourning from the source.
  • Is there a link that is appropriate for "saint"?
    Done

Unlimitedlead (talk) 15:18, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Unlimitedlead: All done or responded to. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 21:03, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]
  • "and his first wife, Maria or second wife Eudokia Ingerina" - don't think that comma is needed there (or if it is then you need one after her name as well and also one before Eudokia's name to be consistent)
    Done
  • "while others argue there is no concrete evidence" => "while others argue that there is no concrete evidence"
    Done
  • "Constantine was the intended heir of Basil, and as such received much attention from him, and accompanied him on military campaigns" - think you can dispense with both those commas
    Done
  • "another brother, Alexander (r. 912–913) was raised to co-emperor" - comma needed after the brackets to close the subordinate clause
    Done
  • "which he did;" - I would change that semi-colon to a full stop. The sentence is very long and convoluted as it stands and the but after this can stand alone
    Done.
  • "but admit either of the three are possible" => "but admit that either of the three are possible"
    Done.
  • "many historians use an argument that Constantine is Maria's son" => "many historians use an argument that Constantine was Maria's son"
    Done
  • "to explain why, Leo, but not Constantine," - comma before Leo's name is not needed
    Done
  • "suggesting either Basil believed them both" => "suggesting that either Basil believed them both"
    Done
  • "who he could not have known would be male" => "whom he could not have known would be male"
    Done
  • "and is, therefore, the son of Maria" => "and was, therefore, the son of Maria"
    Done
  • "Tougher argues that this engagement reflects that more of a child's engagement than a true marriage" => "Tougher argues that this engagement reflects more of a child's engagement than a true marriage" (I think)
    Fixed.
  • "Pro-Macedonian sources such as Leo VI and his son Constantine VII, as well as Joseph Genesius exclude" => "Pro-Macedonian sources such as Leo VI and his son Constantine VII, as well as Joseph Genesius, exclude"
    Done.
  • "Lean Basil and Eudokia" - is therefore a different way to phrase this? I thought at first glance that "Lean Basil" was a different person who was also called Basil and who was notable for being slim :-D
    Not really sure what word would better work here; most of the other words are either also possible descriptors (slim, slight, etc.) or too extreme (moderately) Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 17:11, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and after slaying Bardas with Michael's blessing, was crowned" => "and, after slaying Bardas with Michael's blessing, was crowned"
    Done.
  • "the loss of an heir which Basil had trained well" => "the loss of an heir whom Basil had trained well"
    Done.
  • Think that's all I got -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:51, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @ChrisTheDude: Done or responded to all. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 17:11, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:59, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments and support from Gerda

[edit]

Thank you for another historic personality. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:05, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

  • Do we need the same date twice for death and end of reign?
Simplified to just the year

Infobox

  • I'm not sure that the parameter predecessor makes much sense in this case.
    Removed

I could follow the complex thoughts about his parentage, and am thankful for the table! Support. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:26, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerda Arendt: Done all. Thanks! Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 00:05, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Query

[edit]
Nope. It's too early. Try us again in 7-10 days. Gog the Mild (talk) 00:25, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: It has now been a week, and the review has largely wrapped up I think, may I now have permission for a second nom? Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 05:41, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The nomination is not wrapped up, but seems to be moving in the right direction, so yes you may. What further treat do you have for us? Gog the Mild (talk) 12:07, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments/spotcheck by Ian

[edit]

I stopped by with a view to closing but looking over the Parentage section alone I have several concerns, so I'm recusing coord duties to review and spotcheck sources:

  • I was a bit dubious about the prose and felt I needed to check the sources to ensure I didn't misrepresent them if I copyedited. This immediately led me to a couple of roadblocks when investigating the citation for His parentage is heavily disputed, although Byzantine emperor Basil I (r. 867–886) is generally accepted as his father. Basil had been born into a peasant family (Vasiliev p. 301): firstly, the link to Vasiliev's History of the Byzantine Empire takes me to Volume II of the work, whereas the page I was looking for is in the first volume; secondly, when I did find Volume I, I could find no mention of Constantine nor, explicitly, of Basil's peasant origins -- thus the citation appears to support none of the statements it covers.
    Rare double screw-up on my part; made a note to cite the "generally accepted" bit to a battery of citations and then forgot; the peasant origin part was the only one I pulled from another article Basil I, and apparently I decided against checking which of the two refs supported it; both now fixed. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 18:30, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    In light of my OR revisions, I've changed "is generally accepted as his father to "was at least nominally his father". Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 19:00, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm, when I see that I ask myself to whom was Basil nominally the father? To contemporaries? Subjects? If by "nominally" we really mean "in name only" then I assume we're not talking about historians, who should be asking what are the facts (or at least the most likely assumptions). I'm not saying change it (not yet anyway), I just want to hear more of your take on it... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:35, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ian Rose: I just mean that (to contemporaries) he was seen as the father, and consequently to historians, he's the "nominal" father. He may not be the de facto father, but basically, everyone (historian and contemporary) agrees he was the de jure father; Basil certainly saw at least Constantine as his son. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 23:00, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    To clarify "Basil certainly saw at least Constantine as his son"; there's a lot of discussion by Historians on if Basil truly saw others, such as Leo, as his son; opinions range from "yes, but they didn't really get along" to "no, and he hated him". Constantine was definitely loved by Basil and Basil seems to have been fond of Alexander, which seems to fit with a narrative that only those two were truly his sons (perhaps all too conveniently), whereas he seems to be more distant with Stephen, and perhaps outright disliked Leo. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 23:21, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eudokia is reported by some sources to have been the mistress of Basil's predecessor, Michael, while married to Basil (Garland & Tougher) -- my reading of the source suggests that Eudokia is reported by some sources to have been the mistress of Michael III, and to have remained so even after marrying Basil might be more accurate (you don't need "Basil's predecessor" as Michael was introduced as emperor in the previous sentence).
    Fixed.
  • The historian Cyril Mango states his belief that Constantine was the child of Basil and Maria, along with Anastasia -- supported by source, no action required.
  • a view shared by George Ostrogorsky -- supported by source, no action required.
  • Leo Grammaticus, a 10th-century historian, on the other hand, suggests that Constantine was the son of Michael and Eudokia -- could do without "on the other hand" but supported by source, no serious action required.
    done.
  • The historians Lynda Garland and Shaun Tougher do not take a position in their 2007 work but admit that either of the three are possible while leaning toward Basil as the father -- per the source I'd agree with the first bit but not sure about them leaning toward Basil as the father, I might've missed something so could you point out how you feel this is supported?
    "For one, Constantine is referred to directly as Basil's son often "In 879, Basil’s eldest son Constantine died unexpectedly", and such things as "This undermines the argument that the birth of Leo was particularly significant. Further, it seems rather odd that Leo would have been the first child of Michael and Eudocia if they had been having an affair since Michael was a teenager." I read this as clearly leaning toward Basil, if not directly saying it must be him; originally I had it as "all three possible", so I am comfortable changing it back if this seems too close to original research.
    @Ian Rose: In light of rereading all three bits of the Tougher cites,(including Lynda Garland and Shaun Tougher) I think I have read too much into various bits of the texts towards a "lean" Basil opinion; in light of a lack of explicit "this is what happened", I fear the current text brushes too close to original research; I will change them as appropriate. 1994 Tougher does note that he believes Eudokia was the mother, whereas 1997 Tougher only leans toward it (states that there is no reason not to believe it), but I now think lean Basil might constitute OR on my part, so I will change 1994 Tougher to Basil/Michael and Eudokia, 1997 Tougher to Basil/Michael and lean Eudokia, and 2007 to "all three possible". Apologies for making this so difficult, I think I was far too eager to make it simple. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 18:53, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Anti-Macedonian sources, such as Symeon Logothete, usually assume that Constantine was the son of Eudokia, and provide information regarding the alleged infidelity of Eudokia, and the arrangement between Michael and Basil -- I can only check Garland & Tougher here but they seem to support this statement.

I'll wait for your responses before I consider if it's necessary to ask you to re-check the whole article to ensure the rest of the referencing is spot-on, and then for me to do another spotcheck.

  • BTW, among my prose concerns was the number of times the term "argues" (or variants) appears in the Parentage section: 14. No problem using "argues" occasionally but there are other terms one can use in such instances: "contends" or "opines", for instance, or simply say "According to".
    Should be fixed.

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 18:06, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tks for such prompt responses/actions, Iazyges. I'll peruse these changes and the rest of the article, perhaps copyediting along the way, and let you know any further thoughts. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:17, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again, thanks for your responses above, I've copyedited Parentage based on that and also the remainder of the article, pls check that I haven't misinterpreted anything. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:15, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ian Rose: All look good to me, thanks! Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 22:55, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Great, my last query is re. the Parentages of the children table: do the question marks mean the source doesn't mention the person or persons in question? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:31, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ian Rose: Yes; although some may have slipped through my fingers, but I think it should be complete. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 00:54, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Mmm, I wonder if leaving it blank or just putting a dash would work better -- the question mark could be interpreted as "unknown", when it's really more like "not applicable"... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:59, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ian Rose: Will do. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 01:12, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ian Rose: Done; I also cited Herrin and Mango directly, and adjusted Herrin in doing so (enough to state that either Basil or Michael was the father, and Eudokia the mother, for all four children). Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 01:31, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good, happy to support. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:00, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ian Rose: Thank you for reviewing! Glad issues could be caught now instead of down the road! Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 02:22, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 22 January 2023 [5].

Simonie Michael

[edit]
Nominator(s): Astrophobe (talk) 19:02, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Simonie Michael is a fascinating political first. He was the first Inuk elected as a legislator in Canada. Inuit in Canada have pursued (I think) a completely unique strategy for political inclusion among Indigenous groups in North America, by creating a government of their own and joining it into the structure of the colonial country as a subnational government. Michael was an important figure in this political history. He was a labourer in Iqualuit during WWII, learned English from American military personnel and became a translator, founded a cleaning and construction company, and eventually held basically every elected office in Iqaluit. His major political victory was helping to end the dog tag system in which the Canadian government assigned Inuit numbers instead of names, which Michael viewed as dehumanizing. It took a ton of research across several languages for me to piece his story together, and I've put this article through basically every possible improvement process up to FAC. I really think it will be fun and interesting to review. - Astrophobe (talk) 19:03, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review—pass

(t · c) buidhe 18:08, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Steelkamp

[edit]

That's all from me. Ping me when you have addressed all these points. Steelkamp (talk) 14:15, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Steelkamp, thank you very much for the detailed comments! I really appreciate the engagement, and no doubt they have improved the article. I've responded inline. - Astrophobe (talk) 00:46, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The lack of an image is only minor and won't stop me from supporting but I encourage you to find an image that can be used. Steelkamp (talk) 15:05, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]
  • Link Northwest Territories Legislative Council on first use in the body as well as the lead
  • "Michael was also a prominent activist in Iqaluit. Michael founded" => "Michael was also a prominent activist in Iqaluit. He founded" (avoids two consecutive sentences with repetitive start)
  • "Michael also was a sculptor" => "Michael was also a sculptor" (sounds more natural to me)
  • Combine the last two extremely short paragraphs in the Employment section into one
  • "Michael was one of two Inuuk chosen in 1953" - suddenly spelt with two Us whereas before it only had one
    • I believe that this usage follows the balance of reliable sources, which to my reading is that in the consensus English usage, "Inuk" is a singular noun, "Inuit" is either an adjective or a noun referring to more than two people, and "Inuuk" should be used to refer to exactly two people (in this case, Simonie Michael and the other Inuk who attended the coronation). As two quick examples I pulled off of Google, see this book and this article. This followed some discussion that CambridgeBayWeather kicked off with these very helpful edits; if I'm remembering correctly I think we developed a mini-consensus on their user page (which I can scrounge up if it's of interest, but we didn't disagree about anything, we were just trying to figure out what the most preferred usages are) and I summarized it on the talk page here (and permalink). - Astrophobe (talk) 00:03, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • His death isn't mentioned at all in the body, is nothing known about it (eg where he died and what he died of)?
    • I added where he died, what day he died on, and how old he was when he died. I unfortunately haven't found a reliable source reporting his cause of death, but I will poke around some more. - Astrophobe (talk) 00:03, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's what I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:52, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - thanks for clarifying on Inuk/Inuuk. From all the way over here in the UK it probably isn't a huge surprise that I wasn't clued up on that :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:35, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@ChrisTheDude: Hah, absolutely! I just wanted to really lay out my thinking because I had been wrong about it early in the draft's history and some discussion had taken place since then. Thanks again for the comments! - Astrophobe (talk) 05:05, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

[edit]
  • "the failings of the disc number system". "failings" seems the wrong word. The main text suggests that he protested that it was dehumanising rather than pointing out technical faults.
  • Are the names of his parents and wife unknown?
    • The name of his step-father is known (and that one is mentioned in the article), but other than that, unfortunately yes. I've searched extensively through all the RS I have about him and have found no trace of them. Sadly (if I may editorialize for a moment) most of the information we have about his family is just people who happened to be mentioned in the few interviews that we have with him or people who knew him, since Simonie Michael's generation was not really engaged in constructing a written record of their own. - Astrophobe (talk) 22:33, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Inuk in Iqaluit who could translate between Inuktitut and English" You say this twice in slightly different ways. Maybe merge them.
  • "he also married his wife" sounds odd. Maybe "he got married"
  • You use the word "also" eleven times. Most of them are better deleted.
  • "his sculptures have been housed in the University of Lethbridge Art Gallery". Does "have been" mean no longer? Were they sold off?
    • I used that cautious wording because Katlivik's website is, as I interpret it, ambiguous on this front, and I cannot find clear records of when they entered or exited the university's collections. If you think other wording would be more accurate I am happy to change it. - Astrophobe (talk) 22:33, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In the 1940s, the Government of Canada had determined that it was unable to track Inuit using their traditional names," I would take "determined" to mean discovered - implying a reasonable decision. Perhaps "decided".
  • "Stu Hodgson, the Commissioner of the Northwest Territories". You give his title twice.
  • "Michael was succeeded by Bryan Pearson as the representative for the Eastern Arctic district in 1970". Did he retire or was he defeated?
    • I have searched extensively and I cannot find an online source that gives electoral history for local or regional elections in the Northwest Territories as far back as 1970, or any mention of him contesting this election. This isn't a problem special to Simonie Michael; the election data from that time is very sparse overall. I would guess that he did not contest it and simply retired, since the sources don't mention any election, but I think the definitive answer to this might require a trip to the archives in Ottawa. If anyone has a lead I would be very glad to fill this detail in, here and at Eastern Arctic. Maybe it can be handled with wording to the effect that sources do not record him contesting the election? - Astrophobe (talk) 22:33, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SC

[edit]

Putting down a marker for later. I'll wait until Dudley has finished - he's an excellent reviewer, so there's no point in me treading on his toes while he's working on it. - SchroCat (talk) 15:42, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lead
  • I left details above of an image with attribution that you can use in the IB
    • I have to admit I'm very squirrely about image policy because I don't feel that I understand the relevant laws/rules and I'm afraid of doing the wrong thing. I know this isn't really your role as an FA reviewer but do you happen to know where in the image upload guides I might be able to find instructions for the proper uploading of a copyrighted figure under fair use (which I assume is the situation here)? If you would prefer that I dig more on my own or ask for help elsewhere, please let me know. - Astrophobe (talk) 23:35, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Early life
Legislative career
  • No action needed, but just a comment that I'd never heard of the 'disc number' system – fascinating and rather awful.
    • It really is! Thanks for mentioning that. I also hadn't heard of it before I started reading about Simonie Michael, and it's a big part of what made me want to create good, free, online encyclopedia entry about him. - Astrophobe (talk) 23:35, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Subsequent life
  • It's a bit of an abrupt turn from leaving government in 1970 to his death in 2008. I see that you have answered that above, but it’s a shame we can't even add a line about him sculpting and doing interviews, but if there isn't anything available, then so be it.

Very little left for me to comment on, but an interesting and well-written piece. - SchroCat (talk) 10:43, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • OK, I've added the image for you (for future reference, the [system] is easy to use, but also has links to a help facility, if you have questions about the copyright. Uploading one image of someone no longer alive to use at the top of their own article is considered fair use though.
Support on prose, etc - I have no knowledge of the subject matter, so cannot comment on the range or extent of sources, etc. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:08, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

Footnote numbers refer to this version.

  • All your book citations have a publisher location parameter except FN 1. FAC requires consistency; do you have access to the book to add a location?
  • FN 7 uses publisher instead of work, unlike all your other uses of cite news; again this should be consistent.
  • I see you make quite a bit of use of the Qikiqtani Truth Commission report. I see from this page that it's a creation of the Qikiqtani Inuit Association, in reaction to an RCMP report that they disagreed with. Is this generally considered a neutral source? I can see you're using it for some uncontroversial facts such as names, and Michael's own recollection of mistreatment; those are fine. How about "the policy of segregation enforced by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in Iqaluit during the 1940s and into the 1950s", for which this is the only source? Would modern Canadian historians consider the QTC an unbiased source to support the statement that there was a policy of segregration. For example, I'm wondering if another source might consider that there was de facto segregation but no explicit policy, or that the policy was not official and this made some difference in some way. You also use this source to support some statements in the "Housing" section; again, are these controversial? I have no reason to believe the statements are wrong, but I'd like to know the source is considered to be neutral by historians. If it isn't we should have additional sourcing for those statements.
    • I've softened it to "racial separation" and added some supporting citations. My reading of the available sources is that this should not be a controversial claim. The RCMP functioned as the administrative arm of the Canadian government in Frobisher Bay in the 1940s and 1950s, and they were completely unashamed (in fact, openly proud and defensive) about a policy of keeping white people and Inuit apart, at least until the rise of an assimilationist policy in the late 1950s and the 1960s. A 1950s RCMP commissioner of the area declared that "where possible Inuit should be kept separated from the whites" and even enforced a rule that groups of Inuit should not cluster within 20 miles of white housing developments, ideas that he (and others) quite openly advocated for and defended as more just than the assimilationist alternative. - Astrophobe (talk) 18:28, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      The link for Test doesn't work for me -- I get "DOI not found". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:36, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Sorry, I forgot to drop the doi parameter. The title shouldn't have been linked, just the jstor ID. It should work now. - Astrophobe (talk) 03:37, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN 3 is a broken link and there is no archive link.
  • Not a source issue, but I see you use spaced em dashes. Per MOS:DASH we have to use either spaced en dashes or unspaced em dashes.

Since this is your first FAC, the source review includes a spotcheck for source-text integrity.

  • FN 11 cites "Michael was also a sculptor, producing numerous carvings of animals." I don't think this supports "numerous"; only one is shown on that page, and looking through the rest of that website I can only find evidence of two more animals, plus five more unspecified artworks.
  • FN 22 cites "Michael's speech about the disc number system to the territorial council has been identified as the trigger that led to the system's end". Verified.
  • FN 12 cites "After leaving government, Michael made several small sculptures of animals": I don't see support for "after leaving government" in the source. The lots were sold after he left government, but it doesn't say he made them late in life.
  • FN 3 cites "As an example he mentioned the Arctic Circle Club lounge, in which Inuit were not permitted to drink." The link is broken; I'll check this once that's fixed.
    • Now has archive URL. The quote: "Noting that the council had recently passed a motion outlawing any form of discrimination, he complained that Eskimos weren't allowed to drink in the Arctic Circle Club lounge, a private bar in Resolute Bay. The council saw the point. Eskimos were admitted to the lounge within a week." - Astrophobe (talk) 18:28, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN 9 cites "As a signal of his advocacy for Inuit issues, Michael's inaugural speech to the Legislative Assembly lasted 90 minutes and was given in Inuktitut". Page range should be 116-117, not just 117. And although I can see it's plausible that it was a signal of his advocacy, the source says nothing about his reasons for giving the speeech in Inuktitut.
    • As -> In, to avoid ascribing any motivation. - Astrophobe (talk) 18:28, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I think this is still more than is in the source. I looked in Google Books and quickly found a slightly different take from Pamela Stern's Historical Dictionary of the Inuit: he did it "in order to bring the Inuit language to the body governing Inuit life" (p.126). I think Stern would do, with a slight change to the article text, or you might be able to find other sources. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:36, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I've spent a few minutes trying to make sure I understand these comments, including a break to go stir some ramen and ponder alternative phrasings, and I think I still do not feel confident that I can see how to edit it in a way that is clearly both contributing value to the article and supported by the sources. Personally I don't remember why I wrote that phrase and I don't think it's actually doing anything very important, so I've taken the simplest approach and just dropped the text in question. - Astrophobe (talk) 03:37, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The spotcheck reveals some minor inaccuracies that should be easy to fix. Can you check the other sources for the same sort of issue? Once you've done that I'll do another spotcheck. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:51, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Second pass on spotcheck, since some tweaks were necessary on the first pass. Footnote numbers now refer to this version. I found one minor issue (FN 32 below) so I did ten spotchecks this time.

  • FN 11 cites "Before his election to the Northwest Territories Legislative Council at the age of 33, Michael worked as a carpenter". Verified.
  • FN 21 cites "Though Michael was Canada's first elected Inuit legislator, he was its second Inuit legislator overall, since Abe Okpik had been appointed to the Northwest Territories Legislative Council in 1965." Verified.
  • FN 23 cites "Although this issue had been raised previously by Abe Okpik in the Legislative Assembly and was becoming increasingly salient". Verified; I had to think about "increasingly salient" but I think the sequence of events justifies it.
  • FN 9 cites 'Given this context, Eva Aariak, the Premier of Nunavut, described Michael's election as "an important step forward in the evolution of our territory and its democratic institutions."' Verified.
  • FN 32 cites "In 2020, a boat that was owned by Michael was preserved at Apex beach". I don't think we can say it "was" preserved; the source is an article arguing that it should be preserved. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:52, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN 17 cites "had left three openings for one-year terms to the council without any incumbents." Verified.
  • FN 6 cites "The military airfield construction would lead to the development of the city of Iqaluit". I don't have access to this; can you quote the supporting text?
    • Here is a free version. See e.g. the start of the abstract: Iqaluit is unique among Canadian Arctic communities in that it originated not from a commercial venture, such as mining or the fur trade, or as a government administrative centre, but as a Second World War military airfield. - Astrophobe (talk) 17:04, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN 11 cites "He founded a housing co-operative that built 15 new houses in Iqaluit". Verified, but should be pp. 116-117, not 116.
  • FN 1 cites "He also recalled that when Inuit residents were relocated to a nearby island to make space for the military construction projects, no housing was provided for them, and no means of transportation were given for them to travel between the island and the mainland". Can you quote the supporting text?
    • This was reworded in response to a previous FA comment, and now that I look at it the contents of what he said doesn't include the housing part, so I removed it. The text is here and the relevant portion is Then we started hearing about the coming work force that were not white men! We were told that they would arrive from down south! They totalled about 200, but we didn't call them white, we called them Puatiki [Black] . . . When they moved us to the Island, we started having major problems and we started to brainstorm as to what we should do . . . We said, "This is impossible . . ."" There was no water and no harbour for our boats. They moved us there with no mode of transportation to get back and forth to work to the main land. When we started having these major problems, we started discussing what we should do! - Astrophobe (talk) 17:04, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN 16 cites "Michael was encouraged to run in the 1966 by-election to the Northwest Territories Legislative Council by Stu Hodgson, later the Commissioner of the Northwest Territories". Can you quote the supporting text?
    • I borrowed this book from the library in the city I used to live in. I cannot find an online copy, and a physical copy costs more than $100. I have requested an Inter-Library Loan for the book to be delivered to a building in the university that I now work at, but apparently it may actually have to travel from Finland to North America, so I suspect the request will be denied, and will certainly not happen soon. However, I would oppose changing the citation, because I believe that high-quality offline sources are exactly the sort of texts that we want to use when we build a free online encyclopedia, even (probably especially) if they are very rare and hard to access. Meanwhile, here is what I am able to find online: evidence that Simonie Michael is discussed extensively on the cited page. - Astrophobe (talk) 17:04, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've also asked a friend who still lives in the city I used to live in to borrow the book and send me a photo of the relevant page if he gets the chance. - Astrophobe (talk) 17:09, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      That worked -- much faster than expected, I've acquired a photo of the relevant page. It quotes a correspondence where Michael reaches out to Hodgson and mentions that he "kindly suggested that I write to you" to discuss funding and campaign logistics if he decided to run for office. - Astrophobe (talk) 17:24, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:52, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pass source review and spotcheck. The goal of a spotcheck is to make sure there are no problems with source-text integrity. I've found several minor issues, all of which have been fixed, and though there were more issues than I'd like to see, none were serious enough to make me think the article has a real problem. I think this is on the right side of the line. Re the offline source, I'll AGF, but if you do get a copy of the text to look at again please check it for yourself. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:18, 21 January 2023 (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) 20 January 2023 [7].

High School Musical: The Musical: The Series

[edit]
Nominator(s): SatDis (talk) 00:39, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the Disney+ series High School Musical: The Musical: The Series, which was inspired by the hit 2000s movie High School Musical, and stars the popular singer Olivia Rodrigo. The page became a Good Article here on 17 April 2021. A peer review was completed by @Aoba47: here on 6 October 2022. The copy-edit of this article was completed by the Guild of Copy Editors on 3 November 2022. All references have been archived. SatDis (talk) 00:39, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreciate any comments, but understand if you are unable to. Thank you all! SatDis (talk) 00:49, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Aoba47

[edit]
  • I have a question about this part, the series follows a group of teenage theater enthusiasts who participate in a staging of High School Musical: The Musical as their school production. It appears that this is only a plot point for the first season, yet this sentence makes it sound like the entire show is specifically about this premise. It may be helpful to present this as the show's starting point for its first season before it moved to other storylines. I think there could be a way to use that as a smoother transition to the following sentence: It also explores their lives as they navigate friendships, love, interests, identity, and family relationships.
  • Great idea. I have had a go at rewording, please let me know if I can refine any further. I have also added a note to clarify what High School Musical: The Musical actually is.
  • Thanks for picking that up, I have fixed to include all movies.
  • Apologies for the nitpick-y question, but do we ever know Miss Jenn's full name?
  • Funnily enough, they call her Jennifer... so apparently "Miss Jenn" is referring to her first name... but no, they don't specify her surname.
  • In the "Premise" section, I would avoid the navigating / navigate repetition in these two parts, while navigating a relationship / learn to navigate their interpersonal relationships.
  • Fixed.
  • In the "Premise" section, I do not think each season needs its own paragraph. The short sentences appear and read choppy to me and I think it would be better to instead find a way to have it flow together in longer paragraphs. To be clear, this comment is specifically aimed at the last three paragraphs. It is also rather jarring when compared to the length of the first paragraph.
  • Combined. Other editors seem to always split these sections to give each season its own paragraph, and I find myself having to revert those types of edits frequently.
  • Combined paragraphs and removed disambiguation.
  • Make sure to consistently italicize the show's title in the reference titles. This is not done in Citation 27. It looks like an outlier, but I would still make sure to read through the other citations to make sure I did not miss any other instances.
  • I have definitely gone through all references - it appears that was just one acronym I missed!
  • I would avoid putting words in a reference title in all caps as done in Citation 98 even if it is written this way by the source itself.
  • Fixed.

I hope this review is helpful. Once everything has been addressed, I will read through the article a few more times to make sure I have caught everything. Have a great rest of your day! Aoba47 (talk) 02:15, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for addressing everything and no need to apologize. I hope you had a great Christmas. I support this FAC for promotion based on the prose. If possible, I would greatly appreciate any input on my current FAC, but I understand if you do not have the time or interest. Best of luck with your FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 03:21, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comments

[edit]
  • Hey, I only did a quick read but noticed a few prose issues that you may (or may not) consider fixing!
  • Throughout the article, I've noticed some instances where you use the terms "movies" and "films". I suggest just to use "films" for consistency.
  • Fixed. I have only kept "where the movies were filmed", as it wouldn't make sense otherwise.
  • ".. as fictionalized versions of themselves." - do we need to mention that bit? Its obvious to me that they would be ficional characters..
  • I think it's necessary, as this show skirts the lines between reality and fiction. Casual readers may take it for granted that "Corbin Bleu" truly represents himself, where in reality, he is playing a fictional character that actually bears no similarities to his real persona.
  • "won a GLAAD Media Award, and won three Nickelodeon Kids' Choice Awards." - I would mention this first in the sentence (the wins), then the nominations afterwards
  • Thanks, fixed.
  • ".. where the High School Musical movies, a series of Disney Channel original films about high school" - do we need 'about high school'? It's obvious to me.
  • Fixed. Again, I have kept "movies were filmed".
  • "talking heads are utilized.." - is that when a character does an interview to the camera? This may need to be clearer because not everyone will understand.
  • I have clarified the explanation that was hiding at the end of the sentence.
  • "These scenes represent the "present-day" in the story, while flashbacks to Nini and Ricky's past relationship are filmed more traditionally" - got a bit lost here, what do you mean by "these scenes"? And what does "filmed more traditionally" mean?
  • I have added clarification to this. However, in the source, they say this "more traditional scripted teen dramedy feel for the flashbacks" - I'm not sure how I could use that. I wouldn't say "scripted" as the whole show is scripted. I could remove the whole sentence.
  • Update: I have decided on "filmed more similarly to other teen drama series." SatDis (talk) 06:22, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "but was delayed as a result of filming being halted during the COVID-19 pandemic" - may sound better as "but was delayed because the covid-19 pandemic halted filming" or something similar
  • Fixed.
  • I have a feeling that a source reviewer won't like Showbiz Cheat Sheet (ref 64) and BroadwayWorld (ref 70). (ref 70 might be fine but personally I would use something else if possible).
  • I have removed Showbiz Cheat Sheet and two uses of Broadway World. Thanks for spotting that.

That's all I have for now, thanks! LM150 20:30, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • @LM150: Sorry to be pushy. Just wondering if you had any further comments? Thanks again! SatDis (talk) 14:53, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @SatDis Just wondering if you need to provide sources for each character in the "Cast and characters" section? In the MOS for Television, it states "All names should be referred to as credited, or by common name supported by a reliable source." (Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Television#Cast_and_characters_information) LM150 11:02, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @LM150: I may be wrong, but I believe that statement refers to listing characters by how they are credited in the show, and if there is contention, a reliable source should be provided. I have been told in previous nominations, such as Bluey (2018 TV series), that the show itself acts as a source for a cast list. The names are supported by the details of the show and the credits. Please let me know if I'm wrong. SatDis (talk) 13:52, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @SatDis Ok I think you're right, the cast list should be fine then. The only other small things I noticed were: (1) ensure each bullet in the cast list ends with a full stop, (2) in the first sentence under "Critical response", you use the word "rating" 3 times (maybe the change the last instance to "reviews"?) and (3) the Metacritic source is now based on 20 crtitic reviews, and not 16. So maybe update that too. LM150 22:18, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @LM150: Thanks. I have changed the "review" wording... as for the dot points, I have been instructed that they should not have a full stop (as it is not a full sentence) unless you add a sentence after that dot point. Thanks for the review. SatDis (talk) 07:53, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment

[edit]

Nearly three weeks in and just the single general support. Unless this nomination makes significant further progress towards a consensus to promote over the next four or five days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:24, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pamzeis

[edit]

It's been a while since I've reviewed.... anything, really. Will try not to screw this up :)

  • "The series is produced by Chorus Boy and Salty Pictures" – is not mentioned in the body
  • Added.
  • "He was succeeded by Federle for the remainder of the first season and thereafter." – I can't find this in the body...
  • Added.
  • "and has been nominated for five" – the winners have been announced, so it should be updated to "was nominated" or something
  • Changed.
  • The #Premise section seems to breeze over the second and third seasons in comparison to the first; can the second and third season's premises be expanded or, alternatively, the first season's premise be trimmed for balance...?
  • I have opted to trim the first season, as I don't believe too much unimportant plot should be included in the premise section. If that is enough, I can also remove the final sentence of the first paragraph, though it supports a line in the lead, so I'd rather keep it.
  • "her music career dreams" – seems a bit vague. Music career doing what? Singing? Songwriting? Producing?
  • Have changed to "career in singing and songwriting".
  • "Miss Jenn's ex-boyfriend, an actor who teaches drama" – is this supposed to be "Miss Jenn's ex-boyfriend and an actor who teaches drama"?
  • "at a rival school North High" – this bit sounds a bit off to me... can it be reworded?
  • For both of the above, have changed to "Miss Jenn's ex-boyfriend, who teaches drama at North High and is an actor", as "rival school" is mentioned in the plot.
  • "Nellie Andreeva of Deadline Hollywood reported that Goldstick wanted to incorporate more mature themes in the series." – is this the reason he left or just a thing he wanted to incorporate...?
  • The reason he left, I have clarified in the prose.
  • "For its third season, production of the series relocated from Salt Lake City to Los Angeles;" – this is later mentioned in #Filming and feels a bit unnecessary here since it doesn't seem to have anything to do with development...
  • "Production of the series also returned to Salt Lake City." – same as above
  • Thanks, have removed both above.
  • Question: why is it important to note the number of episodes in each season? It seems rather irrelevant to the development and readers can already refer to the #Episodes section if they want to know
  • I have removed, except for the first season's paragraph as this reads as part of the original series order and original premise of the show.
  • The second para of #Writing seems to mention some information not directly related to the actual writing, like the episode in which Carlos and Seb's relationship starts and the themes; how did the writers decide on this? Was there any specific intention behind this?
  • I do believe this is important information, and technically should be considered as "themes". However, as there is no "themes" section I have included it in the "writing" section. My other idea would be to move "themes" into a subsection of "premise", which would leave the "writing" section quite sparse.
  • "including Sofia Wylie as Gina, Kate Reinders as Miss Jenn, and Olivia Rodrigo as Nini" – why these cast members specifically? (I haven't read the source BTW so maybe this is just me being ignorant lol)
  • I have added all of the cast announced to this sentence.
  • "her solo music career and debut album Sour" – do both need to be mentioned? I mean her solo music career to that point was basically just Sour...
  • Thanks, another user added that in. Removed.
  • "filmed more traditionally" – you said above that this means more similarly to teen dramedy series, so maybe that could be made clear?
  • Done.
  • "episodes were released weekly rather than all at once" – was being released all at once the norm for streaming series at the time? If it was, it could be mentioned cuz the "rather than all at once" is kinda random when the reader isn't told to expect anything (if that makes sense, y'know, that probably doesn't make sense)
  • Yeah, the article is an explicit discussion on this. I have added reference to the "binge" model.
  • "The second season premiered on May 14, 2021" – the entire season or...?
  • First episode... As I've just mentioned weekly releases in the first season, and it comes up again for the third season, I'm not sure if it needs to be stated again.
  • "noting that the format distracts" – this is an opinion, but the use of "noting" suggests a fact
  • Fixed.
  • "In his Laughing Place blog, Alex Reif said the series was more aimed at adults than the original films.[92] Joel Keller of Decider suggested that viewing of the series does not require an understanding of the original franchise.[93]" – these two opinions don't exactly have good cohesion from the previous sentences and feel kinda random...
  • I'm not really keen on the use of Laughing Place and Hypable, even for reviews... the threshold for all FA sources is "high-quality". And if these sources can be included, what's to stop us from including, say, my opinion?
  • Thanks for spotting those sources. I have removed Laughing Place and Hypable.

Hope this helps. Sorry for nitpicky and confusing lol :) Pamzeis (talk) 10:44, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oh, two more things:
    • "Comicbook.com" should be ComicBook.com
    • Is there any info on the series viewership on Disney+?
  • Fixed, and no, Disney is becoming known for not releasing any viewership info unless it is a major success story.

Comments Support from Panini!

[edit]

Featured Article Candidate: The Nomination: The Comments: The General Support: The Stalling: The Gog Threat: The Panic: The Sudden Collaboration to Save the FAC: The Comments From Panini!
Comments later. Panini! • 🥪 14:29, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Panini!, is there any more to come from you? Gog the Mild (talk) 12:42, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Gah! You scared me.
Yep, I'll get to this now. I had to finish up a GAN first with the little spare time I've had. Panini! • 🥪 13:41, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not too much from me, actually:

  • Referring to them as "theatre enthusiasts"; performing arts is considered a club, so why not use "club members" in some way?
  • Have added a "club members" in there.
  • "He is named after Elton John" is a fun fact, but I don't feel it's important enough to put in his character bio. Does this detail affect the understanding of the character in any way?
  • Removed.
  • Is Big Red a nickname? Does he have an actual character name that the friends don't use? If so, I would state this by doing "John 'Big Red' Smith".
  • Yes a nickname, but no, real name is not revealed.
  • Julia Lester's bio is missing a period in the end. You heard me right, instead of fixing this simple error myself I instead chose to merely point it out by writing several words on a separate page.
  • I'm now seeing you did this on purpose for one-sentence lines. I would suggest adding them, as these are beyond mere bullet points and express complete bio descriptions.
  • I've added the full stop for the longer summaries, but left it off for the really short ones.
  • Ugh, stage managers. Bunch of control freaks.
  • Why not add that infobox picture of Tim Federle at the top of development? It's a nice photo.
  • I would, however, I prefer not to add "head shots" as such - I prefer the natural ones shown in the page already.
  • The first two sentences both cite refs 13 and 14 as inline citations. You can drop the first bunch.
  • Fixed.
  • The near-entirety of the writing section focuses on its LGBT themes. Is there anything else that can be said about the writing (WP:UNDUE) or is this really only what RSes focused on?
  • I can't find much else on writing. I'd consider changing the heading in some way - to "themes" maybe?
  • It does cover other small points pertaining to writing, so I'd leave the header as is.
  • I would combine these three release paragraphs together to make an easier-to-follow timeline. Having these fragments feels choppy to me.
  • Done.
  • A bunch of duplicate hyperlinks in the casting section; their actors are linked in Cast and characters and don't need to be linked again.
  • Unlinked.
  • Repeat of refs 59 and 60 in the last two sentences of casting; the first bunch can be dropped too
  • Fixed.
  • "the series is a "love letter" to high school theater productions..." Yeah right. Merely reading this article gave me war flashbacks of my time in theatre.
  • A reminder of my years in school shows as well!

That's all from me! Panini! • 🥪 15:25, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

Footnote numbers refer to this version.

  • There are no sources given for the cast section. I'm aware that the plot section of film articles doesn't require separate sourcing, but I'm not aware of an exemption for the cast section, though I can see much of this information could be obtained by watching the films. I looked at a few film featured articles and about half the ones I looked at do not have separate sourcing for the cast, so perhaps there's been a ruling about this that I'm not aware of.
  • FNs 22, 30, 62, and 75 are missing the publisher.

More to come. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:25, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Links all work. Just one more:

  • What makes tigerbeat.com a reliable source?

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:57, 15 January 2023 (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) 20 January 2023 [8].

Battle of Lake Trasimene

[edit]
Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk) 22:27, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The latest in my series of nominations of articles from the Punic Wars. In this battle, Hannibal arrives in Roman Italy and inflicts 100% casualties on a Roman army in a single day. A defeat simply begging for an adjective. I took this through GAN in October 2020 and have worked on it extensively since then. In particular I have shrunk its size from 48 to 37 kB and its prose from 3,900 words to 3,200. See what you think. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:27, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

HF - support

[edit]

I'll review this in the next couple days. Hog Farm Talk 22:32, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed.
  • " the commander of the Roman army at Arrentium, set off in pursuit" - do you mean Arretium?
I do. Not sure how I managed to spell it correctly the first three times and then mess it up!
  • For Lomas 2015, you give a page range of 339-356 in the long citation, but then cite Lomas p. 243?
A typo. Should have been 343. That was eagle-eyed of you.
  • Likewise, for Ñaco del Hoyo 2015, you give a page range of 111-128 in the long citation, but then cite p. 377
I assume I messed up a cut and paste. Corrected, and all others checked.
  • I think something went wrong in the production of the long citations of that work edited by Hoyos in 2015, because the same page ranges are given for Naco del Hoyo and Rawlings, and the short citations then cite pages that are well outside of those ranges
As above. Both had the wrong ranges. *rolly eyes*
Something definitely went wrong! Thanks for spotting it. I have now rechecked all of the Hoyos ranges.

This is mainly reference formatting concerns, nothing major stood out to me. Hog Farm Talk 23:42, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Hog Farm. All addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:55, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hog Farm, just a thought: was that intended as a source review? Gog the Mild (talk) 21:32, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It can be one, although I prefer to do spot-checks when source reviewing. Would you be okay with sending me scans of three or four source pages? Maybe Bagnall 1999, p. 176., Lazenby 1998, p. 57., and Erdkamp 2015, p. 72.? As an aside, I don't know that you need to denote Hoyos 2015 as 2015b - since you're not citing the 2015 work he edited in an overall citation, and instead are breaking it down by chapters, I don't know that the distinction between those two sources is needed. Hog Farm Talk 21:40, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Much appreciated. Sent. And tweaked as you suggest. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:09, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "but 10,000 under Sempronius fought their way to the safety of Placentia" - not seeing where the cited page says Sempronius was commanding these 10,000
Goodness. So he doesn't. I actually can't think why not, but that's a poor excuse for reading straight past what it actually says. Replaced with Carey: "Sempronius and about 10,000 of his troops [...] fought their way out of harm's way ... to Placentia". Hmm. Which has the same page number! I wonder ...
  • " In spite of their losses, the Romans fielded twenty-two legions in 217 BC, ten more than in 218 B" - source focuses on the 11 Romans legions, but given the multiple references to the usual allied troops in the passage, this seems reasonable
Yeah, Lazenby uses "legion" to mean one Romman legion and it's complementary allied legion. The article, per the majority of the RSs doesn't. I confess that reading this 'cold' it does now seem a bit odd, but switching to Lazenby's approach throughout seems even odder.
  • "At Lake Trasimene the Romans fielded four legions – two Roman and two made up of allies – for a total of approximately 25,000 men" - based on the edition I'm using from the Internet Archive, I think you want p. 61, not p. 60
Grr. Amended.

Spot-checked a number of the cites of Lazenby 1998, only issues are the minor pagination one and then the Sempronius and Placentia one. Hog Farm Talk 23:19, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again Hog Farm. My bloopers now amended. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:08, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pass source review, and this is also a general support. Hog Farm Talk 18:21, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Unlimitedlead

[edit]

It's always a good day when Gog nominates an article for FA. I'll review over the next few days, but I am somewhat busy. If I forget to, please ping me. I will forget. Unlimitedlead (talk) 02:46, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Flatterer. You're going to want to shuffle all the commas around, aren't you? Gog the Mild (talk) 23:50, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Very funny, Gog. You know, I actually can't tell if this is playful banter or gentle passive aggressiveness. I'm going to opt with the former. Sadly, I cannot impose my personal comma ideology on this site, so I will be forced to hold a vendetta against every single user here for the rest of my life... Unlimitedlead (talk) 03:00, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So I shall never know when a mutant comma is going to take me down! I'm British, therefore it's banter; and should be taken as a sign of the esteem in which I hold your opinions, heterdox as I may find them. I hope that it also pokes gentle fun at my own pretensions. If this causes you even marginal disquiet, I shall cease. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:57, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Never stop being yourself, Gog. I think Wikipedia is made less dull by humour! Unlimitedlead (talk) 12:06, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done.
  • "...but were surprised when a Carthaginian army more than 50,000 strong crossed the mountains by a difficult but unguarded route" This sentence sounds off to me. Should there be an "of" in front of "more than"? Alternatively, the sentence could read "...but were surprised when a Carthaginian army numbering more than 50,000 strong crossed the mountains..."
If "of" is inserted, "strong" will need removing. I would be happy to go with your suggestion, if "numbering" is removed; I think a reader can work out that "50,000" is a number.
  • "...and after three hours hard fighting they were defeated" The grammar seems off?
Quite possibly, but I can't see it. How would '... and they were defeated after three hours hard fighting.' suit you?

More comments to follow. Unlimitedlead (talk) 18:31, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Unlimitedlead, I missed those comments somehow. Addressed, but a couple are queries back at you. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:19, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Both of your queries are alright. Unlimitedlead (talk) 18:17, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Both done. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:05, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A little later Rome made a separate treaty of association..." Do we know exactly when?
No.
  • "In 219 BC a Carthaginian army under Hannibal besieged, captured and sacked Saguntum;[9][10] Rome declared war on Carthage." Did the sack of Saguntum directly cause Rome to declare war, or is that just something that happened around that time? The sentence leaves this open to interpretation.
Strictly it was more nuanced than that. But simplistically, yes. Added.
Done.
Done.
  • "In spite of their losses, the Romans fielded twenty-two legions in 217 BC, ten more than in 218 BC" Maybe add an "and" in front of "ten"?
Why? (I mean, would the sentence actually make sense then? Or is that a USEng thing?)
Done.
  • The paragraph beginning with "Once it was dark, Hannibal sent the various components of his army on night marches behind the hills to the north of the lake to take up positions from which they could ambush the Roman army" has very few citations. Is it possible to sprinkle some throughout?
Citations sprinkled.
Hi Unlimitedlead, your points above all addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:27, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Gog. Everything looks fine to me. I'm happy to support this nomination. Unlimitedlead (talk) 16:29, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Sylvestre_Ducar_decapite_Flaminius_(Trasimene).jpg: since this is on Commons, it needs a tag for status in country of origin
Done.
  • File:Map_of_Rome_and_Carthage_at_the_start_of_the_Second_Punic_War_2.svg: the info presented doesn't seem entirely consistent with what's at the source? Also see MOS:COLOUR
Swapped.
Bleh. I had forgotted that we had this issue before. Swapped for File:Helmet typ Montefortino 01.jpg and File:Relieve de Osuna (M.A.N. Madrid) 03.jpg
Hi Nikkimaria. I have improved versions of the maps a455bcd9 is objecting to below on the way, but meanwhile your three issues have been addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:59, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Iazyges

[edit]

Claiming my spot here. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 04:34, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • "This destruction of an entire army as a result of an ambush by another army is widely considered a unique occurrence. All 25,000 Romans were killed or captured." suggest reversing this, possibly as "All 25,000 Romans were killed or captured; this destruction of an entire army as a result of an ambush by another army is widely considered a unique occurrence."
Done.
  • "The trap failed to close on the 6,000 Romans at the front of the column, who were possibly also the Romans most prepared for battle" should remove the second "Romans", I think
Done.
I have tweaked a couple of your changes. I have not altered your links to shock troops (two of them: is that ovwerlinking?) but I am not happy. Have you read the linked article? It focuses almost entirely on modern shock troops and the start of the lead is "Shock troops or assault troops are formations created to lead an attack. They are often better trained and equipped than other infantry, and expected to take heavy casualties even in successful operations." which is not of course the case with ancient shock troops. Eg see my footnoted definition taken from Archer.
Hi Iazyges and thanks for both the review and your generous comments. Your two points dealt with and a query raised above. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:35, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Undid my link; happy to support. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 13:00, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from a455bcd9

[edit]

a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 08:55, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Start of the war map. I am hopefully calling in a favour to get a rapid composite of the correct features of both those maps. Watch this space. I am also looking at filling in the "teleporting" gap, in spite of my feeling that boiling 13 years of campaigning down to two loops and a zig zag does our readers a mis-service. I shall be back to you on these. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:49, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Gog the Mild.
Regarding the first map, can File:Map of Rome and Carthage at the start of the Second Punic War.svg be used instead? It's correctly sourced and without typos.
Second map:
  • I can fix the typos with Inkscape but let's list them all first ("Mediteranean", "milles", anything else?)
  • What does the colored area refer to?
  • Should we show Carthaginian and Roman territories as Britannica does?
a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 18:38, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Gog...? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:36, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ian Rose and A455bcd9: I have replaced both with the versions a455bcd9 suggests. For various anoraky reasons I am not completely happy with either, and am waiting for the map whiz Harrias to furnish improved versions. That said, the current maps should have overcome the stated problems. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:43, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Problem solved then, thanks! a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 16:56, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ian, apart from seeing if Nikkimaria wants to come back on my image review response that would seem to be everything[?] Gog the Mild (talk) 12:09, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I reckon -- like to leave open another day or two anyway but feel free to open a new nom if you so desire... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:51, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Constantine

[edit]

Will review in the next few days. Constantine ✍ 19:46, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'd suggest splitting Early in 218 BC... from the previous part of the lede.
That gives a four-paragraph lead for a relatively short article, with two of them very short. Running that bit in with the lead intro uis not ideal, but seems the least-bad option.
  • each side of the Apennines, 'each side of the Apennine Mountains' for clarity
Done.
  • Carthaginian Iberia, now part of southeast Spain don't know exactly why, but the 'part of' bugs me. Perhaps 'in what is now southeast Spain' or simply 'modern southeast Spain' (purely optional, of course)?
Done.
  • I would suggest mentioning the Barcid expansion a bit more directly, e.g. 'which he greatly expanded and turned into a quasi-monarchical'. Otherwise 'This expansion' that follows is not quite clear (no expansion was mentioned).
Good point. Done.
  • of the Carthaginian sphere of influence. add 'in Iberia'.
Done.
  • capturing several towns and repeatedly ambushed a Roman relief force 'capturing several towns and repeatedly ambushed Roman relief forces'?
Nope, it was the same, singular, relief force. (Poor sods.)
I stand corrected. Unlucky bastards... Constantine ✍ 16:22, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. Reminded me of reading Street Without Joy.
The first seems very Easter eggy.
Half-expected you would say that. My counter is only that we don't have anything better. But this is optional. Constantine ✍ 16:22, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nah. It's not as if it is not entirely self explanatory within the article. And anyone who really wanted to know more would have already clicked on consul. Nope, found the section "Presiding magistrate and elections" and linked to that. That do?
Oops, moving the Forces section had moved this to second mention. Fixed. Thanks.
  • The bust of Hannibal is clearly a much later and ahistorical work, I would note it as such (e.g. '17th-century imagined depiction of Hannibal' or something less awkward).
Strange, I used something like that when I used it before. Fixed.
  • A brief explanation on how the Carthaginians, after having 'arrived in Italy with 20,000 infantry and 6,000 cavalry', but 'not having been reinforced since crossing the Apennines' had almost double the men at Trasimene?
Does "he Gallic tribes in Cisalpine Gaul recognised the Carthaginians as the dominant force and sent plentiful supplies and many recruits to Hannibal's camp." not cover this?
It does, but it is two sections earlier. Just a brief reminder of Gallic recruitment would suffice. Constantine ✍ 16:22, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Added "In the wake of this victory he was further heavily reinforced by local Gauls."
  • According to Polybius, Flaminius was completely surprised and provided no effective leadership. The openly pro-Roman ancient historian Livy... Hmmm, Polybius was able to rely on accounts of people contemporary with events, whilst Livy wrote two centuries later. I feel this should be noted (at least the time when each of them wrote their histories).
I have added a bit on Livy, see what you think?
Works for me. Constantine ✍ 16:22, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link 'Libyans' to Ancient Libya, since it means something different to today.
Slightly broader explanation added. And the link.
Much better, thanks. Constantine ✍ 16:22, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
First two done. The third would be a complete Easter egg surely?
Far less than 'Ancient Greece', I'd say. Magna Graecia at least covers the specific Greeks in Italy, not the entire ancient Greek world. Constantine ✍ 16:22, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I specify "ethnic Greek". Clicking not that and getting a geographical area is an Easter egg. For "Italic" I don't link to Italy.
But Magna Graecia is the catch-all term for the areas of S. Italy where ethnic Greeks settled. Would Italiotes be a better link? Constantine ✍ 18:57, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is indeed what is needed. Thank you. Done. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:27, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: That's it. Well written, with excellent sources, and sufficient context and information for the layman. Excellent job, as usual. Constantine ✍ 09:37, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Constantine, both for the review and for your comments, which are addressed above. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:40, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: have replied above. Most of the stuff is highly optional, so I leave it to your discretion. Moving to support at this point. Constantine ✍ 16:22, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Some comments above, which I am happy to discuss further. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:45, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from SC

[edit]
Lead
  • "east of Cortona," maybe an indication of where this is? (modern day Tuscany, or central Italy)
The previous paragraph establishes that they were in Etruria, I have now added "(modern Tuscany)"; does that suffice?
  • "The following spring": I think we're supposed to avoid seasons – early the following year, or a month, maybe?
But military campaigning is season based. I could come up with a circumlocution. I think I could source "Once the ground was dry enough for travelling, the worst of the weather was past and there was sufficient foliage growth for cavalry horses and pack animals to forage ..." but its not exactly summary style. Perhaps I need to say that if that's what I mean? Yep, I can source it. What do you think? As it's the lead I could go with "Once the weather improved ..." or similar and save the mouthful for the main article.
I must admit I hate the SEASONS guideline - most of our readers probably understand the seasons are reversed between the hemispheres... You could go with what I also suggest for lower down: "In 217 BC, probably in early May", but as that may introduce an element of uncertainty in the timeframe, I will leave it to your discretion as to whether you leave as is, or hack it about. - SchroCat (talk) 21:22, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Background
  • "quasi-monarchial": quasi-monarchical?
Done.
  • It feels odd going from the build-up to the fighting then to the formations, then back to the story of the fighting. If it worth considering putting the "Opposing forces" section before the "Prelude" "Background"?
Er. It is.
Prelude
  • "In spring 217 BC": ditto on the seasons comment above
See above.
Battle
  • "morning of June 21": 21 June is consistent
Apologies. I don't know what came over me.
Aftermath
  • 'executed "the greatest ambush in history."' Per WP:LQ it should be 'executed "the greatest ambush in history".'
Done.

That's my lot. A fascinating read that packs a lot of punch into a small space. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 17:44, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Cat of Dubious Status, it seems a long time since I recieved one of your reviews and it is appreciated. All done bar one query. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:16, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy with what there is: I'll leave it to your judgement how to deal with (or not deal with) the outstanding point!
I have no subject knowledge here, so I do not pass comment on the completeness of sources used, etc, but simply the standard of prose and adherence to the MOS in relation to FA criteria. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 21:22, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the trusting support. I have moved the Opposing forces section as you suggest, but it seems strange to be starting the article with that. Originally it was after Prelude and before Battle and that may be the least worst place for it.
Seasons: I have switched the the spring in the lead for "Early the following year" but think I shall keep the second and fight my corner. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:31, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The positioning of the Opposing forces is only a suggestion, so if you think it’s better as it was, then keep it there - I’m not sure there is a perfect place for it, so go with what you’re happiest with. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 23:23, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from HAL

[edit]
  • I find the centering of captions a tad odd, but I usually leave aesthetic choices up to the editors. However, I do think whichever alignment you choose should be standardized across all captions.
Agreed and fixed.
  • The Oxford comma is used in some places and not in others. Again I would standardize.
Serial commas are not used in this article. A distressing number seem to have worked there way in, no doubt inserted by well meaning drive-by editors. They have been expurgated. Thank you for flagging this up.
  • Should "Southern Italy" be capitalized, as it is in its linked article?
Not in my opinion. I am open to other opinions but I don't see why it should be. I note that Wikipedia is a notoriously unreliable source and that the sources used in this article don't capitalise it. (On a quick random check.)
  • "Many would be from North Africa" --> As Carthage itself was in North Africa, could you specify the specific provinces where many of these troops come from.
The sources don't say. Some of those which I personally attach most weight to don't even add "North". There are references to Numidia in other contexts, but lacking anything specific I feel that mention of just this area would UNDUE and/or SYNTH.
Good grief. I think the link didn't make the rather vigorous pre-FAC copy and I missed the link going walkabout. Reinserted. Well spotted. Thank you.
Also, Livy is linked in his second mention rather than his first :)
Some days, it's just not worth getting out of bed. Fixed. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:52, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "looting because they could not carry any more" --> Is a comma needed before "because" as it's followed by an independent clause?
Er no. (In passing, the wonders of different schools of commaisation never cease to amaze me. The same suggestion from a different editor would cause me to think they were having fun with me. Anyway ...) The type of commaisation consistently (I hope) used in this article would not put a comma there.

That's all. Nice work. ~ HAL333 00:56, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi HAL333 and thanks. Some very good points. All addressed, one way or another. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:02, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Airship

[edit]

Oh no! No possibility of a legacy section! Whatever am I going to complain about?

Ahem. As always, these are suggestions; feel free to decline with justification.

  • "Early the following year" is somewhat unclear. It sounds like you mean Jan/Feb, but knowing military language, you probably mean mid-to-late spring?
Grr. Just changed after a reviewer cited SEASONS. It was definitely after 15 March. You know what, I am going to go witgh a named season on the completely unwritten basis of MILITATY CAMPAIGNING SEASON.
Sounds good to me! ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:24, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I adore the word "plundering", but surely there is a better way to say "...into Etruria, plundering, razing the villages"?
You like it. I like it. It means what we want it to mean "take or destroy all the goods of, by force (as in war)". What's the problem?
I just feel that the comma usage is slightly overboard in that sentence. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:24, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Would you perchance, be having a little merriment at the expense of a long suffering and broken down FAC nominator? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:36, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not entirely...the comma conflict is rather entertaining, but I am quite serious. Why not "razing and plundering the villages"? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:20, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly there needs to be an article on the Comma Wars?
Ah, now I see what you mean. That would suggest that the plundering was only being inflicted on the villages, which is not what I am trying to say. I shall recheck the sources to see if that is what I should be saying. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:32, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not. The sources have "scouring the neighbourhood" (Goldsworthy), "laying waste the beautiful Tuscan countryside" (Lazenby) and "ravaging the countryside" (Bagshaw), the implications of which are lost if I amend as you suggest. Although I note that I have somewhat confused the message in the main article, so have slightly tweaked that. What do you think? Gog the Mild (talk) 11:44, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it possible to give some idea of the size of the Carthaginian forces in the lead?
D'oh! Of course. Done.
  • "at the Battle of Cannae in 216 BC. This was a third and even worse disaster for Rome" the "This was" can be removed, no?
Done.
  • "Hannibal assembled a Carthaginian army in New Carthage (modern Cartagena) and marched north into Gaul in May 218 BC. Hannibal left his brother Hasdrubal Barca in charge of Carthaginian interests in Iberia." Hannibal-repetition; maybe combine the two sentences?
Done.
  • I have split and redefined the hatnote in the opposing forces section; please revert if you feel it's unnecessary.
I worry about hat notes only a little more than I do about categories or article titles. Which is to say, not a great deal. I am only happy that there are informed and capable editors such as yourself who are happy to tidy up after me.
  • Is the paragraph about Scipio's 204-201 activities needed?
Well, if I wipe it someone is going to complain that I don't properly explain the aftermath. And it seems a reasonably succinct why of finishing with something actually readable. Rather than, say, "The Carthaginians lost"; which would be unimpeachably summary style.
Fair enough. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:24, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Prose quality is excellent. I support this article, and leave the above comments up to the nominator's discretion. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:51, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks AirshipJungleman29, good points one and all. Addressed above. See what you think. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:51, 10 January 2023 (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) 16 January 2023 [9].

1937–38 Gillingham F.C. season

[edit]
Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:30, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

After a brief excursion into the world of music, I'm back in my comfort zone with my 19th nomination of a season from the history of Gillingham F.C. At the end of this particular season, the club lost its place in the Football League, which is timely as the way things are going at the moment the same thing is going to happen at the end of the current season...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:30, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt

[edit]
  • You might want to say in background when the club had last been required to re-apply to the League.
  • "A week later, Gillingham lost again, being defeated 5–1 at home by Queens Park Rangers, the first time they had conceded as many goals during the season.[13]" Is "as many goals" correct? Probably ENGVAR but I'd say "that many goals".
  • What were Ipswich Town's qualifications? Had it done particularly well in its league that season?
That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:42, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Wehwalt: - many thanks for your review. Points 1 and 3 have been addressed. And re point 2, yes this is valid- see for example the sentence below the heading "What record has Mbappe matched?" in this source..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:54, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Wehwalt (talk) 21:34, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
  • File:Laurie_Fishlock_postcard.jpg: source link is dead. For UK status per the tag the image description needs to specify the work undertaken to attempt to identify the author, and what is the status in the US? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:46, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: - unfortunately I don't have those answers, so I removed the image -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:41, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from HAL

[edit]
  • won only three times --> "won only thrice" is more concise, but really an aesthetic choice, feel free not to.
  • highest attendance recorded at the club's home ground Might be a stupid question, but is that the highest attendance ever? Or just that season?
  • Pre-season Should that be "preseason" or is that British English?
  • There might be a bit too many semicolons under "Third Division South Cup".
  • In the key for the Players table, there appear to be some duplicate links for positions.
  • Could you archive the urls if possible.
  • The locations seem to be given for only some of the works cited.

Solid work. ~ HAL333 22:36, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@HAL333: - thanks for your review. All done bar "pre-season" - as you note, that is a valid usage in British English (see eg this) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:37, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by Z1720 - pass

[edit]
  • "Brown, Tony (2003)" What makes this a high-quality source? I couldn't find information that it was published by Soccerdata, and Amazon states that it was published by the author (so self-published?) Is there a link to a reputable website that might have more information about this? If it is self-published, what makes it a high-quality source?
  • What makes "Joyce, Michael (2004)." a high-quality source? Specifically, why is Joyce or soccerdata high-quaity?
  • "Soar, Phil; Tyler, Martin (1983)" The publisher (Collins Willow) has a redirect from CollinsWillow to HarperCollins. Should this be wikilinked in the ref and changed to CollinsWillow?
  • Suggest archiving sites using IABot.

Those are my thoughts. Please ping when responses are given. Z1720 (talk) 21:40, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for the above ChrisTheDude. I am still struggling to find an entry that says Soccerdata published the Tony Brown source, as Google is showing me that it is self-published. Is there a link you can post that will show this? Z1720 (talk) 16:30, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Z1720: - does this help? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:04, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I believe it does. This source review is a pass. Z1720 (talk) 21:51, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Lee Vilenski

[edit]

I'll begin a review of this article very soon! My reviews tend to focus on prose and MOS issues, especially on the lede, but I will also comment on anything that could be improved. I'll post up some comments below over the next couple days, which you should either respond to, or ask me questions on issues you are unsure of. I'll be claiming points towards the wikicup once this review is over.

Lede
Prose
  • The sequence began on 6 November with a 4–0 defeat away to Cardiff City[22] and continued with a 2–0 defeat at home to Bournemouth & Boscombe Athletic,[23] after which Gillingham were bottom of the table. -nothing wrong with a simple sentence, I'd have a full stop after City. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:26, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whitelaw and Tug Wilson made the most; both played in 42 of the team's 45 competitive matches. Syd Hartley was the only other player to take part in 40 or more matches - I feel like if we haven't already introduced the players, we should probably give a vague idea of who they are, even if it's just "striker" or "defender". Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:26, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The statistics table uses "apps", but doesn't have anywhere explaining this means "appearances". Perhaps use a Tooltip. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:26, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comments

Additionally, if you liked this review, or are looking for items to review, I have some at my nominations list. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:17, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Lee Vilenski: - thanks for your review, all points addressed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:31, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Ceranthor

[edit]
  • "The application was rejected and as a result the club lost its place in the Football League." - need a comma after rejected
  • "The club signed several new players" - it's implied, but I think you should explicitly state for this season or the year
  • "The veteran half-back was appointed team captain.[8]" - Is this Nichol? unclear to me, a lay reader
  • "Albert Taylor from Lincoln City, Cyril Walker from Watford, and Archie Young from Leicester City.[9] " - elsewhere you haven't used the serial comma so need to be consistent throughout
  • "Pre-season matches between Football League members were not permitted at the time and clubs instead generally prepared for the season with a public trial match between two teams chosen from within their own squad of players" - need a comma
  • "Nichol, Young, Smith, Walker, Taylor, and Dalton" - again, serial comma here but not elsewhere. Not going to go through all the instances here, but you should definitely double check that whichever style you go with is consistent for all lists of three or more throughout
  • "The club's first match of the season, on 28 August, was away to Bristol City; Nichol, Young, Smith, Walker, Taylor, and Dalton all made their debuts and Taylor scored Gillingham's first goal of the season, but his team lost 3–1; the correspondent for the Sunday Dispatch wrote that Gillingham "did not impress".[13][14]" - way too long. Need to split into two or three sentences
  • "It was the last game in a Gillingham shirt for both long-serving full-back Fred Lester and Walker," - tone is too informal here. Needs to be a bit more like an encyclopedia
  • "he team ended their winless run by defeating fellow strugglers Walsall " - similar tone issue here, would be better just to state Walsall's record at that point
  • "The sequence began on 6 November with a 4–0 defeat away to Cardiff City,[22] and continued with a 2–0 defeat at home to Bournemouth & Boscombe Athletic,[23] after which Gillingham were bottom of the table.[24] " - don't need the comma after Cardiff City
  • "goalkeeper, Dave Whitelaw, " - bit of a eats shoots and leaves issue here; I think Whitelaw is the goalkeeper but as written it sounds like he's a separate person. Fixed by removing the commas around his name
  • "Exeter City,[13] but stayed bottom of the table.[27]" - don't need comma
  • "made their Football League debuts against Exeter and Herbert scored Gillingham's second goal.[28]" - need comma after against Exeter
  • "Gillingham lost four of their five games in February, the second a 5–0 defeat away to Millwall which was the team's heaviest defeat of the season;[13] all the goals came in the second half." - why highlight just the second loss?
  • "but his team lost 4–3 and were eliminated from the competition.[39]" - odd to use "his" rather than "the"; would switch
  • "In front of an attendance reported as 2,000" - elsewhere you don't state the audience was "reported", so why start now?
  • "Gillingham would be elected back into the Football League when it increased its membership by four clubs in 1950.[3][49]" - increased by four clubs? I don't understand what that means.

Prose could use some tightening. ceranthor 21:50, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ceranthor: - many thanks for your review, all addressed bar one as noted -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:37, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nice work. I'll support now. ceranthor 04:12, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 15 January 2023 [10].

David Kelly (weapons expert)

[edit]
Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 14:04, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Dr David Kelly was one of the leading weapon's inspectors in the world. His work uncovered a covert and illegal BW programme in Russia, and he spent much time in Iraq with the UN, examining Saddam Hussain's facilities where he uncovered an anthrax production programme at the Salman Pak facility, and a biological weapons programme at Al Hakum. He was a decent, honest man who did a difficult job in trying circumstances. He was caught up in a political whirlwind that led to his suicide on a hillside near his home.
This article went through a re-write a couple of years ago and has matured nicely since then, with some additional polishing from a good PR. Any constructive comments are welcome. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:04, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per my detailed comments at the peer review.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:24, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Wehwalt for your comments there. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:27, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Graham Beards

I need to read the article again but in the meantime, and with my microbiologist's hat on, can I ask how sure we are that the anthrax that was used in the tests on Gruinard Island was "weaponised"? As far as I can recall, the bacteria (anthrax spores) were added to bait for cattle (or perhaps sheep) and not spread by bombs or gadgets that would cause airborne spread. Does the source elaborate? Graham Beards (talk) 16:09, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Graham, Thanks for question: the source itself doesn't (it just states that "Britain had conducted tests with weaponized anthrax during World War II"), but I'll have a look round and if there isn't anything else that justifies "weaponised", I'll take it out. I suspect language usage may have changed to mean "using something as a weapon", rather than "anthrax dispersed by a weapon", but my knowledge on the terminology of such work is paper thin! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 16:19, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This work talks about the "extensive testing of anthrax bombs", which seems to fit the bill. The source looks to be a reliable and specialist one. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 16:46, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy with that. Thanks for taking the time to look into it. Graham Beards (talk) 18:28, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I know this is a direct quotation but "anthrax VX" is not one agent but two: the spores (presumably) of Bacillus anthracis and the nerve agent VX. I can't find "anthrax VX" anywhere except in the Guardian article, a paper known for its type-setting errors. Is anthrax VX a known (potential) combined weapon or are we in danger of perpetuating an error? Graham Beards (talk) 19:02, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Graham, This is something someone pointed out at PR too. We are deep within my area of ignorance here, particularly for a direct quote (even one from the Observer - I've checked the hardcopy version too, and that has it the same as here). When it was raised at PR, I went looking and found page 13 of this, which refers to "Anthrax Vx and Tx", while page 16 of this refers to "Anthrax Vx & Rx" and this has "Anthrax vx"; these are pretty much the only references I saw, although it wasn't an in-depth search and didn't cover specialist material. I am not suitably versed in the nomenclature to make a judgement on this. If you're happy that the two sources here are not talking about the same thing Kelly was, we can always frame the quote as "anthrax [and] VX", if you think that was the original intent. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:27, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is a problem with "8,500 litres of" because Bacillus anthracis spores don't really come in litres, only cultures containing them do and we don't know how many spores per litre (i.e. the concentration). How about a simple [sic] rather than [and]? Because that for me would be an acknowledgement of the confusion caused by the statement? Either way, no deal breaker and having now read your contribution a couple of times, I am more than happy to add my Support to the growing list. It's great to see you back at FAC. Graham Beards (talk) 12:43, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks Graham. I've added the sic to the quote, which should suffice. HAL333, you had a comment on this in the PR: are you happy with this change? Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:07, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good to me. ~ HAL333 17:18, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from HAL

[edit]

Support from Tim riley

[edit]

Coming later to the peer review than the other reviewers I found there was no remaining scope for carping or quibbling by the time I looked in. The article looked to me then to be of FA standard in all respects and still does. Happy to add my support to those above. A sad and shocking case, sensitively dealt with here. Tim riley talk 17:32, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
  • Suggest scaling up the laboratories diagram and the four-witnesses image
  • Suggest adding alt text
  • File:David_Kelly_2000s.jpg: the FUR describes this as a screenshot - from what?
  • File:Stepnagorsk_Corona_Composite.jpg: the tag in use requires that the image come from a NRO "website or publication", but the given source is neither - is there an original source that satisfied that criterion? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:09, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not directly (or directly but not on reliable sources), although there are numerous reliable sources that refer to the Corona programme being run by the NRO. There are also explanations such as this which show a direct link between the two (along with a potted history). I'll keep looking on this one though. - SchroCat (talk) 08:25, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi SchroCat, how are we doing with this? Gog the Mild (talk) 20:42, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve added some explanations on the licences (and above) of all except the last one, where there’s only an explanation. Nikkimaria, there isn’t much more I can add than the explanation. Is there any way to keep this? If not, I can always take it out. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 21:38, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any source that the image was officially published/released by NRO, even if the NRO publication itself is not available? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:52, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Only from non-reliable sources that make reference to it, such as such as this. - SchroCat (talk) 05:36, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria ? Gog the Mild (talk) 13:34, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we've quite met the tag requirements here. Any other reason it'd be free? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:48, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Nikkimaria. I think it's almost certainly free, but as we can't prove it, I've taken it out. I'll see if I can find something at a later date. There was nothing from reliable sources that made the definite connection we'd need. Cheers for your thoughts and judgement on this. - SchroCat (talk) 14:03, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from mujinga

[edit]

Thanks for an interesting read, it's fascinating to contrast what I remember from reports of the events at the time to the referenced account here. I have a few nitpicky comments on prose, I'll put them below:

  • "Thomas and Margaret divorced in 1951 and she took her young son and moved in with her parents in Pontypridd" - not wild about the two "and"s, could it be a semi-colon after 1951?
  • "Kelly undertook several visits to Russia between 1991 and 1994 as the co-lead of a team from the UK and US who inspected civilian biotechnology facilities in Russia" - if it's a team as the subject then should it be which instead of "who"?
  • "for the first visit in January 1991, the team visited the Institute of Engineering Immunology, Lyubuchany; the State Research Centre for Applied Microbiology in Obolensk; the Vector State Research Center of Virology and Biotechnology in Koltsovo; and the Institute of Ultrapure Preparations, in Leningrad (now Saint Petersburg)" - for consistency, I'd rather have "in Lyubuchany"
  • "As part of the British government's arguments for war on Saddam, Tony Blair, the British Prime Minister, published a dossier on Iraqi WMD on 24 September 2002." - did Blair publish it or the JIC?
  • "Kelly was often approached by the press and would either clear the discussion with the press office of the FCO, or used his judgement before doing so" - "use his judgement" reads better to me?
  • starting at "He continued that "The long-term threat," - bundle the three subsequent short paragraphs into one?
  • "Soon afterwards the MoD phoned Kelly and advised him to find somewhere else to stay the night as the media would likely arrive at their house" - "his house"? Actually maybe change to "to find somewhere else to stay the night" since house is also in next sentence and we have already heard about the media
  • "As her father had not returned, Rachel walked a route along a footpath her father was known to use regularly to try and find him; she returned to the house at around 6:30 pm, then drove round to see if she could find him" - two "find him"s, suggest changing one
  • "* his biographer, the former MP Norman Baker" - there's a duplink here, possibly a useful one. Also do you need to say "former MP"?
  • as a last point, in the gilligan quote " Not in original draft -- dull" the dash would be "in original draft – dull" under wikipedia style Mujinga (talk) 15:36, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks Mujinga - much appreciated. I have either changed all per your suggestion, or reworked a little to get round the issue (see here for all the changes). Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 16:01, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Great work on the article. Happy to support now Mujinga (talk) 17:15, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Mujinga - that's very kind of you. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 18:42, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

Glad to see you back at FAC.

  • Suggest replacing the US state abbreviations with full names of the states, since some non-US readers may not know them.
  • There are some inconsistencies in the way you're formatting BBC news sources, unless you're following a rule that I haven't spotted. For example, "Kelly coroner names hearing date" has a title and publisher, "BBC", but no website is given. Most are formatted like this, but "Day four: Key points" and "Dr. David Kelly: Controversial death examined" uses the work parameter instead of the publisher, and has "BBC News" instead of "BBC". All the other news sources use "work" instead of publisher so changing the two odd ones out would be consistent.
  • "The Biological Weapons - UNODA" link does not work and there's no archive link.
  • For "Dexter Dalwood and the Tate Collection" you have "Tate St. Ives" as the publisher, but that's just one part of the website. Judging from this page, I would say "Tate" is the publisher.
  • I'm not clear when you're using the publisher parameter and when you're using website for the list under "Websites". For example, the Tate source has publisher but no website; the George Bush source has the website but no publisher.
  • Why is there an NY Time link under the websites? You put other newspapers in the news section.

More to come, probably tomorrow. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:24, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Mike. I think I've caught all of these in this edit. This should have covered everything, but if I've missed anything, just let me know. If you have any more comments or queries, I'd be delighted to hear them. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:41, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above all look fine now. A couple more minor points:

  • Dodd (2004) is a chapter in Rogers (2004) as are several other book sources; Rogers is cited directly, presumably to an introduction? I would treat it the same way as Dodd -- give a chapter name and use the editor parameter so it shows as "Rogers, Simon (2004). "Chapter name". In Rogers, Simon (ed.) ...".
  • The link for Ruth Scurr's article in The Spectator doesn't work.

Those are the only issues. Sources are all reliable for what they are used for and the other links all work (I wasn't able to check the Guardian links as there's a problem with my access, so I'll take those on faith). -- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:30, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pass. Last two issues fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:04, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Harry

[edit]
  • I'm not sure if we have a WP-specific guideline but most suicide reporting guidelines recommend downplaying the method; I was surprised to see the lead was so specific about it.
  • The Institute of Virology was subsequently renamed the Natural Environment Research Council "subsequently" implies it was a result of Kelly's tenure; I'm guessing you mean "later".
  • although he abhorred Saddam's regime perhaps "government" instead of "regime" for the appearance of neutrality?
  • whose mission was similar to that of UNSCOM, and was to continue with UNSCOM's mission two uses of "UNSCOM" and "mission" in very close proximity
  • Can we shorten the bit about GWB's speech a bit? It's valuable background but it's quite a long way detached from Kelly.
  • Most of the country was occupied and the Saddam regime was overthrown as above although maybe just "Saddam was overthrown" would suffice here?
  • Kelly was in New York on 29 May 2003, attending the final commissioners meeting apostrophe needed for commissioners?
  • the reports "have to be reported word perfectly" reports have to be reported?
  • issued a statement to refute the story in the statement redundancy
  • The appearance of Kelly before the Foreign Affairs Select Committee why not just "Kelly's appearance"?
  • Footnote o would be better in the prose imo.
  • Can we use the active voice where possible? Eg Volunteer search teams were also used by the police.

That's it from me. A thorough account of a tragic case. My impression is that he was an expert in his field but was naïve when it came to the cut-throat worlds of politics and journalism. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:14, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks HJ Mitchell, All sorted in this series of edits. - Thanks very much for your thoughts - much appreciated. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:44, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
LGTM. Excellent work. Support. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:30, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 14 January 2023 [11].

Hughie Ferguson

[edit]
Nominator(s): Kosack (talk) 12:50, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a Scottish footballer who achieved many notable feats during his career before his life ended in tragedy. I originally nominated this in May 2021 but it garnered little attention. Deciding to have another run at it now though. Looking forward to any comments. Kosack (talk) 12:50, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]
  • "he played for Parkhead at junior level" - maybe find a way to clarify that "junior" in this context has nothing to do with age?
    I've added that he was a semi-pro at the time and linked junior to the Scottish Junior Football Association. Let me now if it needs more clarification. Kosack (talk) 18:43, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "scored the winning goals in both the 1927 FA Cup Final, in a 1–0 victory over Arsenal, and the 1927 FA Charity Shield," - that kinda reads like you are referring to three different matches rather than two
Reworded. Kosack (talk) 18:43, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He joined Parkhead Juniors in 1914" - everywhere else in the article the club is simply referred to as Parkhead
Fixed. Kosack (talk) 18:43, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Parkhead went on to win the tie 2–0" - maybe change to "the match" so as to avoid any confusion with "tie" meaning a draw
Done. Kosack (talk) 18:43, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "However, he remained with Parkhead and by the midway point of the campaign, Ferguson was one of the most coveted young players in the country,[8] having scored more than 30 goals by the midway point of the season" - repetition of "midway point of the season" is a bit jarring
Reworded. Kosack (talk) 18:43, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking a look Chris. I've responded to all the points above. Kosack (talk) 18:43, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

More comments

[edit]
  • It occurs to me that it might be slightly confusing to refer to "English Football League First Division side Cardiff City" and then describe them as a non-English club three sentences later, as readers who don't know the specifics might think that the adjective "English" refers to the club rather than or as well as the league. Maybe just refer to them as "Welsh side Cardiff City" in the lead and specify in the body that they played in the English First Division (which isn't actually mentioned at present)
  • "Motherwell began the following year in poor form" - you were just talking about 1918, which would make the following year 1919, and then you have "Motherwell recovered to repeat their fifth place finish the following year", so is that 1920? The chronology of this paragraph is very confusing.
  • "tied with James Williamson of Hibernians" - the club is called Hibernian (singular)
  • "and netted four of his side's goal" => goals
  • "His goalscoring form attracted attention from Football League sides" - need to link the League (maybe also specify that it's English)
  • "his first hat-trick of the campaign against Dumbarton in October,[.....] Two weeks later, he received his second cap for the Scottish League XI in October 1921" - a bit inelegant, maybe lose the first "in October". Oh, and lose the year from the second one, as you already said it's the 1921-22 season
  • "Ferguson finished third in the scorers ranking" => "Ferguson finished third in the scorers' ranking"
  • "Cardiff ended the campaign in 16th place, avoiding relegation" - wikilink relegation
  • "during which the Western Mail bemoaned Ferguson's absence" - Western Mail should be in italics. Also, it's not linked here but is on a later usage.
  • "Dundee Courier later reported" - link the paper
  • "gassing himself at Dens Park" - maybe specify that this is Dundee's stadium?
  • "He was also interested in birds and kept the animals" - reads a bit odd to me describing birds as animals, as usually I think of "birds and animals" as separate things. Maybe just "He was also interested in and kept birds"......?
  • "Ferguson's main attribute was his finishing ability; the Sporting Chronicle" - link the paper
  • Note 2 is not a complete sentence so doesn't need a full stop
  • Think that's all I got - a really good read! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:46, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again Chris, I've amended all of the points above apart from the Sporting Chronicle link as it's already linked previously. Let me know if you spot anything else. Kosack (talk) 10:15, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Coordinator comment - I'm sorry, but as this one is nearing three weeks with little action, I'm afraid this will have to be archived in a couple days if significant movement towards a consensus to promote is not made. Hog Farm Talk 20:16, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Eem dik doun in toene

[edit]
  • His date of birth is not mentioned anywhere in the body (or referenced as far as I can see)
  • "as a semi-professional", but in the body it's said that he "retained his amateur status"
  • "joined Parkhead in 1914" ==> maybe mentioned Parkhead was Glasgow-based (so he left his hometown)
  • "he hoped for an offer from a Lancashire-based side" ==> do you have an idea why he specifically wanted to play in that region? Not that this sentence needs amending but I'm just curious.
  • "against Kilmarnock and" ==> Killie can be wikilinked
  • Maybe mention the clubs Jock White ("one short of Jock White") and Dave Halliday ("behind Dave Halliday and") were playing for?
  • "19‑year‑old teammate of Ferguson said" ==> there's a comma missing
  • "with goal ratio per game of" ==> there's word missing
  • I've got nothing more to add. Top work. Eem dik doun in toene (talk) 22:37, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Eem dik doun in toene: Thanks for the review, I've amended all of the points you listed. Kosack (talk) 08:24, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed, but are there no better-quality options available? Given the dates I'd expect there might be. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:32, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are other images of Ferguson out there but the licensing is sketchy at best. I did quite a bit of hunting through the British Newspaper Archive when I was looking for images, but I'd be stretching the licensing by using others I'd say. Kosack (talk) 08:24, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

Footnote numbers refer to this version.

I had a look in the archive of The Times to see if there were any references, and discovered his uncle the MP was convicted of receiving stolen goods in 1933, but found nothing about the footballer that you don't already have. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library)

Thanks for reviewing Mike, I've responded to all of your points. Let me know what you think. Kosack (talk) 16:41, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

One more issue:

  • FN 149 is marked as being via BNA, but it is not.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:32, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Kosack (talk) 19:55, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Mike ? Gog the Mild (talk) 11:06, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pass. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:47, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Ian

[edit]

Recusing coord duties to review... Wasn't that happy with the prose so copyedited a fair bit -- let me know if I've inadertently altered any meaning. Outstanding points:

  • Syd Puddefoot later recalled a match against Shettleston in the Scottish Junior Cup in which Ferguson played that had been delayed and risked him missing an appointment. -- perhaps it's the expression but I don't really get the point of this or if it's worth including.
  • it was remarked that he displayed a "melancholy demeanour and evident physical suffering" in early January 1930 -- remarked by who?

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 18:48, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ian, thanks for taking the time to have a look. Happy with the changes you made, I did make one small alteration. The Puddefoot comment, I think, emphasises the form he was in at the time. He was probably the most in-form player not already playing professionally, and the ease of which he was playing at the time is reinforced by this remark. I've added attribution for the quote also. Thanks. Kosack (talk) 09:55, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I don't infer ease of playing from this statement -- does it mean he was so worth watching that people (Puddefoot in this case) were prepared to miss appointments to see him? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 18:02, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It was Ferguson who had the appointment, perhaps this needs to be made clearer if there's confusion about that? I've reworded slightly to hopefully make that more obvious. Kosack (talk) 21:33, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Glad you clarified because as it stood I honestly thought it was Puddefoot's appointment... ;-) Okay I get it now, this is why in the next sentence Ferg is feigning injury -- the penny drops...! Can I suggest trying to get some eyes on at Peer Review before FAC next time, it might help iron out ahead of time the kind of prose and comprehension issues I've found here. That said, taking Nikki's image review and Mike's source review as read, ready to support now. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 19:17, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Or run it through Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:58, 14 January 2023 (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) 14 January 2023 [13].

Sumitro Djojohadikusumo

[edit]
Nominator(s): Juxlos (talk) 13:34, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about an Indonesian economist/politician/rebel/oligarch/aristocrat/statesman, depending on when and who you ask (well except "economist", everyone agrees on that), who formed Indonesia's economic policies from 1950 to 1957 and 1968 to the 1980s and arguably to this day. Previous FAC failed due to general lack of interest (helps that Indonesian history isn't exactly common knowledge). Juxlos (talk) 13:34, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
  • Don't use fixed px size
  • Suggest adding a legend to the map caption, since the inbuilt one is unreadable at that size
  • File:Suharto,_Irian_Barat_dari_Masa_ke_Masa,_Preface_(cropped).jpg needs a US tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:32, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Addressed. Is the "legend" sufficient? Juxlos (talk) 16:09, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite: what represents the operations? The dashed lines, the arrows, both, something else? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:53, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The black arrows. Added. Juxlos (talk) 13:08, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Arsonal

[edit]
  • This article could benefit from a thorough edit to comply with MOS:COMMA and MOS:DASHES.
  • Lead section mentions that Sumitro is Javanese, yet this fact and his family background are not mentioned or referenced anywhere in the article.
  • Added (and source)
  • "During his studies, he joined an Indonesian students' organization there which aimed to promote Indonesian arts and culture." The use of "there" is ambiguous, since the Netherlands, France, and Spain have been mentioned by this point in the paragraph, and may not be necessary.
  • Removed
  • "During the political wrangling and coup attempt that followed, the group was first relocated to Yogyakarta, and was brought to Sukarno while their kidnappers presented demands to Sukarno to remove Sjahrir and appoint a new cabinet. Due to a botched attempt to kidnap another minister, Amir Sjarifuddin, however, Sudarsono's soldiers failed to show up to Sukarno's palace. Sukarno refused the demands, Sudarsono was arrested, and Sjahrir along with his group were released." The first sentence reads awkwardly and may benefit from a rewrite to only mention Sukarno once. The information in the first sentence also conflicts with the second because it says that the hostages were brought to Sukarno, then they actually were not.
  • Better now?
  • "Sumitro was charged with bypassing it and on one occasion American cargo ship SS Martin Behrman carrying cargo from the Indonesian-controlled city of Cirebon was seized by Dutch marines. This is a run-on sentence.
  • Separated
  • "[...] Sumitro gave a press conference which was prominently featured in American media - The New York Times, for example, published in its entirety a memorandum [...]" Is there a reason these two sentences are not separated by a full stop?
  • The reason being my tendency to overuse commas and dashes. Changed
  • Please verify whether the debt figures specified by Kahin is using Netherlands Indies gulden rather than Dutch guilder. At first glance, I don't think Kahin clarifies this, though in my experience the Indies version of the currency is the one usually used in the context of colonial period.
  • I cannot find any statements for either case in either Kahin or Thee Kian Wie's statement. Though, since NEI's guilder is fixed at par to the Dutch guilder, and the NEI's government didn't exactly exist by late 1949, I imagine they meant the Dutch guilder.
  • "Sumitro also opposed deferring the Western New Guinea issue, but was again overridden by Hatta." This sentence may benefit from explaining what the "issue" actually is.
  • Done
  • A significant portion of the section titled "Minister of Industry" is dedicated to Sumitro's activities after he left the Natsir cabinet and his minister post. Perhaps the section should be titled differently.
  • Added the "UI" - any suggestions? It does still feel a little off.
  • The article never parenthetically associates UI with University of Indonesia, so maybe ===Minister of Industry and academic appointment=== is more clear. Speaking of which, are See also: Natsir Cabinet and See also: Wilopo Cabinet necessary if they are already linked in the prose? If they are removed, See also: Liberal democracy period in Indonesia can also be brought up immediately under the ==Cabinet Minister== header. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 05:11, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and academia"?. Also, changed up the see alsos.
  • Huh, in my defense, that article was created like last month.
  • "He was president commissioner of Astra in 1992, when the group faced a takeover, and Sumitro resigned in December that year." Who was attempting takeover?
  • Expanded the sentence
  • "[...] Sumitro still held considerable influence in policymaking circles due to many of his former pupils holding government positions during the 1980s, and his continued teaching at Universitas Indonesia." University of Indonesia is used throughout, but this sentence uses Universitas Indonesia.
  • Fixed
  • "Despite his previous Keynesian policies of extensive state involvement [...]" The characterization of his economic policies as Keynesian comes very late in the article, well after the sections about his ministerial career. Can this idea be introduced earlier?
  • Added in the first sentence of his ministry under Suharto
  • "[...] he continued to play a role in Golkar party politics [...]" Using "continued" implies he was already involved in Golkar. When did he start his involvement? (I presume since the start of the New Order's three-party system, but this needs further information about the extent of his party involvement.)
  • A little tricky since Sumitro didn't play much party functionary - and well, basically if not literally everyone in government was in Golkar back then. I think it's easier to simply cut off the Golkar part.
  • In the infobox, Sumitro's ministerial positions are listed in reverse chronological order, but within each ministerial section, his terms of office are listed in forward chronological order. I believe common practice is to display these in reverse chronological order as well. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 05:18, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • That better?
  • I'm leaning toward support, but I would still like to see the ==Legacy== section further developed before committing. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 03:25, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I have incorporated Hadiz & Dhakidae, but I'm not sure about McLaughlin - doesn't feel like it is something particularly relevant to Sumitro, more to PRRI itself (Sumitro believed PRRI could not get a belligerent status because it went to guerilla warfare too quickly). Added a little vignette on the usual things named after him ( a road in UI).
    Otherwise, not sure how much else I can include in that section. Juxlos (talk) 16:10, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging Arsonal for information. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:13, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 04:16, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note

[edit]

This has been open for three weeks and has yet to pick up a general support. Unless it attracts considerable movement towards a consensus to promote over the next three or four days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:54, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie

[edit]

Since this is short of reviews but had reviewers last time around, I'm pinging those reviewers in case they can take another look: Kaiser matias, Dudley Miles. Coords, I don't think I've done that before (pinged prior reviewers to someone else's FAC); let me know if you'd rather I didn't.

Reading through now; review to follow. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:28, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • "According to British reports, Sumitro had been included in the delegation to provide a good impression for the Dutch government": does this mean the Dutch included him in order to make them look better at the UN because they included an Indonesian? If so I think it should be clearer, and perhaps also the reason why this mattered should be stated -- presumably because the independence war was well under way by this time. As the paragraph is currently laid out a reader can't see the two are connected (if I'm right in assuming they are).
  • The source was a British report, which simply stated "in order to impress the outside world". It was fairly obvious in context that the impression is a "hey look, we have an Indonesian in our delegation, they're Dutch", but it was not explicitly stated. Any advice?
  • "During the political wrangling and coup attempt that followed, the group was first relocated to Yogyakarta": why "first"? No other move is mentioned. Or is this intended to refer to "show up to Sukarno's palace"?
    • By 1946, Sukarno was based in Yogyakarta, so yeah the first is not necessary. Removed.
  • You mention the kidnappers' plans twice: " intended to remove Sjahrir from office" and "planning to force Sukarno to remove Sjahrir": can we eliminate the repetition?
    • Consolidated
  • "Sumitro was assigned to the Indonesian delegation to the United Nations": surely the UN had not recognized Indonesian independence by this time? So shouldn't we qualify "Indonesian delegation" -- presumably the Dutch also still claimed to represent Indonesia at the UN?
    • At that time, I believe, they were observers - not members, but definitely in the room. There are definitely pictures of them at the UN as the delegation. "Observer delegation", maybe?
  • Is the Indonesian-American corporation worth a red link?
    • Not really, no. I think it did not last very long.
  • Can we make the sequence of events in 1957 a bit more linear at the end of the first paragraph of "Joining the rebellion" and start of the second paragraph? "Throughout 1957" refers entirely to events after "Arriving on 13 May".
  • "He participated in another dissident meeting in the town of Sungai Dareh in January 1958, and a deadlock occurred": a deadlock implies an inability to reach a decision or take action, but we haven't said the group was trying to make any particular decision. You give Barlian's position, but what progress was prevented by it?
    • Sumitro et al. wanted to recruit Barlian for their cause, but Barlian didn't want to join. Better written now?
  • "to be based in Manado under the Permesta group": I assume the Permesta group was a part of the PRRI, just an organizational group within it? If so do we need to mention them here? If we do I think we should identify them in some way so the reader doesn't have to follow links to know what we're talking about.
    With another reading of the source, it seems that he wasn't posted there - I cannot find anything stating that, and his last known position was abroad. He was also abroad by the time the movement had been defeated. On the other hand, I can't find something that explicitly states he was abroad, so I reworded it. Juxlos (talk) 16:42, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Additionally, due to Sumitro's involvement in the rebellion, many of his students who had pursued further education in foreign universities were excluded from government posts." Seems a non sequitur, I think because we mention it before saying the PRRI was defeated -- perhaps it would feel more relevant later in the paragraph.
    • Moved it to become the last sentence in the section - better spot?
  • "Despite its utilization in planning, the study was ceased when": suggest "use" rather than the unnecessarily formal "utilization", but I'm not sure what is meant -- what planning is being referred to here?
    • Economic planning - clarification there sufficient?

That's it for a first pass. Overall looks very sound. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:50, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Second pass. One pont unstruck above as well.

  • In the lead we have "Following his death, his children and grandchildren remain influential in Indonesian politics" but this is not supported in the body.
    Struck; I missed this but it's there. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:56, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I got curious about Matthew Fox and found this, which I can send you a PDF of if you don't have access. It seems to contradict "sole agent", and has a couple of minor details you might be able to use.
    Having looked at a couple more articles it appears it was the purchasing and buying agent for the Indonesian government for some commodities, but not for private business.
    Hmm, I guess Thee Kian Wie needs to check again. But maybe it was that the NYT was not informed of the exclusive arrangement then. Regardless, I think reducing the "sole agent" to "an agent" is a safe thing to do here.

Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:34, 5 January 2023 (UTC) More later. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:12, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • You have both Soekiman and Sukiman, and only one needs to link to Sukiman Cabinet.
  • Fixed
  • "Sumitro also engaged in a public debate with Sjafruddin Prawiranegara, on their differing views on Indonesian economic development while both also criticizing the incumbent Sukiman Cabinet": tense mismatch. Suggest "Sumitro also engaged in a public debate with Sjafruddin Prawiranegara, on their differing views on Indonesian economic development. Both also criticized the incumbent Sukiman Cabinet." though there are other ways to solve it.
  • Fixed
  • "The nationalization of De Javasche Bank and its conversion into Bank Indonesia was completed during his tenure": should be "were completed", unless the nationalization and the conversion are two ways of saying the same thing.
  • Fixed
  • Is it "PRRI" or "the PRRI"? The article has both.
  • No "the". Standardized.
  • "Soedjatmoko" looks like the old spelling system -- shouldn't that be "Sudjatmoko"? Same question for "William Soeryadjaya".
  • I hate EVO. Anyways, put everything into EYD, hopefully.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:56, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Mike Christie: Addressed issues. Re the first first point, the paragraph has been expanded somewhat, and I think it gives a better idea of the situation now.

Support. Issues all addressed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:21, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Prose check from Airship

[edit]

As always, these are suggestions, not demands. Feel free to decline.

  • Make sure you've standardised which variation of English you're using: favor/humor/behavior vs favour/humour/behaviour, defence vs defense, travelled vs traveled.
  • Decided to go with British English and did a couple passes - did I miss anything?
  • Is the occupation parameter necessary in the infobox?
  • No, not really, and honestly I don't even remember putting that in. Removed.
  • Done
  • "... which Sumitro was not part of took part in ..." grammatically sound, but perhaps not as clear as could be.
  • Maybe with parentheses?
  • "He also supported the transmigration program" could specify the subject for clarity.
  • Done
  • "This cabinet was the first to include the Berkeley Mafia, a group of Western-educated economists with Sumitro being a key member and some others such as Finance Minister Ali Wardhana being former students of Sumitro." the subordinate clauses are just slightly out of hand
  • Splitting into 2 sentences work well?
  • "The takeover was completed by January 1993, Sumitro having resigned in December 1992." you could just say "Sumitro resigned in December 1992 and the takeover was completed the following month."
  • Fair enough, fixed
  • "policies were due to his view that such policies were simply a continuation" waffly. "policies because he believed they continued" better.
  • Used a "simply" there, but fixed
  • "military general-politician" is unclear.
  • "And" better there? Also did some stuff with parenthesis
  • "his involvement in the 1997–98 activists kidnappings in Indonesia" you may want to pipe the link for increased clarity.
  • Piped
  • Combining the final two paragraphs of the family section would probably work better.
  • Fair enough

Leaning support currently. Look forward to your response. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:35, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AirshipJungleman29, I think Juxlos is ready for you now. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:28, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

[edit]
  • I commented on the previous nomination, but it was timed out before I completed my comments, so I will start again.
  • "Sumitro served as finance minister in the cabinets of Prime Ministers Wilopo and Burhanuddin Harahap". As you mention below that he became an opponent of Sukarno, it would be more relevant that he served as finance minister under Sukarno than the names of the PMs.
  • Sukarno had limited day-to-day involvement during this period, and it would be somewhat inaccurate to describe him as the person over Sumitro at this point. I added "during the Sukarno era" at the end of the sentence - that alright?
  • "With the establishment of the New Order". You should mention that Sukarno was overthrown in a military coup and replaced by Suharto.
  • Done
  • "a high ranking civil servant in the Dutch colonial government". Presumably of the Dutch East Indies, but you should spell this out.
  • Done
  • "his children and grandchildren remained influential in Indonesian politics". Remained or remain? (as of date if the latter).
  • Latter
  • Is his mother not recorded?
  • Something something WP:SYSTEMIC. Added, although just her name is really recorded.
  • "from ports under Republican control". Was part of the territory under republican control and part Dutch? You should clarify?
  • I'm not entirely sure how to clarify that in text. I feel like this is clear to the reader? Since "Republican-controlled" implies that they don't control everything.
  • Looking again at this, I think you need more context at the beginning of the 'Early revolution' section. You start by saying that he joined a Dutch delegation and then returned to join the government of the Republic of Indonesia. (The link is not helpful as the Government of Indonesia article starts in 1950.) A sentence at the start of the section saying Sukarno declared independence in 1945 and what territory they gained control of would set the scene. Then what was the purpose of the Dutch delegation? Did Djojohadikusumo initially support the Dutch. These points need clarifying. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:44, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
On ports - I am not sure that information on which territories exactly were controlled by Indonesians would be relevant to the reader. Not to mention, being in war and all that, territories change hands (mostly one way at that time). I feel like "Cirebon was under republican control at the time" would be sufficient for Sumitro's context in the incident.
On the Dutch delegation, a little digging found me an online magazine article that seemed to have dug deep into Indonesia's position in this first UNSC meeting. Added to the article, hopefully clears up the context a bit. What Sumitro had in his head at that time is probably not something known to us, but there are second-hand (possibly propaganda-mixed) reports I put in there from the magazine. Juxlos (talk) 15:44, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • How about expanding the start of the 'Early revolution' section to set the context with something like "After the end of World War II, Sukarno proclaimed Indonesian independence on 17 August 1945, and a four year military and diplomatic struggle followed in which the Dutch mostly controlled the major towns and the Indonesians the countryside." Obviously, this would need correcting in the light of your better knowledge. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:19, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm still not sure how to present that without breaking WP:DUE with regards to Sumitro's article, and simultaneously being accurate at the same time. I believe that at the time of the Martin Behrman affair Indonesians still had sizeable control of some major settlements. Indonesians started out in control of basically the entire place (by virtue of the Dutch not being there), and gradually lost control of cities and some countryside over 4 years of fighting.
    Maybe a sentence like "the Dutch returned sometime in 1946, and retook some major cities while Indonesians maintained control of others", or thereabouts. Juxlos (talk) 04:21, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Added it:
    "By this time Dutch forces under the Netherlands Indies Civil Administration had returned to Indonesia to retake control, but they had only managed to hold several coastal cities at first." Juxlos (talk) 04:29, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, once I have had a reply to my comment of 31 December above. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:35, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
New years’ activities and whatnot, will try to complete the responses by this week. Juxlos (talk) 02:31, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Juxlos ? Gog the Mild (talk) 14:14, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Forgot to ping, but I think I've addressed the issues still around. Juxlos (talk) 14:36, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Sumitro (seated, far left), in the Dutch–Indonesian Round Table Conference." I would add the date.
  • Added
  • "it was decided to abolish the Benteng program in order to increase domestic production". But you say that the program restricted imports in order to increase domestic production. The apparent contradiction needs explanation.
  • Not exactly - the program restricted imports to increase domestic indigenous production (read: screwing with Dutch/Chinese-Indonesian companies). Clarified with an extra sentence in that paragraph.
  • "The ministry was previously headed by Suhadi Reksowardojo during the Sukarno period, although it had been inactive since until Sumitro's appointment to the office." I had to read this sentence several times to understand it. Maybe delete as not needed.
  • It was more to allow the name to be mentioned in the Infobox, to be honest. Regardless, "since" removed, feels like that made the sentence make sense.
  • "students at the Bandung Institute of Technology were less accepting of his policies and Sumitro walked out from the meeting." What meeting? You have only referred to discussions in general.
  • "Discussion session", I suppose
  • "Prabowo was also married to Titiek Suharto, one of Suharto's daughters." Why also? for clarity I suggest "Prabowo was formerly married to Titiek Suharto, one of Suharto's daughters"
  • Changed, though I made the divorce explicit.

Source review by Nikkimaria

[edit]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Some of the details in the infobox don't appear to be sourced anywhere - for example, the exact dates of his ministry appointments
  • Added a few citations here and there and added text for exact dates. Not sure if I should source the successor/predecessors - is this common practice?
Should be done now. Juxlos (talk) 04:16, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN26 is missing author. Ditto FN75, check throughout
  • Added, also with fn 123 and 149
  • The Politics of Economic Development in Indonesia has editors who should be credited
  • Added
  • Be consistent in whether publication locations are included
  • Removed the one that existed
  • Ranges should use endashes, including in titles
  • Fixed, I think.
  • For some reason, the specific link to it seems to be buggy now, but it has been cited in several other academic sources ([14], [15]). It's also a PhD dissertation from a reputable university.

Nikkimaria (talk) 17:42, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nikkimaria, is that satisfactory? Gog the Mild (talk) 14:16, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria ? Gog the Mild (talk) 12:46, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, should be good to go. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:32, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SC

[edit]

Putting down a marker: will review shortly. - SchroCat (talk) 17:02, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Early life
  • "going to the civil service" jars a bit with me: "into the civil service" feels more natural
  • Changed
  • "Completing his bachelor's in 1937": "bachelor's degree"?
  • Changed
Early Revolution
  • "but Sumitro became disillusioned": you can use "he" here
  • Fair enough
  • "On the other hand" is a bit too informal: "An Indonesian report differed and stated...", maybe
  • "in contrast", maybe?
  • "Ukraine, the Soviet Union and Egypt": you need to check for serial comma use and make sure it's consistent. I saw it used above and noted its absence here (if this is in strict Oxford style in line with Hart's Rules, it should be used, but I'll leave it to decide – as long as it's consistent).
  • added the Oxford comma
  • "this was shot down": informal. "this was vetoed" or rejected or similar
  • Changed to rejected
  • "Sjahrir's diplomatic approaches to the Dutch to be too lenient an approach.": you can lose the last two words to avoid the duplication.
  • Removed
  • "10 year license": "10-year licence". (it's licence in OxEng for the noun)
  • Huh, TIL. Changed.
Diplomatic talks
  • Added

"owe the Indonesian one": this is a bit clumsy: " owe the Indonesian state"?

  • "owe Indonesia"?

More to come. - SchroCat (talk) 19:22, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing

Minister of Industry and academia
  • "During this period": it's a vague when this is. Maybe something like "in the early-1950s" or whatever the timeframe is?
  • Sure
  • "he returned to being a government minister": "when he returned to government"?
  • Shortened
  • "mid 1951": hyphenate
  • Done
  • "Both also criticized": no need for "also"
  • Done
  • "The two economists did agree on": "The two agreed on"
  • Done
  • "He also supported": Need a name here – you've been talking about two individuals
  • Sumitro, added
Minister of Finance
  • "These policies did result in some reduction": These policies resulted?
  • Done
  • "He was dispatched": Again, need a name here as you've been talking about two people
  • Sumitro again, fixed
Joining the rebellion
  • "reestablished": "re-established", per the OED
  • Hyphenated
  • "intelligence agents mainly in Singapore": comma needed after agents
  • Added
Rebellion and exile
  • "On the other hand, the pro-government": too informal. "Conversely", maybe?
  • Sure, changed
  • "autonomous from PRRI": "autonomous from the PRRI"
  • Above it has been settled that PRRI doesn't go with a "the", so I will keep it
Minister of Trade
  • "Sumitro was convinced to return to Indonesia.": Don't need the last two words.
  • truncated
Minister of Research
  • '"sternly."': per LQ this should be '"sternly".'
  • fixed
  • "Sumitro did this": "He did this"
  • Changed
  • "Five-Year Plans" -> "five-year plans"
  • Changed
  • "removal in office" - > "removal from office"
  • fixed
Views
  • "While he disliked the enforcement of various quotas and restrictions on trade, he acknowledged that it was politically impossible for Indonesia during his time to engage in a complete free-market economic regime, and many of his policies were based on an intention to remove Dutch influence from the Indonesian economy;[152] his opposition to Sjafruddin Prawiranegara's policies because he believed they simply continued the Dutch approach": this is a bit of a mammoth sentence that is trying to do too much. I suggest breaking it down and simplifying a bit
  • Split to three sentences? Also, reordered the paragraph to hopefully make his views be presented in a logical order.
  • "labour unions" -> "trade unions"
  • Sure
Family and personal life
  • "in his biography of pinning the blame on Prabowo." This is a bit garbled: I suggest removing "in his biography" to make the meaning clearer
  • Fair enough, removed

That's my lot – I hope they help. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:07, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 13 January 2023 [16].

Christopher Nolan

[edit]
Nominator(s):Sammyjankis88 and FrB.TG (talk) 19:48, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Nolan is one of those rare filmmakers who make highly intelligent blockbusters, which ponder the bigger philosophical questions. His films leave you thinking for days. Nolan's work with IMAX technology and insistence on minimalising the use of CGI have been highly influential. One of his films (which BTW is also at FAC currently) redefined the modern superhero genre as we know today and is the third highest-rated film on IMDb. I could go on and on, but I think you get the point.

Sammyjankis88, who is the primary author of the article, asked me three years ago if I would be interested in working on Nolan-related articles for FA. Sadly, they have been inactive since February. I recently decided to give it a go and did some reworking and strengthening of the article, including employing more literary sources and adding a bit more on his filmmaking style but I have left it at three solid paragraphs as I think this article, also authored by Sammyjankis88, does an excellent job of explaining it in greater details. FrB.TG (talk) 19:48, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by John M Wolfson

[edit]

Watching this and will review this shortly. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:22, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies if I have not fully incorporated the relevant quote's wikitext/linkage here.

No, they don't. De-linked.

That's pretty much it for me. I'm already inclined to support, but would just like to see if these would be addressed. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 01:50, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, John M Wolfson. These should all be done. FrB.TG (talk) 12:01, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from HAL

[edit]
  • I would add one sentence on Oppenheimer to the lead.
I'm not a big fan of including future work in the lead. We can certainly add it when the film releases in July.
  • Very minor, but maybe switch "existentialism and epistemology" so that they are in alphabetical order
  • "by the work of Ridley Scott, and the science fiction films" --> I don't think the comma is needed after "Scott"
  • I would link "Josephite"
I'm not sure which one it refers to. I removed it altogether as it's somewhat trivial anyway.
  • 16 mm film is linked twice
  • "Following, Memento and Insomnia" missing an Oxford comma, which is used everywhere else in the article
I generally try to do without Oxford comma, but I have intentionally used it in places like "themes of self-destruction, the truth's nature and value, and the political mindset of the hero and villain" to clarify to which category the individual themes belong.
  • "screenplay for a biopic based on Howard Hughes's life" --> A biopic is by definition based on somebody's life, I would shorten to something more concise, maybe just "screenplay for a Howard Hughes biopic"
  • "Many critics cite The Dark Knight as 'the most successful comic book film ever made'" seems somewhat superfluous
On the contrary, I think this is a very distinctive achievement, especially considering that there are many other superhero films that are more commercially successful than TDK. It just goes to show how much of an impact the film had.
  • "released a statement to the press" --> Maybe remove "to the press" for concision
  • "The Dark Knight trilogy inspired a trend in future superhero films seeking to replicate its gritty, realistic tone to little success" --> This is discussed in two separate places, I would try to concentrate them in one location
  • "American Journal of Physics" should be italicized
  • I would link 70mm
  • "The film tells the story of a CIA agent who travels through time to stop a world-threatening attack" Was he really a CIA agent?
  • "Nolan secured the deal with Universal after..." I would clarify that he was upset with Warner's HBO Max releases
  • "IndieWire wrote in 2019" --> IndieWire shouldn't be italicized
  • "making him the most commercially successful filmmaker from the British Isles since Alfred Hitchcock" Hitchcock's film's made over $5 billion?...
Good catch. I rechecked the source to see if I missed something but that is in fact what the source says. Maybe Hitchcock's films are adjusted for inflation? In any case, I have removed this part.
  • "The Dark Knight, Inception and Interstellar" Another missing Oxford comma

Solid work. It might be nice to see this as "Today's Featured Article" when Oppenheimer releases. ~ HAL333 22:03, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reveiw, HAL333. It should be all done unless I have stated otherwise. If this FAC passes, I will definitely nominate it for this to be TFA on the day of Oppenheimer's release. FrB.TG (talk) 09:43, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm content with the fixes. Support. ~ HAL333 03:31, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt

[edit]
  • "Christina, was an American flight attendant who would later work as an English teacher." If English was her subject rather than her subsequent nationality, I might say she was a "teacher of English"
Good catch on that ambiguity; done.
  • Was Christina resident in Illinois and that is why the childhood was split? It might be useful to note that his parents did not reside together (if so).
I didn't find any indication in any source that the couple lived apart. I added that Christina was from Illinois to clarify why the family spent their summers there.
  • "His uncle, who worked at NASA building guidance systems for the Apollo rockets," I might say "had worked" since the last Apollo capsule to fly did so in 1975.
  • " corporate videos and industrial films.[16][14][17]" Is it your intent to have refs out of numerical order?
  • You don't define "UCLU" though you do "UCL".
  • " an unreleased project that was scrapped." Isn't this redundant?
  • I seem to recall that quote boxes are not to be in darker colors, possibly because of accessibility, but I can't seem to find it in the MOS offhand.
  • "Initially reluctant to make a sequel, he agreed some time after Warner Bros. insisted." I'm not clear on what "some time" is intended to convey to the reader.
  • "and for that The Quay Brothers in 35mm will always be one of latter's most important contributions to cinema".[122][123]" Is there a missing "the" before latter's?
  • "the truth's nature and value" maybe "the nature and value of the truth"?
  • "His films have earned $4.9 billion." Since this figure is from a 2015 source, it might be useful to say "as of" (and look for a more updated figure)
  • "not Academy Award-nominated" perhaps "not nominated for an Academy Award"
That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:32, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Wehwalt. All done as suggested. FrB.TG (talk) 20:37, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Wehwalt. Sorry for the ping but I was wondering if you had anything more to add. FrB.TG (talk) 12:01, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support.—Wehwalt (talk) 12:05, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • FN57 is missing author, and should be styled as Film Comment
  • FN61 doesn't match author formatting of other refs
  • RogerEbert.com is a work title and should be italicized. Ditto Collider, check for others
  • What makes SuperHeroHype a high-quality reliable source? Daily Beast?
  • FN158 is missing publication date. Ditto FN185, check throughout
  • FN182 is missing author. Ditto FN185, check throughout
  • Be consistent in if/when you include ISSN
  • Check alphabetization of Cited sources
  • Be consistent in how journal citations are formatted. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:07, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Nikkimaria. All done except for two things: The Daily Beast source is an official interview with Nolan so it should be okay in this context IMO, and FN182 (now 183) does not have an article author. It does say Melinda Sue Gordon but I think that's the image author. FrB.TG (talk) 20:27, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not aware of a lower bar for reliability of interviews - would you be able to point me to where I could review the consensus on that point?
Re 182/3: it does have an author, they've just chosen to list the author at the bottom of the article instead of the top. Also suggest going over the formatting throughout again - there's now a cite error in FN108, still a missing date in FN191, etc. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:36, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My point was that since it's an official interview, the claims come straight from the horse's mouth, but I also understand the concern that an unreliable source could fabricate the interview and quotes; Daily Beast removed. After another recheck, I have added a couple more dates and authors. FrB.TG (talk) 21:36, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I removed/replaced the unreliable sources and I think I caught all the sources missing publication dates/authors. Unless Nikkimaria has (other) concerns, I have nothing else to add. FrB.TG (talk) 11:49, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, should be good. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:45, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:16, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ian Rose. Thank you for the image review. Soderbergh image removed since I couldn’t find any working archived link either. FrB.TG (talk) 23:40, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 12 January 2023 [17].

Hove War Memorial

[edit]
Nominator(s): Harry Mitchell (talk) and Hassocks5489 (talk)

I'm back on the war memorials after a hiatus following the promotion of The Cenotaph. This one is another Lutyens and it's in Hove, on the English south coast. I created the article a few years ago but KJP1 and Hassocks5489 have helped to expand it with some more sources and now I think it's ready for FAC. As always, I'm grateful for any and all feedback. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:07, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Pickersgill-Cunliffe

[edit]
  • Historic England and New Delhi are duplicated links
    • Unlinked.
  • "Royal Navy Volunteer Reserve station" is rather vague, can you elaborate on what it was?
    • I can't find much on it other than that it had a gun emplacement. I think it was a training establishment
  • "and the 1st Battle Squadron"
    • Done.
  • Why did the squadron visit Hove?
    • They were invited by the mayor (added). Though most of the Royal Navy was in the Channel along the south coast anyway.
  • Link declaration on war on Germany
    • I feel that would be a bit of an Easter egg and it's not directly relevant.
  • Link Portslade
    • Done.
  • Link cottage hospital
    • I don't think this one is relevant either.
  • To avoid awkwardly cutting off the regiment's name, would "...serving with the local unit, the Royal Sussex Regiment" work?
    • I didn't think it was awkward; "Royal Sussex" would be how the regiment is referred to when it's clear from context that we're talking about a regiment.
  • Link vestry
    • Done.
  • "first appeared in the vestry notes" when?
    • The sources don't specify, nor do they specify even which publication it appeared in.
  • Do we know who was on the committee?
    • Not from the sources. It was usually the mayor or a deputy and a few prominent locals, especially if they had any expertise in the arts, plus a treasurer.
  • "August 1914", "May 1919", "June 1920", no need to repeat the year
    • Kept June 1920 because the gap is big enough to be worth reminding the reader of the year. Lost the other two.
  • "had decided to proceed to allocate"
    • A relic from redrafting! Gone.
  • While it is inferred, if possible I think it would be good to categorically say why a decorative monument was not the preferred option
    • Added.
  • "grants for widows and orphans" assume these are war widows and orphans?
    • Yes. So added.
  • Link cenotaph and obelisk
    • Done.
  • "The successful design was agreed in March 1920" it's a little awkward describing all the rejected designs but not then saying what the accepted one was - I realise there's a section on it later on, but a word or two would make this work better
    • I've reworked the end of the "commissioning" section and the start of the "design" section a little to hopefully resolve this. Let me know if you think it's still jarring.
  • Link Queen Victoria
    • Done.
  • I'm sure there's some precedent for the way this article is laid out, but it was a little jarring to be launched straight into the description of the memorial as completed without first being told when or if it was completed!
    • See above; I've reworked things slightly.
  • Link Saint George
    • Done.
  • Is there a better way to describe the armour? "Renaissance" is a pretty big topic area
    • It is, but it narrows it to a recognisable era in art history. It's not the armour you'd expect in classical sculpture but it's not WWI-era armour. But the sources don't get any more specific.
  • How was the figure modified from the Frampton design?
    • Frampton appears to have had a template for St George. There are photos online of the other two (besides Fordham) mentioned in the article and George is identical. The only difference at Radley College is that he's in the process of slaying the dragon and at Maidstone he's holding a banner rather than a sword. But the sources don't go into that sort of depth on the similarities.
  • You switch between "Saint" George and "St" George, suggest sticking with one or the other
    • Done.
  • Why not describe the column as Tuscan in the first sentence of the paragraph instead of half-way through?
    • I tried to leave that sentence as plain as possible so that somebody with no knowledge of war memorials or art history could understand what they were looking at, then go into more detail later.
  • Not sure "(the middle section)" is necessary, all it did was confuse me!
    • It was intended as an explanatory gloss to "dado" (which I had to look up!) but if it's confusing can you think of something better?
  • "the project proceeded much more smoothly than elsewhere" provide an example here if you can, otherwise we've just got to guess
    • The books don't specify which projects they have in mind, but the war memorials for York, Leicester, and Norwich (for example) all suffered lengthy delays because of indecision, infighting, or other local political factors.
  • Could link centenary of the First World War
    • Done.
  • "A war memorial committee was established after the war"?
    • I think this can be reasonably inferred, especially as the date of its founding is given as January 1919.
  • Imo the Fordham War Memorial mention in the lede is a little too trivial for its placement there. Would be more useful to include a little on the various opinions espoused about the Hove memorial
    • The sources place quite a lot of weight on this, which is why I've given it the weight I have. Even Pevsner's brief mention goes out of its way to mention Fordham.

That's all I have for now. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 01:39, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review, Pickersgill-Cunliffe. I've addressed most of your comments with a few replies above. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:59, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Happy with your responses. Re the dado, having re-read the section I think it works fine. My stupidity rather than the article! Supporting. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 18:33, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support

[edit]

A couple of points to consider (neither of which affect the support):

Lead
  • "It is a grade II listed building": would "listed structure" work better? (Ditto the reference in the History section)
Commissioning
  • The redlink to "statue" looks a little odd (like there isn't an article for statues). Maybe broadening the link so it is "parallel to the statue" to show it's a specific one being referred to?

Your call on these two – I don't press the point on either of them. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 14:43, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey SchroCat, great to see you back and thank you very much for the support. I've always preferred "listed building" as the proper term but I agree with you on the statue link. What I should do is write the article for it! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:30, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie891

[edit]
  • "one of the first large-scale recruitment events the following month"--> suggest maybe "one of the nation's first large-scale"?
    • Not sure that's not just more words for its own sake. If it's not clear from the context that we're talking about the UK, adding "the nation" won't help, but it's so early in the war (weeks, if not days, after Britain declared war) that the statement can probably stand on its own.
  • Was Conan Doyle's address part of the recruitment event or separate?
    • Yes, clarified.
  • " in the vestry notes section of a local newspaper" would it be possible to date this?
    • Sadly not. As I mentioned to PC above, neither of the books that refer to this even specify which publication they're referring to.
  • "Once the design had been agreed, the project proceeded much more smoothly than elsewhere. Many war memorials were delayed by local disagreements or fundraising problems but Hove's was among the first of Lutyens's to be completed" A phrasing along the lines of "While many war memorials were delayed by local disagreements or fundraising problems, Hove's proceeded relatively smoothly after the design was agreed. The project was among the first of Lutyen's to be completed." would read more naturally to me-- thoughts about rearranging those two sentences?
    • That works nicely. Done.
  • "next to which are metal lamp pillars, which are a modern addition" any possibility of specifying more than 'modern'? Possibly '21st century' or something?
    • The source just says "modern"; my guess would be that they were there in the '90s when it was listed but that's speculation.
  • "Its setting was spacious and quiet when it was first built but has since become busy with traffic" is it still spacious?
    • Relatively, though modern traffic and car parking has encroached.
  • "Hove War Memorial was designated a grade II listed building on 2 November 1992, meaning it is considered to be of special architectural or historic interest." Might just be me, but would it be worth mentioning who does the designation?
    • The process is convoluted and not really not worth getting bogged down in in my opinion.

Quite nice work overall, just some thoughts. Not wedded to any of these at all. I fully anticipate supporting. Eddie891 Talk Work 18:18, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Eddie, much appreciated! I've addressed your comments as best I can. Happy to discuss anything further if you want. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:00, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the responses, happy to support on prose Eddie891 Talk Work 23:41, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support with comments by Nick-D

[edit]

It's fascinating to see a fairly modest memorial by Lutyens in the middle of a road! I have the following comments. Please note that I'm going to be out of town and without internet until about 2 January so I'm supporting this nomination subject to the following comments being addressed. I'd ask the FAC coordinators to consider them addressed once HJ Mitchell posts in response: I trust him to follow up appropriately given his previous excellent work in this topic area.

  • "A war memorial committee was established and Lutyens was engaged as architect. A design was agreed after two unsuccessful proposals and Lutyens chose the site from several options." - can dates for these events be provided here?
    • Added.
  • "He became renowned for The Cenotaph in London, which became Britain's national memorial" - this memorial seems to have been developed a bit before The Cenotaph - was Lutyens famed for memorials at the time?
    • The temporary cenotaph was installed in mid-1919 and by itself made Lutyens a household name; his fame only increased when the permanent version was unveiled in November 1920, a year and three months before Hove's (though he was juggling many war memorial commissions at once).
  • "The proposal for a war memorial in Hove first appeared in the vestry notes section of a local newspaper" - can this be dated?
    • You're the third person to ask this but alas not. Two books mention it but neither gives the publication name or date.
  • " Lutyens designed dozens of war memorials across England, though Hove's was his only one in Sussex" - this wording is a bit awkward
    • Not sure what's awkward about it but happy to consider any suggestions for an alternative.
  • " are metal lamp pillars, which are a modern addition" - do any sources say when they were added? Nick-D (talk) 05:41, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Eddie asked this above. I would guess they were in place by 1992 when it was listed but the only mention of them in the sources is the listing description, which only says "Immediately alongside each is metal lamp pillar. These are modern, and are not of special interest". Great to hear from you, Nick, and happy to discuss anything when you're back home. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:33, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nick ? Gog the Mild (talk) 14:28, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: I'm a support here as my minor comments have been addressed. Nick-D (talk) 10:35, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

Spotchecks not done

Hi Nikkimaria, what do you think? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:31, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good to go. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:49, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass

[edit]

Recusing to review.

  • One image does not have alt text.
  • In the second image could either "remembrance service" or "remembrance" be linked.

Gog the Mild (talk) 14:36, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gog, thanks for looking! I've added the missing alt text; I'm not sure there's an obvious target for a link on "remembrance" or "remembrance service" but I've linked poppy wreath if that helps with background to the tradition. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:44, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Remembrance day or Remembrance Sunday? Gog the Mild (talk) 14:54, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I feel those would be Easter eggs on "remembrance", otherwise we'd have to shoehorn a mention of Remembrance Sunday into the caption. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:10, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from mujinga

[edit]

Good work on this HJ Mitchell as well as Hassocks5489! The article seems comprehensive to me, I just have a few comments:

  • "As in many places, a war memorial committee was formed in Hove " - don't think "in Hove" is needed here.
  • "At the corners of the bottom step are low stone bollards, which are part of the original design, next to which are metal lamp pillars, which are a modern addition" - the sentences has three "which"s so I wondered if you can rephrase?
  • The total cost of the memorial was £1,537 (1920)" - suggest using Template:Inflation to show the cost in present terms.
  • "11 months after the newspaper column which prompted it" suggest "article" for "column" as I was thinking about columns in the sculptural sense.
  • "The main inscription is on the north face: IN EVER GLORIOUS MEMORY OF HOVE CITIZENS WHO GAVE THEIR LIVES FOR THEIR COUNTRY IN THE GREAT WAR AND WORLD WAR" - judging by the photograph, the inscription includes 1914-19 and 1939-45. Mujinga (talk) 17:29, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Mujinga, thank you for looking. I'm glad you liked it. I believe I've addressed all your comments except that I personally dislike the inflation template; I don't think it produces a meaningful figure given the number of variables and changes in society in the last 103 years. At least by giving the figure and the date, interested readers can look up the data to do whatever comparison they want (a workman's wage, for example, or the cost of a loaf of bread) rather than being spoon-fed a figure without context. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:43, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hiya fair enough, I would take the opposite view on the template since I find it helps me understand in real terms what the cost of something was in the past, but happy to disagree on that. Thanks for the other changes, I can now support the nomination. Best of luck for 2023. Mujinga (talk) 12:59, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 12 January 2023 [18].

Battle of Helena

[edit]
Nominator(s): Hog Farm Talk 16:02, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Confederates strike at a Union post in eastern Arkansas in hopes of relieving some of the pressure on the Siege of Vicksburg. After a lot of wavering by Theophilus Holmes and a march slowed by bad weather, the Confederates attack and are figuratively taken to the woodshed (losses are about 7 Confederates to 1 Federal, using Confederate casualty numbers). It's all for naught, because Vicksburg surrenders the same day anyway. Hog Farm Talk 16:02, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Helena_Battlefield_Arkansas.jpg: legend is not legible at that size, and see MOS:COLOUR
    • Removed entirely as I'm doubting the usefulness of it anyway besides the accessibility issues, since it doesn't show positions or troops movements.
  • Don't use fixed px size
    • Gone
  • Suggest adding alt text
    • Have attempted this, although it's probably a bit clunky
  • File:Hindman_Hill_2.png: why is this believed to be an NPS employee work? Nikkimaria (talk) 05:12, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not, the author is known, and it would be a major pain to try to track down any pre-1927 publishing or the date of the creator's death, so I've swapped it out with a wikipedian-taken photo of one of the battery sites in 2016.

@Nikkimaria: - thanks for the image review! I've removed the two problem images and have added a new one. My one remaining concern is that the new infobox image may not do well at that size, but I'm not sure how best to fix that. Hog Farm Talk 05:53, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Two options I can think of: have it outside the infobox, or add an upright parameter to the infobox coding. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:59, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've moved it out of the infobox. Hog Farm Talk 03:35, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

[edit]

Recusing to review.

  • Infobox: on my screen I get an asterisk against Salamon and a bullet point against Price.
    • Fixed
  • "Units involved: "District of Arkansas" is a "unit"? And "Helena garrison"; is the unit involved not a division of XIII Corps?
    • The Thirteenth division, clarified. And yes, the Confederate were organizationally classifying the units present as the "District of Arkansas"
  • "The Battle of Helena was fought on July 4, 1863, in Helena, Arkansas". You sure about "in"?
    • Switched to "near"
  • "of relieving some of the pressure on Vicksburg, Mississippi." Perhaps 'of relieving some of the pressure on the Confederate army besieged at Vicksburg, Mississippi'?
    • Done
  • "... Vicksburg, Mississippi. The city was defended ..." Perhaps "The city" → 'Helena'?
    • Done
  • Suggest a paragraph break between batteries and Differing.
    • Done
  • "and eventually occupying the Mississippi River town of Helena on July 12." Delete "eventually".
    • Done
  • "received the dispatch in June". What despatch? This has not been previously mentioned.
    • Clarified
  • "delegated making the decision to attack Helena". Is that the same thing as 'delegated making the decision whether to attack Helena'?
    • Yes, done
  • "made an agreement that Price, who was much more popular with the general public, that he would publicly support". Do you mean 'made an agreement with Price, who was much more popular with the general public, that he would publicly support'?
    • Yes, reworded
  • "that he would publicly support the decision of the attack in the case of failure." Perhaps 'that he would publicly support the decision to attack in the case of a failure.'?
    • Yes, done
  • "Holmes and Fagan reached Clarendon on June 26. After reaching Clarendon, Holmes provided". "... reached Clarendon ... reaching Clarendon ..."
    • Clarified
  • "Holmes provided further advance orders". I am unsure what you mean by "advance orders'.
    • Rewritten
  • "consisted of a division of the XIII Corps". Did this division have a designation?
    • Yes, added
  • "but only one, the timberclad USS Tyler, was available when the Confederate attack struck." Is the armament of this vessel known?
    • Footnoted
  • "while the Confederates had 7,646 men." This would fit better in the prior paragraph.
    • Done
  • "Prentiss' men had superior firepower over the Confederates through their defenses". How did the defences provide any firepower?
    • Reworded
  • "and would not reform until 8:00 am." "would" → 'did'?
    • Done
  • "Holmes' order to began the attack at sunrise" and "Holmes' order to began the attack at sunrise" seem contradictory.
I meant "Holmes' order to attack at daylight" (lead), "Holmes' order to began the attack at sunrise" and then "Holmes' order to attack at daylight" is confusing. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:37, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've reworded it to be consistently using daylight, which was the word Holmes used. Hog Farm Talk 22:22, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Fagan's Confederates broke through the second Union line, then a third and fourth, but then halted at about 7:00 am, fought out." 1. "... then ... then ..." 2. What does "fought out" mean?
    • Reworded. "fought out" is a bit idiomatic and possibly an Americanism (I actually just noticed Peter Cozzens using the phrase while reading This Terrible Sound earlier today). My first thought for a replacement would be "tuckered out", but that's probably even worse, so I've gone with "their attack spent" and have reworded the other instance of "fought out" as well
  • "Confederate infantry with shattered morale deserted in large numbers." To my eye this reads a little clumsily.
    • Reworded

Gog the Mild (talk) 21:23, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

One comment above for you to think on't, but a support nonetheless. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:37, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Iazyges

[edit]

Comments from HAL

[edit]

That's all I got. Nice work. I'll go ahead and support, assumimng the links are fixed. ~ HAL333 22:19, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • @HAL333: - I'm not sure I agree with taking the state names out. The spot Helena isn't piped is in the lead, where it's not clear that Arkansas it being referred to, and at the reference to Memphis, it's not clear that it's in a different state from Helena. Given that both Helena and Memphis are both dab pages, I'm worried that dropping the states would lead to decreased geographic context for readers. Hog Farm Talk 01:05, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Encyclopedia of Arkansas is a work title and should be italicized. Why does the formatting differ between footnotes and Further reading?
    • The footnotes were using cite web, and the further reading was using cite encyclopedia. I've standardized to use the cite encyclopedia, which should resolve the formatting problems here.
  • How does Schlieffer meet WP:SCHOLARSHIP?
  • Are Schlieffer and Schieffler the same person? The source link given for Schlieffer has his name as Schieffler. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:40, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, it's a typo on my part. Corrected throughout and standardized how the name appears.

Support from Unlimitedlead

[edit]
  • Why are Frederick Salomon and Sterling Price listed as bullet points in the infobox? Is there a meaning behind that decision, because if not, they would normally have flag icons as well.
    • This should be resolved now
  • "In December 1860, the state of South Carolina seceded..." I think it would be helpful to specify exactly what South Caroline seceded from. Some Americans might understand this, but not all readers of Wikipedia will. Heck, some Americans might not even understand. Ufortunately, kids these days don't bother with studying history anymore...
    • I've clarified that it seceded from the US
  • Link President of the United States?
    • Done
  • Link garrison?
    • Done
  • "Once formed the plan called for Price, with his 3,095 infantry..." This may be just be me, but this excerpt sounded awkward at first. Perhaps a comma after "formed" would help to clarify the sentence's meaning, but that's up to you; maybe "with his 3,095 infantry" would sound better as "with his infantry of 3,095".
    • I agree the comma is needed and have added that. I don't know that "with his infantry of 3,095" is an improvement (it sounds very odd to my mind), but if you feel strongly about this I can brainstorm some ways to change the phrasing
  • I'm starting to see a lot of sentences use [number] cavalry. Is that just military terminology? If so, please disregard all comments about that.
    • See above
  • Does Schieffler's 2017 work have any sort of number identification (similar to ISBN or ISSN)?
    • It has an OCLC number, which I've added.

That's all I have. A fascinating read on a critical part of American history. Unlimitedlead (talk) 21:20, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Hog Farm: Query: If this article needs another general review I could start fairly soon? Pendright (talk) 20:20, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Pendright: This one has had enough general reviews that it might be better to review one that has had less action so far. Hog Farm Talk 21:17, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Hog Farm: The article does have four supports, but it does not have as many actual reviews - so another actual review would seem approprite in the circumstqnces. And I stand ready to do it. Pendright (talk) 01:17, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Pendright: - If you're willing to do a review, I'd welcome it. You always have lots of good suggestions to improve the article, so it'll come away better from one of your reviews. Hog Farm Talk 01:32, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Hog Farm: I appreciate your kind words, however, I think you were right in the first instance. So, let me apologize for taking up your time and for being a nuisamce. Good luck with the article the rest of the way. Pendright (talk) 13:43, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 12 January 2023 [19].

Japanese fire-bellied newt

[edit]
Nominator(s): An anonymous username, not my real name (talk) 01:22, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a species of newt endemic to Japan. It is found throughout much of the archipelago, in a wide range of habitats. It is rated as near-threatened, and its population is at risk of capture for the pet trade and human development. This is my first FAC nomination, so please forgive my inexperience. This was previously successfully nominated for GA status, and both before and during the review, I went to great lengths to include as much relevant information and context as possible. An anonymous username, not my real name (talk) 01:22, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note: Just flagging up that as a first-time nomination this will need a spot check for source to text fidelity. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:45, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Suggest adding alt text
Is it better now? An anonymous username, not my real name (talk) 11:39, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The uploader states that it is public domain, but not on what grounds. What would your suggestion be? An anonymous username, not my real name (talk) 11:39, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The artist's name (Josef Fleischmann) can be seen in the lower right, and he appeared to have died in 1925[20], making this public domain, as he died more than 70 years ago and it was published in Europe. So you should add the same tag as here:[21] FunkMonk (talk) 12:50, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done. An anonymous username, not my real name (talk) 13:42, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Can't see a saved edit, so added[22] it myself. FunkMonk (talk) 19:08, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I could've sworn it saved. An anonymous username, not my real name (talk) 21:48, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Henni147

[edit]

This is my first FAC review for an article in the biology category, so it's a bit of uncharged territory for me, but I'd like to leave some comments. As a non-specialist, I can attest that the article is reader-friendly and easy to understand.

Extended content
  • Structure: It might be smart to make the headings and section order uniform with this article about the Alpine newt, which already has featured status. This would improve the layout consistency across Wikipedia.
That's something I would normally wholeheartedly support, but I think they are already quite similar, and making them more similar might break up the article more than necessary. As for the heading names, throughout animal articles in general, "Lifecycle and behaviour" is much less standard than "Behavior and ecology", same goes for "Captivity" vs "In captivity" and "Threats and conservation" vs "Conservation". If anything, the other article should be changed. Still, I rearranged the lead to resemble that of the other article more.
  • Bundling of sub-sections: This is rather a matter of taste, but I prefer to merge sub-sections that consist of only one short paragraph to one proper section. This reduces the amount of empty space around the text, which is crucial for print versions of the article.
Yes, that was brought up during the GA review. I've trimmed it even further, so hopefully that's good enough (let me know if you would recommend even more).
  • Abbreviations: In scientific and encyclopedic articles, it is generally discouraged to use abbreviations at the beginning of a sentence like "C." at the beginning of the section "Evolution and hybridization". If possible, I recommend to rephrase those sentences a bit. Also, according to MOS:1STOCC, special terms should be introduced in the full version at their first occurrence like "DVM". Better write here: Doctor of Veterinary Medicine Lianne McLeod described them as "low-maintenance", noting that captive newts enjoy bloodworms, ...
I changed it as you suggested for both instances, so it should be okay.
  • Linking: According to MOS:OVERLINK, common words like "forest" or "Japan" shouldn't be linked. However, I would place a link to the article habitat in the lead, which is a biological term and may not be known by casual readers. Also, try to avoid side-by-side links like "newt endemic" in the first sentence of the lead.
I removed links from some simple words, and added one to habitat. I also removed the link to newt, since rewording to keep it and the nearby link separate would have looked strange.
  • Images: All images need alternative texts for the accessbility with screenreaders. If the caption sufficiently describes the image, add |alt=refer to caption. Also, change the parameter image: to File: and remove fixed image sizes like the "250px" from the following image:
    [[image:Cynops pyrrhogaster (under s4).jpg|thumb|right|250px|Japanese fire-belled newt on its back, with the bright red ventral region clearly visible]]
Done (all of the current captions should work as alt text, so I used them.)
  • Referencing: Online sources should be archived with the Wayback Machine or a comparable service. I can help with that if needed. Otherwise, the use of inline citations and sourcing looks good. According to Earwig's copyvio detector, there is no serious copy-violation of text (3.8% similarity at max). I yet have to take a closer look at the citation of print sources.
I thought IABot could do that automatically, but it hasn't been working for me. I may require assistance. It might've been because I was shy of my thousandth edit, which I just achieved. It worked now.

That's it from me at first look. I may give a more detailed feedback about single sections and citations later, but this will take a bit more time. Overall, the article looks promising and I think that with some adjustments it has the potential to be promoted for FAC. Good job. Henni147 (talk) 10:24, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Henni147 thank you very much. I've replied to all your comments. An anonymous username, not my real name 22:39, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent. Thank you very much for your detailed comments and quick adjustments! The article structure looks much better already, and if you say that these headings are more the standard, then I fully support to keep them as they are. I will take a closer look at the changes later. Henni147 (talk) 08:45, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Finally found the time to take a second look at the prose text. Here are some comments:

  • Lead
    • "Eggs are laid separately, hatching after about 3 weeks." → Change "3" to "three". According to MOS:NUMERAL, integers smaller than nine should be spelled out in prose text.
    • "Cynops pyrrhogaster diverged from its close relative, C. ensicauda, about 13.75 million years ago" → If C. ensicauda is the only close relative of C. pyrrhogaster in existence, the commas have to stay. Otherwise they must be removed here (which is probably the case).
  • Ethymology and taxonomy
    • "Pyrrhogaster is derived from Greek, purrhos for fire and gastēr for belly." → Use the "literal translation"-template here with ({{lit|fire}}) instead of "for fire" and ({{lit|belly}}) instead of "for belly".
    • Punctuation: "Studies examining morphological and geographic variation had recognized six races: Tohoku, Kanto, Atsumi, intermediate, Sasayama, and Hiroshima. However modern molecular analysis [...]"
    • "At that time, the land that would become the Japanese islands — connected to the mainland at that time — likely had a subtropical climate" → remove duplicate "at that time" and the spacing around em-dashes, see MOS:DASH.
    • Change the abbreviation "MYA" to "Mya" and link to myr at its first occurrence.
    • Use the piped link [[Chūgoku region|Chugoku]] instead of [[Chūgoku]].
  • Description
    • "The vomeropalatine teeth (a group of teeth in the upper back of the mouth) are arranged in two series." → Turn brackets into commas and link "vomeropalatine teeth" to Palatine bone.
  • Distribution and habitat
    • Change "Ryuku Islands" to "Ryukyu Islands" and remove the link. It's linked in the ethymology section already.
    • "Jima" is the Japanese term for "island". So in this case, you either say "on the island of Hachijō" or simply "on Hachijō-jima". Using both terms in the same sentence is redundant.
    • De-link "United States", "states", and "Florida", which are all commonly known places.
    • Use the piped links [[Tōhoku region|Tohoku]], [[Chūbu region|Chubu]], and [[Kansai region|Kansai]] (instead of "Kinki").
    • De-link "Chugoku", which is already linked in a previous section.
    • Change "30 m (98 ft) to 2,020 m (6,630 ft)" to "30 to 2,020 m (98 to 6,630 ft)" to match the formatting in the previous section. It is not wrong per se, but it should be consistent across the article.
  • Reproduction and life cycle
    • De-link "ponds", "streams", and "Japanese", which are common terms.
    • Highlight 'sodefrin' and 'imorin', either in single quotation marks or italic font. I'm not sure which one the convention for biological terms is.
    • Use (from the Japanese term {{transl|ja|sodefuri}}, {{lit|soliciting}})<ref>...</ref>, which renders as "(from the Japanese term sodefuri, lit. 'soliciting')[21]".
    • Use (from the Japanese term {{transl|ja|imo}}, {{lit|beloved woman}}, and ''rin'' from ''sodefrin''), which renders as "(from the Japanese term imo, lit. 'beloved woman', and rin from sodefrin)".
    • Remove hyphens from "one-by-one".
    • "The young hatch from their eggs after about 3 weeks, as swimming" → replace "3" by "three, see comment above. I also think that the comma is superflous here.
  • Diet
    • Link "tadpoles" at their first mentioning in the section. De-link "Tokyo", which is a commonly known place.
    • Remove hyphens from "year-to-year".
    • Try to remove the nestled brackets in this section. Brackets should be used as sparely in the main prose as possible.
    I trimmed the brackets down, including all of the nestled ones, although I think a few are needed here to stop it from becoming a jumbled mess.
  • Predators
    • Remove the links from "bird" and "snake" here, and link from "avian" to Bird instead, which is less commonly known among casual readers.
    • "[...], newts from Fukue Island tend to perform tail-wagging displays (which bring a predator's attention to their replaceable tail rather than their more valuable head), [...]" → Turn brackets into commas here. See comment above.
  • Toxin
    • "Experiments have found the toxin is almost entirely derived from the newt's diet." → Change marked text to "shown, the". Scientists can find something by conducting experiments, but not the experiments as such. Anthropomorphisms should be avoided in scientific or encyclopedic articles.
    I did this but left out the comma, as it doesn't appear necessary.
  • Conservation
    • The first paragraph is currently a plain series of short main clauses. It may improve the reading flow of this paragaph if one or two of these main clauses were merged and turned into sub-clauses.
    Since the start of this review, I've been instructed to break up the article as little as possible, and these were originally separate subsections. I'm afraid I've run into conflicting recommendations.
    • If possible, try to rephrase the sentence to avoid the side-by-side links in "single-celled eukaryote".
    • Punctuation: "A variety, believed to be found exclusively on the Atsumi Peninsula, was thought to have become extinct in the 1960s. However, [...]"
  • Research
    • Maybe link "gastrointestinal contractions" to Gastrointestinal physiology#Motility. As a non-biologist, I have a rough image what this is, but it's probably better to have a proper explanation link for this.
    • "(The discovery of the latter was the first time pancreatic motilin had been observed. The organ also produces insulin.)" → If this information is relevant enough for the main prose, then remove the brackets here. If not, move this sentence to the footnotes. See comment above.
    • "The existence of pancreatic motilin also indicated an additional, unknown, function." → That last comma should be skipped here.
  • In captivity
    • "C. pyrrhogaster can be kept in captivity." → I recommend to use "Cynops" instead of "C." here. Sentences, especially new sections, should not start with an abbreviation.

That's it at second read. When the issues are fixed, I am happy to give an FAC support for this article. Well done. Henni147 (talk) 16:42, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Henni147, these are great comments. I worked in almost all of them as you suggested, although I commented on a few that I was unsure of. An anonymous username, not my real name 21:45, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent. Thank you very much for your quick reply, the changes look great at first look. If others suggested to break up the article into smaller sentences, then it's okay. I also agree with your other comments, and I'm happy to give my support now. Great job. Henni147 (talk) 07:43, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

[edit]

Recusing to review. I will make copy edits as I go. If you are unhappy with any, could you discuss them here? Thanks.

  • "They are 8 to 15 cm (3.1 to 5.9 in) long." Perhaps 'Adults are ...'?
Done.
Could I bring your attention to "Do not use graphics or complex templates on FAC nomination pages" followed by the reasons why at the top of the FAC main page. Just indent your response and the reviewer will pick it up. Thanks. :-) Gog the Mild (talk) 00:02, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for enlightening me. I fixed it. An anonymous username, not my real name 00:51, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "They readily consumed TTX-laced bloodworms when offered, not showing any symptoms after ingesting the poison". is it known if they were subsequently found to contain tetrodotoxin?
I'm a little confused. Could you rephrase?
It seems that it has been established that newts who did not consume TTX contained little or none of it. You report that this experiment establishes that they will consume TTX and not show ill effects. Does the TTX then stay in their system? The point being that this would be a strong indicator that the hypothesis that TTX in the newts all comes from diet is correct.
I added not only that, but further details on the results of the experiment that should bring everything together,
  • "especially the major ones". Er, what does "especially" actually mean in this context?
As opposed to Japan's smaller islands, some of which they are not present on. Could you suggest a reword?
'including all of the major ones'.
That doesn't completely work, as they are absent from Hokkaido (which may or may not be part of Mainland Japan depending on how it's defined), so I removed it entirely in favor of specific islands (Honshu, Shikoku, and Kyushu). I also tweaked a similar statement in the body.
  • "and potentially the eggs of their own species." Why "potentially"? This is not used in the main article.
I didn't want to give it undue weight by implying that it was a particularly major food source (as it might appear that way due to how the lead is worded). However, I suppose there's no real alternative to your suggestion for consistency's sake, so I did it.
  • "before splitting into four distinct varieties throughout its range". Do you mean that? Or does each variety occupy a different range?
I mean that the range of the species can be divided into the ranges of four groups that all belong to that species. I don't particularly see a need to change this one, as the MOS usually allows mildly vague wording in the lead, which can then be fully explained in the body.
There is a difference between vague and misleading. How would you feel about 'before splitting into four distinct varieties each with a mostly separate range' or similar?
That's a very good suggestion. I used that.
  • "although officially, all four varieties compose a single species." Perhaps 'Although all four are considered to compose a single species"?
The study was not entirely clear, but it suggested that the clades may be different species, even though they are taxonomically recognized as being a single one. I reworded it to be less ambiguous while still keeping the original message.
  • "Currently, their population on a decline". Missing word(s)
Suggestion?
'Currently, their population is on a decline' perhaps. A verb is always useful ;-) .
Ohhhh, I did not notice the word you were talking about at first. Thanks, I fixed it.
  • "may in fact belong to a different genus." Do we need "in fact"? I mean, might a reader otherwise suppose it wasn't a fact?
Removed
  • "recognizes sixteen total synonyms for Cynops pyrrhogaster." Delete "total".
Done
  • Could "clade" be linked at first mention.
Done
  • "As time progressed". Consider → 'Later'.
I don't want to suggest they all split at once, which the word "later" seems to do. Any possible alternatives?
Ah. Point taken. Let me think on. If I don't get back to you, leave it as it is.
  • "The northern diverged first, at around 9.68 million years ago, then the central (around 8.23 MYA), then finally the southern and western (around 4.05 MYA)". Why are the last two dates in brackets and the first not?
Removed from all.
  • "to form a hybrid zone". Perhaps a very brief explanation of what this is? (Per MOS:NOFORCELINK: "Do use a link wherever appropriate, but as far as possible do not force a reader to use that link to understand the sentence. The text needs to make sense to readers who cannot follow links.")
Done
Done
  • "and requires immediate protection". Non-NPOV value judgement. Consider rephrasing.
Done
  • Section headers: consider deleting "and hybridization" and "Atsumi-Chita variant".
I was hesitant, but it actually looks quite nice. Done.
Done.
  • "Smaller juveniles have ..." All of them, or just those from the smaller islands.
The linked source happens to be about a small island population, but its observations appear to apply to all populations. I moved several things around for better clarity.
  • Why is "ventral region" defined inline at the second mention, rather than the first.
Moved.
  • "vomeropalatine". Needs defining or explaining.
It's a rather odd term that I can't find a good definition for, but it should be better now.
  • "A smooth ridge runs from their nape to their tail. It is 8 to 15 cm (3.1 to 5.9 in) long." In the lead you state that this is the total body length, not the length of the ridge. Is the range given for the napes of females or all specimens? If it is for adults, this needs stating.
I think there was some confusion here, but I've fixed it in the article.
  • "Its range has a small amount of overlap". Does "Its" refer to the northern or the central clade?
Fixed.
  • "forests, grasslands, shrublands, wetlands, lakes, marshes, and cultivated environments." The Wikilinks seem a little random. Are you assuming that a reader will not understand what a marsh is, but will be familiar with a grassland?
Would you prefer I eliminate the current ones or add more?
I am a fan of WP:OVERLINK. And suspect that most readers can work out what "marshes" etc are.
Done.
  • Gray, 1850; add the oclc. (3183646) And if this is a book, the title should be in title case.
Done.
  • Boie, 1827; ditto. (727216017)
Done.
  • References: if works are in foreign languages, these should be specified.
Tschudi appeared to be the only instance of an unspecified foreign language work, so I corrected that.
  • Tschudi: oclc. (964903266)
Done.

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:15, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild, excellent suggestions. I have implemented all except a few I would like your recommendation on. I will get to your newer set soon. An anonymous username, not my real name 23:51, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "fertilized one-by-one via the spermatophores they carry." Suggest "via" → 'from'.
Done.
  • "in a full breeding season." Suggest deleting "full".
Done.
  • "or they will drown". Suggest deleting "will".
Done.
  • "In captive settings, they are known to readily eat mosquito larvae, brine shrimp, earthworms, and each other." Why is this under "life cycle" and not "Diet"?
Moved.
  • "changes in the small animals around the ponds that they dwell in." Around the ponds, or in them?
The source actually says "in and around", I just noticed. Fixed it.
  • "with one example of a potential serpentine predator being Gloydius blomhoffii." I don't see what this random-looking piece of information adds.
Removed.
  • Link both adaptation and adapted.
Done.

A fine article, I enjoyed it. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:29, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good to hear :) I think I've gotten everything. An anonymous username, not my real name 00:51, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mochida, 2009: all caps titles are not retained when used on Wikipedia.
Done.
Thank you very much for your support and encouragement. An anonymous username, not my real name 17:07, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Vanamonde

[edit]

Looking forward to reading this. I will make some minor copyedits along the way, please feel free to contest them. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:40, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • this source, which you cite, has if I'm not mistaken a more complete phylogeny of the near relatives. Among other things, it shows the non-monophyly of the genus. I suggest using it instead, unless you have a strong reason for using the 2001 study?
  • Independent of the above, I think the caption should include the source.
  • The same source mentions the extreme genetic divergence within the taxon; they stop short of calling them separate species, but this may be worth discussing anyway.
Added a brief mention.
  • The same source also mentions that the islands were likely not isolated from the mainland during the probable spread; suggest including this.
Mentioned it.
  • Suggest moving the fragment about threat status from taxonomy to conservation.
Done.
  • It occurs to me that the infobox image is a lot less clear than some of the others; suggest swapping and/or cropping + scaling up.
An attempt was made, and it looks marginally better, but that's about as good as I can get it.
  • "was thought to be extinct, however it was later revealed" some vagueness here; who thought it extinct, when was it determined to be the same as a different group, and how?
The source doesn't mention exactly who first thought it was extinct, but I added everything else.
  • It is common to report SVL in reptiles, in addition to or in place of full body length, is it not? It would be nice to have if available.
I found some interesting information on that, which I included.
  • "It has the northernmost range of any Cynops species" This is probably okay, but given the non-monophyly of the genus, begs the question if this is still true for the clade including all members.
According to the source, the other species are all found in either southern China or the Ryukyu Islands, so it would be true for all members. I added this.
  • Section on reproduction has some information on size that may be better placed in the description.
It's a passing mention that is now included in the description anyway thanks to my other changes. Since the information around it is about maturation, which is relevant to life cycle, I think it's best to keep it.
  • Fascinating information on antipredator behavior. If showing the belly is not viable on the mainland, what do they do instead?
Unfortunately, the source doesn't really say. The best I can find is this sentence: " This fatal mistake was often observed in laboratory trials; newts that reacted to a mammalian predator with the immobile display lost the opportunity to escape and were killed". This would suggest that escaping is the usual alternative, but it doesn't mention them actually doing so.
  • "preventing predation by both birds and mammals" that isn't accurate, is it. Toxins don't prevent predation, they make predation harmful, discouraging it over longer timescales.
Reworded.
  • The "research" section strikes me as somewhat haphazard at the moment. I suggest 1) opening with the paragraph about them as model organisms, and 2) including in each paragraph the significance of that particular research (for instance, why are they a model organism? to study regeneration, presumably, but you never know).
Implemented, although you should probably take a look to make sure it's as you envisioned.
  • I suggest, though this isn't needed, that "in captivity" and "research" be combined; elements of the former topic are already included in the latter, and they are both short. You could call it "interaction with humans" or similar, and there is ample precedent for such sections in FAs.
That is a very good idea. I did so.

That's it for me for this round. This is an admirable effort, and I expect to support eventually. I do wonder if the source material has been mined completely; see comments above, this source, and these, which I just found. Many of the scholarly articles are admittedly dense, and if they're only using the newt as a model organism their utility here is likely to be limited; but I suggest examining the heavyweight studies once again. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:40, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Replied to all comments. I will look into adding extra sources if you can think of any important information that's missing. An anonymous username, not my real name 02:50, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I forgot to mention, but I've requested a cladogram be made for the first point, which I'm waiting on currently. An anonymous username, not my real name 02:52, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source spotcheck by LittleJerry

[edit]

I looked through a few sources and they support the text. But I made a few changes in regards to paraphasing. Remember to as use little of the same words as the sources as you can, but I'll leave it for others to comment on. LittleJerry (talk) 16:51, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi LittleJerry and thanks for that. Is that a pass or not on the spot check? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:26, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like a second opinion on paraphrasing. LittleJerry (talk) 20:35, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Checked again. Looks okay. LittleJerry (talk) 00:24, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Andrew D.

[edit]
  • "The species was first described by German zoologist Heinrich Boie in 1826 as Molga pyrrhogaster,[note 1] based on specimens brought from Japan to Europe." This seems too Eurocentric as I suppose that the Japanese had previously described and recognised the species in their scholarship. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:10, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, today's taxonomic system was developed by the Europeans, not the Japanese, so the first valid description would be Boie's. An anonymous username, not my real name 15:18, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps say scientifically described. FunkMonk (talk) 20:13, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that would probably make it easier to understand for readers unfamiliar with taxonomy. I have changed the wording. An anonymous username, not my real name 20:22, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

Footnote numbers refer to this version.

  • For the five book citations, you give the publisher location for Gray and Jobling, but not for Tschudi, Boie, or Stejneger. The requirement at FAC is consistent formatting -- it doesn't matter if you include them or not, but you should be consistent about it.
    Removed from all, as I don't think it's necesary.
  • No publisher given for Tschudi.
    Added.
  • No page number given for Jobling.
    Added.
  • For 光, 中川; 保, 草野 (2007), can we get a trans-title parameter, and ideally transliterated names? I don't think I've seen sources cited to non-transliterated names before; I don't think there's a rule against it, but if you can transliterate them it would be kinder to readers who don't know Japanese.
    Names have been transliterated.
  • The archive link for FNs 2, 4 & 6 don't work for me -- they bring up an archived version of the Biodiversity interface, but the pages are all blank. I don't think you need these anyway -- the books are the underlying source, and the biodiversity links are already a form of archive for them.
    Removed.
  • FNs 18 and 20 appear to be duplicates.
    Fixed.
  • FN 25 is paywalled, so I would suggest adding the subscription required parameter. The archive link only gives the login screen, which is non-functional in the archive, so I would remove the archive link.
    Both are done.
  • Not strictly a FAC issue, but can you check if clicking on FN 6 in the etymology section takes you to the footnote? That one isn't working for me and I've no idea why; the others all work.
    It appears I had opened the footnote with "ref name" without entering a ref name. It's fixed now.

Spotchecks:

  • "It was moved to the genus Cynops in 1838 by Swiss naturalist Johann Jakob von Tschudi, as Cynops subcristatus." Cited to Tschudi, p. 94. Verified, but I have a question. I'm not expert on taxonomy, but I would have expected to see a citation to a modern source crediting Tschudi. Pinging FunkMonk, who writes a lot of biology articles; FunkMonk is this the way one would expect this sort of thing to be cited?
    If a modern source saying the same can be found, I'd include both for good measure, especially if the taxonomic revision was controversial. FunkMonk (talk) 09:19, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Modern source added.
  • "The ranges of the central and western varieties meet in Chugoku in western Japan to form a hybrid zone (an area where the two clades interbreed to produce hybrids). The central type has begun to move west, which has caused the hybrid zone to shift. It is expected to eventually cause the genome of the western form to be diluted by increasing hybridization." Verified.
  • "There is also an introduced population on Hachijō-jima, believed to be descended from individuals from Shikoku. Their introduction is thought to have occurred in the 1970s, although exactly how it happened is unknown." Cited to Tominaga et al., pp. 64-68. I don't have access to this; can you quote the text that supports this?
    "Based on these results, we conclude that the population of C. pyrrhogaster introduced into Hachijojima Island is derived from individuals of Shikoku populations." and "However, no abnormalities have ever been reported from the now very abundant population of C. pyrrhogaster on Hachijojima Island, thought to have arrived there in the 1970s by means still unknown." Tip: everything cited here should be accessible through the Wikipedia Library.
  • "In captive settings, tadpoles are known to readily eat mosquito larvae, brine shrimp, earthworms, and each other." Cited to Chiba et al. I can find support for all of this except "each other"; can you point me at the text that supports that?
    That's strange, as I could've sworn it was mentioned there. I removed that part for now, although I'll have to see if it's stated in a different source.
  • "When this process occurs, the regenerated tissue tends to mirror intact tissue in form." Cited to Tsutsumi et al. Verified.
  • "It is also able to regrow missing lenses, taking 30 days to do so as a larva and 80 days as an adult." Cited to Inoue et al. Verified.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:10, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Christie, I have responded to everything. An anonymous username, not my real name 15:59, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pass. Changes look good. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:46, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Drive by comments

[edit]
  • Is there a reason you have zero synonyms in the infobox (also note your See text wikilink there doesn't go anywhere since you changed your heading)? I get a full list might be unwieldly but it might be worth at least having the basionym there? In general I'm not sure why you're citing ITIS instead of their source the AMNH's Amphibian Species of the World which provides much more context: [23]. Secondary sources instead of tertiary databases would be nice here too. It was moved to the genus Cynops in 1838 by Swiss naturalist Johann Jakob von Tschudi, as Cynops subcristatus.[6][3] this is kind of misleading -- Tschudi did not move anything, he might have been the first to describe the species in the genus Cynops, but he thought he was describing a new species; he didn't transfer a species. Do you have a secondary source saying it was in fact Gray who synonymized (that word should appear, I think) M. pyrrhogastra and C. subcristatus? There's no discussion at all about subspecies -- you talk about clades but it might also be worth mentioning what had previously been considered subspecies. Umimmak (talk) 20:39, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @An anonymous username, not my real name: just making sure you saw this; you’ve responded to other comments but not this one. Umimmak (talk) 20:24, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Apologies, Umimmak, I was planning on getting there. I'll clean it up; I think the source you provided should help fix most of the issues you brought up. An anonymous username, not my real name 20:33, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Umimmak, I think I've done everything you wanted. It should be much clearer now. An anonymous username, not my real name 22:15, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There are still some things which I think could be clearer:
    • make use of |synonyms_ref= in the infobox to have an inline citation for the list of synonyms.
    Done. An anonymous username, not my real name 23:46, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Consider also citing Boie 1826 -- it's in the public domain and available online: BHL page 27510759
    Done.
    • Also now I'm taking a closer look, Tschudi didn't describe C. subcristatus, rather he transferred Salamandra subcristata Temminck and Schlegel, 1838 to Cynops.
    Corrected.
    • I also really wouldn't say ITIS lists 16 synonyms... I mean, it does this 16 includes misspellings, alternative combinations, and synonyms, so I'm not sure how useful this number 16 is devoid of context?
    I figured it was worth at least mentioning the number as there is certainly no point in listing them all. What do you think is best?
    Thanks for this. I corrected that reference and the others have already been reviewed.
    Umimmak (talk) 22:45, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Umimmak, hopefully this looks better. An anonymous username, not my real name 23:46, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What, if any, progress is being made on this? It seems to be the only thing holding up closure, but if one is not inserted soon then the nomination is liable to be archived; which would be a great shame. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:22, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Gog the Mild, my apologies, I have updated it now. It should be much better. An anonymous username, not my real name 18:27, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Vanamonde, wadaya think? Gog the Mild (talk) 18:49, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@An anonymous username, not my real name: I'm sorry to be a pain about this, but I think a little bit more work is needed. The update is good, but I don't think it's right to leave out the clade of four species between orientalis and ensicauda; it's showing the non-monophyly of the genus, which is important. Stick those in and I'd be happy to support. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:10, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Vanamonde93, for some bizarre reason I can no longer find the source used for the cladogram on the WP Library. I'm not sure what to do now. An anonymous username, not my real name 21:50, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I still have access; I can attempt to fix it myself, but not today. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:26, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild and An anonymous username, not my real name: Done, and assuming my change sticks, I now support. I assume it is not inappropriate of me to enter a declaration. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:12, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not in the slightest. Thanks Vanamonde93 Gog the Mild (talk) 19:14, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

[edit]
  • "Eggs are laid separately". I assume you mean that each egg is laid in a different location, but this should be spelled out.
    This is how the source words it, so I would much prefer to leave it that way.
  • "They grow from larval to juvenile form in between five and six months". You should also say how long from juvenile to adult.
    None of the sources say. My guess would be that juvenile and adult stages are harder to clearly distinguish than larval and juvenile stages, where an obvious metamorphosis takes place.
  • You use the terms variety, race and clade, but not the usual term sub-species. Variety is not linked and Race (biology) says that it is an informal term with no agreed definition. Clade as I understand it is a method of classification, whereas variety and race are unofficial taxonomic levels, so it is confusing to say that division into six races was replaced by division into four clades, and that the validity of two races is questioned on the basis of lack of behavioural differences, which is not a cladistic criterion. The terminology needs clarification.
    I can't say anything that the sources don't, as that would be original research. I agree that the terminology is sketchy, but I cannot refer to something that has never been described as such as a subspecies.
  • It is probably going beyond the remit of this article but as the species diverged into sub-species almost 10 million years ago and it has extreme genetic differences I am puzzled why it is considered one species. There are many cases of different species which can interbreed, so that is presumably not decisivve.
    Yes, the implication seems to be that there may be multiple species, but no study has yet made that claim.
  • "Newts at lower altitudes mature faster than those at higher ones, and male newts of these populations tend to live longer after reaching maturity." I assume that "these populations" refers to those at higher latitudes, but you need to spell this out.
    Fixed.
  • "Japanese newts serve as a highly useful model organism". In the next paragraph you use the full species name, and it is better to be consistent.
    Thanks, I think this was a mistake.
  • My points are minor, apart from the confusion over terminology. I think it would be better to avoid unofficial terms such as variety and race, although I realise that you are no doubt taking them from the sources. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:50, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Dudley Miles, yes, these are what the sources say, so there is little I can do about it. None of the sources use any term besides "race" to refer to the six invalid varieties, which is probably part of why they are invalid. An anonymous username, not my real name 17:13, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Dudley Miles, I have corrected what I can. An anonymous username, not my real name 17:18, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Dudley, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination yet? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:22, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I still have some queries. They are minor and will not prevent me supporting, but I would like to get the nominator's response first. The first one is the reply on my first point above. The second one, which I have not previously followed up, is the use of the vague terms, race and variety. I take the nominator's point that they have to go by the sources, but a quick search of Google Scholar suggests that some researchers do refer to sub-species, and I think that further research on this might provide some clarification. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:00, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Dudley Miles, for your first point, close paraphrasing is allowed when there are only a limited number of ways to state the same idea, which would apply here. Saying "each egg is laid in a different location" could falsely imply a fairly large distance between each egg, which is not what the source says, and besides, it doesn't seem any more or less clear than what is currently written. To your second point, further research revealed that yes, one of the races was formerly described as a subspecies, which is now said in the article. That should be all. An anonymous username, not my real name 23:29, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 12 January 2023 [24].

Shannon Lucid

[edit]
Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:18, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the astronaut Shannon Lucid. She is the last of the original six NASA women astronauts chosen in 1978 to fly, and the last to be nominated at FAC. I would like to thank all the editors who participated in reviews of the other five - Kusma (talk), Wehwalt (talk), Dugan Murphy (talk), Balon Greyjoy (talk), Figureskatingfan (talk), PresN (talk), Z1720 (talk), HJ Mitchell (talk), SusunW (talk) and JennyOz (talk) - and hope that some of you can find time over the Christmas holidays to review. Best wishes for the season. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:18, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review—pass

(t · c) buidhe 21:23, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Wehwalt

[edit]
  • What's an exchange crew? Ditto an ASP?
    The ASP or Cape Crusader handles the checkout at KSC. The exchange crew handles the post-flight activities. On missions where the Shuttle landed (or was supposed to) the ASPs handled both. Added text to this effect. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:51, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any info any activities the past ten years?
    She spent the first two years looking after her husband, who had dementia, and died in 2014.[25] She wrote a book about this which was self-published in 2019. She also published one about her experiences on Mir in 2020. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:51, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks good, just a couple of quibbles.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:29, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Pendright

[edit]

Lead:

  • She has flown in space five times including a prolonged mission aboard the Russian Mir space station in 1996, and is the only American woman to have served aboard Mir.
    and "Lucid" is the only...
    I think it is okay as it is. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:54, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • She was awarded the Congressional Space Medal of Honor in December 1996, making her the tenth person and first woman to be accorded that honor.
    accorded "this" honor
    Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:54, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • A graduate of the University of Oklahoma, where she earned her bachelor's degree in chemistry in 1963, master's degree in biochemistry in 1970 and PhD in biochemistry in 1973, Lucid was a laboratory technician at the Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, from 1964 to 1966, a research chemist at Kerr-McGee, an oil company in Oklahoma City from 1966 to 1968, and a research associate at the Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation from 1973 to 1978.
  • She flew in space five times: on STS-51-G, STS-34, STS-43, STS-58, and her mission to Mir, for which she traveled to the space station on the Space Shuttle Atlantis with STS-76 and returned six months later with STS-79.
    Replace one of the three pronouns referring to Lucid with "Lucid"
    Um, okay. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:54, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • She was the NASA Chief Scientist from 2002 to 2003, and served as capsule communicator (CAPCOM) at the Mission Control for numerous Space Shuttle missions, including STS-135, the final Space Shuttle mission.
    and "Lucid" served as
    Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:54, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Early Life:

  • They moved to Lubbock, Texas, and then settled in Bethany, Oklahoma, the family's original home town, where Wells graduated from Bethany High School in 1960.[5]
    hometown is one word
    Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:54, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • She sold her bicycle to buy a telescope so she could look at the stars,[6] and began building her own rockets.
    Change one of the four pronouns to the subjects name
    Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:54, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shortly after graduating from high school, she earned her private pilot's license with instrument and multi-engine ratings and bought an old Piper PA-16 Clipper that she used to fly her father to revival meetings.
    Same as above
    Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:54, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Selection and training:

  • Water survival training was conducted with the 3613th Combat Crew Training Squadron at Homestead Air Force Base in Florida and parasail training at Vance Air Force Base in Oklahoma.[23]
    Describe some of what the training included
    There's a long description in the NASA Astronaut Group 8 article. How much detail do you want? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:54, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    <>Just a range would provide readers with some notion as to what the traning included. Pendright (talk) 16:58, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Added a bit more. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:07, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • On August 31, 1979, NASA announced that the 35 astronaut candidates had completed their training and evaluation, and were now officially astronauts, qualified for selection on space flight crews.
    Describe some of what the evaluation included
    Although NASA calls it "evaluation", there are few tests or grades as such. You have to pass the swimming and survival courses. The Ascan concept was introduced after one of the astronauts selected in 1967 quit after not being able to learn to fly. But not until 2018 would an Ascan quit. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:54, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
<>Okay! Pendright (talk) 16:58, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

STS-51-G:

STS-34:

  • The January 1986 Space Shuttle Challenger disaster later that month brought Space Shuttle operations to a halt while NASA conducted investigations, soul-searching and remediation.
    Add a comma after soul-searching
    Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:54, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • One casualty of the disaster was the Galileo project, an unmanned probe to Jupiter, which lost both its launch window and its ride, through the cancelation of the Shuttle-Centaur project.[43]
    Replace comma through with "due to"
    Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:54, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • As this was much less powerful than the Shuttle-Centaur upper stage, Galileo had to employ gravity assists from Venus and Earth, and took six years instead of two to reach Jupiter.[45]
    and "it" took six years
    Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:54, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

STS-43:

STS-58:

  • The techniques developed were intended to be precursors of those to be conducted on the Space Station Freedom, and a preliminary to long-duration space flights.
    "Any" techniques developed
    Not sure what is asked for here. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:54, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
<>The two sentences that preceede this one specak to a flight yet to happen. But this one, the third sentence, says - "The techniques developed were intended"? Confusing, at least to this reader. Pendright (talk) 17:23, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Re-phrased. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 17:49, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shuttle-Mir:

Awards and honors:

  • Lucid was awarded the Congressional Space Medal of Honor in December 1996 (for her mission to Mir), making her the tenth person and first woman to be given that honor.[74]
    "this" honor
    Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss)

@Hawkeye7: Finished - Pendright (talk) 00:59, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

<>I've left some responses to yours that need to be cleared up. Pendright (talk) 17:23, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I support this nomination, Pendright (talk) 00:23, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Balon Greyjoy

[edit]

Article looks in good shape! Here are my comments:

  • Convert templates don't use US spelling of kilometers.
    Added sp=us cards Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:42, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "only American woman to have served aboard Mir" Maybe say "stayed aboard" instead? Served aboard sounds like a navy assignment.
    Sounds good. Other American women had been aboard Mir, but Lucid was the only one who stayed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:42, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "bought an old Piper PA-16 Clipper that she used to fly her father to revival meetings" What defines the aircraft as "old"? It seems like it's only 11 years old at the time that she purchased it.
    It is the term used in the source. I have changed it to "used". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:42, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Personal opinion, but I think the information about Kawai Dawn's naming is trivia and doesn't need to be included.
    I have my reasons for this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:42, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Water survival training was conducted with the 3613th Combat Crew Training Squadron at Homestead Air Force Base in Florida and parasail training at Vance Air Force Base in Oklahoma." I don't have the source material, but it seems unlikely that parasail training was at Vance AFB when there are no bodies of water around it.
    Parasailing training was performed at Vance until 2007. See UPT class performs last parasailing training at Vance Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:42, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow; did not know that. When I went through SERE they had recently ended training at NAS Pensacola, and I figured it had been there for a long time. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 13:34, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "She was at Edwards Air Force Base with the exchange crew for the landing of the STS-5 mission in November 1982. The exchange crew took over from the flight crew after they had landed, and handled the post-flight activities." I'm assuming she was a part of the exchange crew, especially when a later sentence says that she was one again a member of the exchange crew? This reads like she was there in addition to the exchange crew.
    Changed to "as a member" to avoid this interpretation. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:42, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "As a devout Christian, she had no love for Saudi Arabia and the way it treated women, nor for Islam." Couple changes here: 1). "No love for Saudi Arabia" is a bit of a figure of speech, maybe something like "she disagreed with the Saudi Arabian government's treatment of women" 2). As strict Christian beliefs also consider men to be superior to women, I don't think her values should be prefaced with "As a devout Christian" if the issue was predominantly the mistreatment of women. Assuming that Lucid does not harbor Islamophobic beliefs, I think it's a mischaracterization to include that she does not like an entire religion.
    It isn't a mischaracterisation. For Lucid's religious views, see No Sugar Added. Re-organized this a bit to make it clear that there are two aspects. Also, if you're going to understand Christianity, you need to take on board the reconciliation of contradictory concepts.
    I think your new version is much better. If she had/has anti-Islamic views, I think it's fine to include that in the article, but I'm glad it is more explicitly stated in your newer change. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 13:37, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "When the rest of the crew arrived in Riyadh, her absence was noted. This prompted a call from King Fahd of Saudi Arabia to President Ronald Reagan, and Lucid was put on the next flight to Saudi Arabia. She shook hands with the king, but stayed for only one day." I would break up these sentences differently, and remove "Lucid was put on the next flight" since I'm assuming that is an exaggeration of how quickly she traveled to Saudi Arabia. Maybe something like "When the rest of the crew arrived in Riyadh, her absence prompted a call from King Fahd of Saudi Arabia to President Ronald Reagan. Soon after, Lucid flew to Saudi Arabia, where she shook hands with the king, but stayed for only one day."
    Changed as suggested. Unfortunately, I don't have the book here. However, here's what the author has to say in an article:

    For her own part, Lucid had no love for the Saudis. After the mission, invited to meet King Fahd, with the rest of the crew, in Riyadh, she refused. “She particularly objected to Saudi treatment of young women and disfigurement,” John Fabian recalled, “and she didn’t want to be a part of that. There was a lot of time and effort spent convincing her otherwise, to absolutely no avail.” When the other astronauts arrived in Riyadh, they were greeted by Al-Saud, whose looked around for Lucid. Her absence did not go down well with the sultan or the king…or with President Ronald Reagan. “Well, the King called the President,” recalled Fabian. “The President called the NASA Administrator. The NASA Administrator called the Johnson Space Center Director…and Shannon was on the next 747!” Lucid may have lost the battle, but she won the war, for she spent barely a day in Saudi Arabia, shook King Fahd’s hand, and returned promptly home.

    — Job? But You’re A Girl!”: The Triumphant Career of Shannon Lucid
    Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:42, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Space Shuttle operations to a halt while NASA conducted investigations, soul-searching, and remediation" I would remove "soul-searching" since I think that sounds more intangible than the Rogers Commission and SRB redesign. I would also add that flights were stood down for 32 months/2.5 years to give the reader a better sense of how long the pause was.
    Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:52, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there any more information on Lucid's role on STS-34?
    Possibly. I don't have my books at the moment so this will have to wait until next week. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:54, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Added a bit more. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:48, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The mission was accomplished in 79 orbits of the Earth" Active voice here? Something like "The mission completed 79 orbits of the Earth..." or "Atlantis completed 79 orbits of the Earth..." Same could be said for the STS-58 section.
    Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:52, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Although the mission objectives did not change, the launch date was postponed to July 23, and the orbiter was changed to Atlantis." I feel like delays are pretty normal, so I'm not sure why this begins with "Although the mission objectives did not change" as if that is the expectation.
    Sure. Deleted. Objectives rarely changed, but the details could change, especially if you had to swap shuttles, as each was different. You would think that over the course of 135 launches that they would get fewer holds, delays and scrubs, but this was not the case. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:54, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there more information about the STS-58 mission, and Lucid's role? The paragraph about the mission is shorter than the one about crew selection. The only mention of Lucid is that she was on the crew and how long she spent in space.
    Possibly. I don't have my books at the moment so this will have to wait until next week. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:54, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Added a bit more. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:48, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The prospect of a long stay on Mir was not one calculated to appeal to most astronauts:" This makes it seem like the intention was to have a program that the astronauts didn't want to volunteer for. Maybe something like "Few astronauts volunteered for the exchange program, as they would be required to learn Russian and train at Star City for a year in order to spend several months..."
    I don't think that phrasing conveys intent, although it was made more difficult than it could have been. I don't think volunteers were called for in the sense that most readers would imagine. I will have to look into this further. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:54, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did Bonnie Dunbar and Norm Thagard volunteer for the Shuttle-Mir program? Lucid's quote makes it sound like nobody else volunteered, but then she is in Star City with 2 other astronauts to train.
    I believe Thagard did. I will need to consult Seddon's book about Dunbar. There was one more astronaut involved from memory. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:54, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    As I suspected, Dunbar was a "volunteer" only in the Army sense. According to Dunbar:

    I came back from NASA Headquarters the first week in December, and I was actually prepared to enjoy Christmas and do other things. And just shortly before Christmas, my boss, Dave [Leestma] called me in and said, "Bonnie, I need to have you go back up Norm [Norman] Thagard, who's going to fly this first increment." And I said, "When?" And he said, "February." And I said, "Well, I don't know if I'm ready." He said, "I need to have you do this." As far as I'm concerned, Dave practically walks on water. And I grew up the daughter of a Marine, so I don't say normally say no when I'm asked to go do something; it's part of my duty. So I talked to him for a long time about it, and I talked to my husband. "This is the right thing to go do."

    I didn't feel totally prepared, especially in the area of language. I'd taken some Russian before. In fact, I took Russian classes in 1992, and I could read it, sound out the words. I knew the letters and so forth. I wasn't able to really speak it. So I started crash Russian courses just to try to help me prepare.

    Then I met with Mr. Abbey and Dr. Huntoon in a private meeting where we talked about this, and they talked about why they wanted me to go. I expressed my reservations about the language and they felt I could learn the language, that what I brought to the program was my knowledge of the payloads, the science and science operations from my prior 3 flights. I already knew the experiments. I wasn't part of the actual selection committee, but I was part of the planning because we were funding it out of Code U. I knew perfectly well what the program was going to be. And I had some knowledge of these people and had helped advocate cooperate research while I was in NASA Headquarters. So at least I guess they felt comfortable with me going and sticking it out and supporting the program.

  • Include the title of the science-fiction book that Lucid liked.
    Source doesn't say. I'll see if I can find it. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:54, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It was The Mirror of Her Dreams by Stephen R. Donaldson. Sounds like quite a potboiler. It has a Wikipedia article, so added and linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:52, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would remove the Begley quote about M&Ms; the previous few sentences establish that Lucid wanted American comfort food without that anecdote.
    Sure. Deleted. (M&Ms are comfort food?) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:54, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Her helmet became stuck, and technicians had to use pliers and a screwdriver to remove it." I would add some more information about how her helmet was stuck (presumably to the rest of her spacesuit), something like "Her helmet became stuck when she tried to take it off after landing, and she required help from technicians with pliers and a screw driver."
    Are you sure? I would have thought that removing the helmet was the job for the exchange crew. Do you have a source? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:54, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Apologies for my poorly phrased suggestion. What I was getting at was that it's not clear what her helmet was stuck to. Starting the sentence with only "Her helmet became stuck" doesn't make it clear if it is stuck to her pressure suit neck ring (what I presume happened) or if it was just stuck somewhere in the orbiter (falling behind a seat, getting wedged into a tight space, etc.). Balon Greyjoy (talk) 13:13, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would remove the sentence about the Corvette, it seems trivial to include a comment from her son.
    Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:54, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would remove the long list of Space Shuttle missions that she worked as the CAPCOM, sine it's the majority of the final 20 or so missions. Maybe just state that she was "the lead CAPCOM for 16 Space Shuttle missions from STS-114 to STS-135, the final Space Shuttle flight."
    Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:54, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be back to add more comments. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 13:07, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's it. Nice work. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 14:46, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. An interesting life story well told. I made a couple of minor tweaks (spelling and dashes), but that was all I could find on a couple of readthroughs. Nice work. SchroCat (talk) 16:30, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

Footnote numbers refer to this version.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:01, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All but one struck above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:33, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pass. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:58, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by JennyOz

[edit]

Placeholder for now... JennyOz (talk) 15:00, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hawkeye, I noticed it's nearly her 80th birthday, what a shame this won't be ready for TFA. Here are my comments...

lede

Early life

NASA career

STS-34

STS-58

CAPCOM

Later life

misc

That's it. Enjoyed reading this bio. JennyOz (talk) 15:32, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jenny, how's it looking now? Gog the Mild (talk) 11:13, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
G'day Gog - I had no ping from Hawkeye and supposed he was not yet ready for me (per "Let me think about this one"). It's looking fine though so I'm happy to s'port. Again I'll say though, it's a pity it won't be TFA in two days time for her 80th birthday. The article currently queued doesn't seem to have a 14 Jan connection? C'est la vie. JennyOz (talk) 11:58, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
JennyOz, that was a pain, but your wish is my command. Done. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:06, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 11 January 2023 [26].

Providence and Worcester Railroad

[edit]
Nominator(s): Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:28, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Providence and Worcester Railroad was formed in 1844 to connect its namesake cities. This was accomplished in 1847, and it continued running trains until it was leased by the New York, Providence and Boston Railroad in 1889, which was itself leased by the New York, New Haven and Hartford Railroad (The New Haven) in 1892. For most companies, that would be the end of the story, and the holder of the lease would inevitably buy out the company being leased. But the P&W was different. Thanks to some peculiar rules in its original 1844 charter protecting the interests of smaller shareholders, the New Haven couldn't get hold of enough shares to merge the company. It continued to exist for 85 years under lease, and the New Haven tolerated having to pay the P&W shareholders dividends, until the New Haven (which went bankrupt in 1961 and never recovered) was merged into Penn Central in 1969.

Penn Central did not want the P&W, but the Interstate Commerce Commission felt otherwise and ordered its inclusion in the merger, in spite of PC threatening to abandon the P&W's tracks. Penn Central would suffer the share rules no longer and demanded they be rewritten so it could take control and absorb the P&W. Instead, P&W's shareholders voted to terminate the lease entirely and take over their own railroad again. To PC's shock, the ICC agreed, and P&W was made independent on February 3, 1973. Starting with roughly 55 miles of tracks, P&W rapidly grew into a major railroad by buying lines from other, larger companies that couldn't operate them profitably, and doing just that (making a profit). It also purchased several shortline railroads outright. Today, P&W owns or has operating rights on 612 miles of tracks in Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, and New York. It was purchased by shortline holding company Genesee & Wyoming in 2016, but continues as before with few changes (apart from G&W orange slowly replacing P&W's brown and red on its locomotives). P&W has shown it's possible to run freight rail profitably in New England, despite the departure of much of the region's former industry which doomed so many other railroads. P&W is set to continue to succeed where many others have failed for the foreseeable future.

I made P&W a good article in late 2021, and a year later, after extensive work (and moving to Rhode Island myself) I think it's ready for FAC. P&W is now my hometown railroad, so I feel a special affinity for it and would love to see it become a featured article. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:28, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
@Nikkimaria: does this pass the image review now? Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:38, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:15, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from John M Wolfson

[edit]
  • Leads generally should not exceed four paragraphs in length.
    Lead is now four paragraphs. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:01, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • against expectations, [the ICC let the P&W go] is not supported by the body.
    In the words of Hartley, "Eder suggested P&W might resume independent operation. Remember that this was at a time when large rail mergers were occurring with regularity. Spinoffs were uncommon, and the idea of a resurrected P&W seemed quite ridiculous". I've added this quote to the article. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:52, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unusual shareholding rules are mentioned frequently but never elaborated to the best of my knowledge.
    It was specifically about special rules that protected the interests of minority shareholders. Even if you had a majority of shares, your ability to control the company was heavily restricted. Will specify that tomorrow (and get to the rest of these). Trainsandotherthings (talk) 04:33, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    So, basically the 1844 charter of the company was written with a voting clause that protected the rights of smaller shareholders against larger ones. Penn Central had 28% of the company's shares, but this clause translated that into just 3% voting power. The rest of the company's shareholders didn't get onboard with PC's plans, and instead agreed to cancel the lease and become independent. The New Haven, the previous lease owner, held just 91 of 35,000 shares by 1905, and an attempt to rewrite laws to let it purchase the company by only getting half of its shares was defeated by P&W shareholders [28]. This is mentioned at Two years later, the company incorporated in Delaware, while maintaining the voting rules from the company's original 1844 charter. and The same rules that left the New Haven unable to take over the P&W also frustrated the Penn Central, which found itself with only 3% voting power, despite both leasing the company and inheriting the New Haven's portion of the company's shares. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:52, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Serving this customer [Arnold Lumber] requires P&W trains to travel 5 miles (8.0 km) farther southward on the Northeast Corridor than for any other customer, finding space between Amtrak trains which travel up to 150 miles per hour (240 km/h) on this particular segment Is that particularly significant/unique?
    Two different sources specifically called this fact out (Karr Hartley 2016 and Heppner) so I felt it was worthy of attention. And to be travelling 5 miles down one of the busiest rail lines in the country to serve a customer that only takes a car or two at a time is pretty unique dedication to serving every customer. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 04:33, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suggest Karr 2017, Hartley 1994, Hartley 2016, and Gennesee 2016 be spun off into short-form citations with the likes of {{sfn}}; it makes them much more readable, and with specific page numbers somewhat improves verifiability.
    In progress. Will be done soon. I disagree on Gennesee 2016, it's only cited 3 times in the article. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:52, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Karr 2017, Hartley 1994, and Hartley 2016 have been converted to Sfn format. @John M Wolfson: what are your thoughts on my changes so far? Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:59, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

More to come. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:20, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging User:John M Wolfson. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:02, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still not satisfied as to how exactly the PC's 28 percent got translated to 3 percent voting power; maybe seek the original charter if not an imposition, but otherwise no biggie. The only other concern I have is that it's listed as the 1999 Regional Railroad of the Year, but this is neither mentioned in the prose nor cited. I think you can kill two birds with one stone on this one. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 01:09, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Railway Age awards the titles of "Short Line Railroad of the Year" and "Regional Railroad of the Year" to one railroad each every year. The P&W appears to have won this award in the regional category in 1999, but I can't find reliable sourcing for this (I'd probably have to get a copy of Railway Age from 1999), so I'll just remove it.
As for the 28 percent to 3 percent, here's the exact wording from Hartley 2016: Eder explains that PC became owner of New Haven's 28 percent of P&W stock. But voting clauses, dating back to the original charters and retained by the reincorporated P&W, gave PC just 3 percent of voting power. After several state and federal court battles, these conditions were upheld. Ultimately, the Interstate Commerce Commission agreed with an ICC examiner who recommended that the small railroad be allowed to go its own way. I'm not sure if it would be original research to go look at the charter myself and then say "this rule caused Penn Central to have very little control of the company". Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:06, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think that would be a case where primary sources are acceptable and would improve the article, and I personally would do so, but if that's an imposition I'll let it slide and support this pending image/source/non-prose reviews. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 23:55, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Hawkeye7

[edit]

Lead

Original Providence and Worcester Railroad

End of independence

The new Providence and Worcester Railroad

  • Although we can guess what ICC stands for, better to define the acronym explicitly (same with USRA)
    Done. I did this in the lead previously but forgot about the body. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:58, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Penn Central was unwilling to allow this to happen" Why? If they were reluctant to acquire and only wished to shut it down
    They wanted to abandon most of the line, but keep the tracks at both ends to serve major customers that were present there. If P&W survived, they wouldn't have direct access to that traffic. PC also wanted P&W's real estate in Providence. I've added mention of both of these things to the article. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:30, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1974, the railroad purchased" Another ambiguity; had to read to the end of the sentence to find out which railroad
    I see how this could be ambiguous; changed to "P&W". Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:58, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "For motive power, P&W initially operated a small fleet of 5 ALCO RS-3 locomotives and 5 cabooses" 5 -> "five" Do cabooses provide motive power?
    No, but at that time every train was required to have a caboose on the end. So to run 5 trains, you need 5 cabooses. This ended in the 1980s when the End-of-train device made them largely unnecessary (though P&W used cabooses until at least the 1990s for trains on the Northeast Corridor). Changed to "five ALCO RS-3 locomotives, plus five cabooses". Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:58, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "order for 5 new" -> "order for five new "
    Changed. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:58, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "80 M-420s" -> "eighty M-420s"
    MOS says numbers 10 and greater can be spelled out or in numeral form. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:58, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think Hawkeye is saying that two consecutive numbers in a different context can be confusing and suboptimal, so "eighty M-420s" is still better notwithstanding the MOS. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 17:46, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link "representative"
    Linked. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:30, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any reason not to use the acronym P&W here?
    The only reasons is a desire not to always use the same "P&W" acronym. Writing gets kind of dry if you use the exact same terminology every single instance the name comes up in the entire article (the string "P&W") comes up 86 times right now). Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:58, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In December 1987, the railroad's owner, Capital Properties Inc. " Wait, when did it become the owner?
    Hartley 1994 says Capital Properties was a holding company for the P&W. I'm not certain when exactly it became owner, but it appears Capital Properties owned the company from at least when it became independent in 1973. Eder was the majority shareholder of both Capital Properties and the P&W. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:30, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the lead it says the stone came from quarries in Queens but this is not in the body
    Huh? The stone is destined for Queens. P&W also signed an agreement to run trains of stone from Connecticut quarries to Queens over the Northeast Corridor.
  • Any prospect of obtaining a map of the current system?
    See the infobox. Much of that was me personally messing with a relation on OSM. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:37, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. Supporting. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:18, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass

[edit]

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:26, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Epicgenius

[edit]

I intend to leave some comments here within the next few days. – Epicgenius (talk) 19:17, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lead:
  • "The New Haven tolerated making lease payments for 76 years, until that company was merged into Penn Central (PC) at the end of 1968." - Optionally, you could clarify that the NH was the company that was merged into PC. Also, would it be easier to say "The NH leased the P&W for 76 years"?
  • "P&W also signed an agreement to run unit trains of crushed stone from Connecticut quarries to Queens" - Even though we both know where Queens is, I would say "to Queens, New York", for clarity.
  • "P&W owns or has operating rights over 612 miles (985 km) of trackage in Connecticut, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and New York." - Could this be mentioned earlier in the lead? The ownership/trackage rights are already mentioned in the first sentence of the first paragraph.
  • " P&W freight trains coexist with" - For some reason, I feel like "coexist" may not be the right word. Maybe "operate alongside"?
Original Providence and Worcester Railroad:
  • "Railroads were taking hold across New England by the 1840s" - To me, "taking hold" sounds a bit colloquial.
  • "Despite fears the company would fail, it announced on October 8, 1845, that thanks to a $100,000 (2.91 million in 2021) investment by Jacob Little, the requisite $1,000,000 in funding had been reached, plus a further $100,000 for the Massachusetts section of the line" - I'm confused as to what this sentence implies. It can mean one of three things:
    1. Little provided funding only for the Massachusetts section of the line, in which case only $900,000 would have been raised.
    2. Little provided $100,000 for the completion of the railroad, and Little also gave an additional $100,000 for the Massachusetts section, bringing the investment to $1 million.
    3. Little provided $100,000 for the completion of the railroad, and someone else gave $100,000 for the Massachusetts section, bringing the investment to $1 million.
  • The source says The committee for soliciting subscriptions to the Providence and Worcester Railroad met at the Town House yesterday, and reported that the whole stock, $1,000,000, had been subscribed under the Rhode Island charter. In addition to this, about $100,000 have been subscribed under the Massachusetts charter, making in all $1,100,000, being $100,000 above the estimates. Jacob Little & Co., of New York, subscribed $100,000." How do you interpret that? Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:50, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, I see. In that case, can we clarify that the $100,000 for MA was in addition to the $1 million that the railroad had after Little's donation? – Epicgenius (talk) 23:05, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rewritten as Despite fears the company would fail, it announced on October 8, 1845, that thanks to additional funding, including a $100,000 (2.91 million in 2021) investment by Jacob Little, the requisite $1,000,000 had been reached, plus a further $100,000 for the Massachusetts section of the line, and that construction would begin immediately. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:02, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "no government assistance or loans were involved" - This also seems redundant, given that you just mentioned that the railroad was entirely privately funded.
  • "Construction was more expensive than anticipated" - I'd say "Construction had been more expensive", as you're talking about a conditional statement here.
  • "The takeover was defeated by the company's president and clerk refusing to allow a vote to approve the new directors to be recognized" - I suggest rephrasing this in active voice, e.g. "The company's president and clerk defeated the takeover, refusing to allow a vote to approve the new directors to be recognized".
  • "when it began to be used to import coal from ships" - Instead of "began to be used", I'd say "was used", since you just mentioned that the branch had recently opened.
More later. – Epicgenius (talk) 16:34, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
End of independence:
  • "$897,500–a peculiar holding" - Minor issue, but this should probably be either an emdash or a spaced endash per MOS:DASH, even if the source uses an unspaced endash.
  • "In 1892, control of the P&W passed to the New York, New Haven and Hartford Railroad, when it took over the New York, Providence and Boston" - I think this could be rephrased more directly: "In 1892, New York, New Haven and Hartford Railroad gained control of the P&W when it took over the New York, Providence and Boston."
  • Changed to "In 1892, the New York, New Haven and Hartford Railroad gained control of the P&W when it leased the New York, Providence and Boston."
  • "The New Haven was to be the operator of the P&W for the next 77 years." - The conditional "to be" should only be used if the NH decided on the 77-year term back in 1892. If not, the conditional should be removed, e.g. "The New Haven operated the P&W for the next 77 years", as you're not using the conditional statement to describe something that (at the time) was proposed to happen.
  • The idea here was to convey that this would be the situation for the next 77 years, based on our knowledge now in 2022, not that the lease term was for 77 years (it was a 99 year lease, actually). Changed to "The New Haven operated the P&W for the next 77 years." Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:26, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "New Haven only owned a very small number of shares – only 91 out of 35,000" - The word "only" is repeated in close succession here.
  • "Both freight and passenger train traffic was initially strong" - "Was" should be "were", since the sentence is essentially parsed as "both... were strong".
  • "15 passenger trains traveled the line each day" - The start of the sentence should be spelled out as "Fifteen" per MOS:NUMNOTES.
  • "after experimenting with four local trains each way in 1953, the schedule was cut back to the previous one per day in 1954, before this one round trip was also discontinued by 1957" - The sentence contains a dangling modifier, since "the schedule was cut back" is a modifier for the clause "after experimenting with four local trains each way in 1953". It was the P&W, not the schedule, that experimented with four trains. Also, I suggest using another conjunction instead of "before", as it's potentially confusing when you're describing something that happened after 1954.
  • Rewritten as "Passenger train service on the line was cut back during the 1950s as well; after experimenting with four local trains each way in 1953, the New Haven cut the schedule back to one local round trip per day in 1954; this round trip was also discontinued by 1957." Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:26, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The State of Maine Express ended operations in 1960" - This duplink should be removed, as the State of Maine Express is already linked earlier in the same paragraph.
  • "with the last one ending in 1966 with Eder as the Providence and Worcester's new president" - The word "with" is also repeated in close succession, and the first use of the word is as a conjunction. I suggest making this its own clause: "The group launched three proxy fights to take control; the last one ended in 1966 with Eder as the Providence and Worcester's new president."
More later. – Epicgenius (talk) 15:01, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Epicgenius ? Gog the Mild (talk) 17:45, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I forgot about this. I'll finish up this review soon. – Epicgenius (talk) 19:12, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Epicgenius: No pressure but this FAC kind of hinges upon your review... Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:53, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The new Providence and Worcester Railroad:
  • "The New Haven had managed to purchase a number of the P&W's shares in the three quarters of a century it had held the lease" - Should this just be "The New Haven had purchased a number.."
  • "Penn Central was unwilling to allow this to happen, as it wanted both to continue serving large customers near Providence and Worcester and access to the P&W's real estate holdings in Providence, leading to a series of court battles" - Not an issue with the article per se, but it's a weird situation. PC didn't want to lease P&W, but it did want P&W's business?
  • "1 mile (1.6 km) branch" - This should be hyphenated, i.e. "1-mile (1.6 km) branch", by adding |adj=on to {{convert}}.
  • "The USRA decided to include only the portion between Groton and Plainfield in Conrail," - Should this be "The USRA decided to give only the portion..."? (I was wondering because you'd include the line in the Conrail network, or you'd give the line to Conrail.)
  • The USRA was in charge of deciding what lines were to be assigned to Conrail, and what lines weren't. I'm not sure I see the difference between "include" and "give", as I feel both convey the same meaning. The line between Groton and Plainfield was included in Conrail; you could also say it was given to Conrail. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:16, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    What I meant was that Conrail as a company and Conrail as a network of routes might be slightly different. You're including the route in Conrail's network, but the network was operated by Conrail. However, this is not a big issue. – Epicgenius (talk) 21:26, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "then-representative Chris Dodd" - The two links should probably be spaced further apart to avoid a WP:SEAOFBLUE situation. Also, should this be "U.S. representative" instead? E.g. "then-U.S. representative Chris Dodd"
  • This is a bit awkward, as I've been told to link representative in other comments here. I'm not sure to what extent SEAOFBLUE can be avoided here. Open to suggestions, but I can't immediately find a way to avoid two links being next to each other here. I have changed the wording to "then-U.S. Representative Chris Dodd". Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:16, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    One option is "winning the support of Connecticut business groups; unions; and Chris Dodd, who at the time was a U.S. Representative." However, this option requires semicolons.
    Another is "winning the support of Connecticut business groups and unions, as well as the endorsement of Chris Dodd, who at the time was a U.S. Representative." However, this option lengthens the sentence. – Epicgenius (talk) 21:28, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Reworded as "winning the support of Connecticut business groups, unions, and Chris Dodd, at the time a U.S. Representative." I don't love it, and would prefer to keep the original wording and delink representative or link it elsewhere, but I suppose compromise is needed. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:47, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Providence and Worcester stated its objections to allowing Guilford" - I'd say "objected" instead of "stating its objections".
  • "In December 1987, the railroad's owner, Capital Properties Inc. of Providence" - When did Capital Properties acquire the P&W? I assume it was sometime after PC was forced to divest the P&W. Also, because this is a single-sentence paragraph, I'd either merge this with the previous paragraph or add some details.
  • The sources are unclear about when exactly the holding company came about; it was formed by Eder. Capital Properties still exists as the owner of a bunch of former railroad land the P&W spun off for redevelopment. Penn Central didn't divest P&W, because it never held a majority of its stock, it was just the holder of the P&W lease. As a minority shareholder, and with its control further reduced by clauses in the original 1844 charter, it was powerless to stop a majority of shareholders from voting to terminate the lease. The way the charter works is covered a bit more in another book I have; I will add a few sentences about it to the article. Uncertain what to do with the Capital Properties stuff. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:09, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Fresh Pond Junction yard in Queens" - Similarly to the lead, I'd clarify here that Queens is in NY.
  • "Further expansion came in 1998, when the Providence and Worcester bought the Connecticut Central Railroad, a shortline railroad based in Middletown, Connecticut" - This is another single-sentence paragraph that should be merged or expanded. Same thing applies to "P&W sold its former headquarters at 75 Hammond Street in Worcester in October 2022, relocating to 381 Southbridge Street, also in Worcester."
Operations:
  • "As of 2016, P&W served a total of 140 distinct customers on its lines, with a workforce of 138 employees" - Is "a total of" necessary, or can it be removed ("As of 2016, P&W served 140 distinct customers on its lines")? Also, does the 138 employees refer to P&W or the customers?
  • 138 employees is referring to P&W; it would be impossible for 140 customers to only have a combined total of 138 employees. I have removed "a total of" since I see no compelling reason it needs to be there. I've also changed the wording to "As of 2016, P&W served 140 distinct customers on its lines, and had a workforce of 138 employees." which I believe removes any ambiguity. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:16, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Other local freights based here provide freight service for rail-based shippers on Metro-North Railroad's Danbury Branch, and the Waterbury Branch from Derby southward." - Are P&W trains with freight rights on the NEC also based from Cedar Hill Yard?
  • Sort of. P&W operates local freight service on the two Metro-North branches, and these trains are based out of New Haven, at Cedar Hill and on the Belle Dock branch line. The rights to Danbury are also used for traprock trains that serve Tilcon Connecticut's stone plant there. The Housatonic allows P&W trackage rights over the Maybrook Line to serve this facility, as it's not in direct competition with HRRC's trains (the traprock comes from southern/eastern Connecticut primarily, outside of HRRC's network). The traprock trains that go to Fresh Pond Junction I believe are based in Cedar Hill, some of them receive loaded cars from the Branford Steam Railroad in Branford, Connecticut, just east of New Haven. However, there's also other traprock trains that originate in Plainfield, Connecticut and serve a non-Tilcon quarry on the Norwich and Worcester line and are presumably based there. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:16, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I see, that makes sense. – Epicgenius (talk) 21:29, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "P&W operates on but does not own the following" - Would it be relevant to mention which company owns each line?
  • Mentions added. CT's state rail plan claims part of the Belle Dock branch is publicly owned, but doesn't say who exactly owns it; at least part is directly owned by P&W, and Hartley 1994 identifies the entire branch as P&W owned, so for the moment I've moved it under the P&W owned and operated category. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:16, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The train, themed on the movie The Polar Express, train departs from Woonsocket station" - The Polar Express should be italicized, and "train" is repeated here for some reason.
Real estate:
  • "freight or passenger stations also exist in Manville, Rhode Island, Uxbridge, Massachusetts, (Uxbridge station) and Whitinsville, Massachusetts" - The different cities should be separated using semicolons, since the items in the list themselves have commas. Also, the comma after "Uxbridge, Massachusetts" should go after the parenthetical. E.g. "freight or passenger stations also exist in Manville, Rhode Island; Uxbridge, Massachusetts (Uxbridge station); and Whitinsville, Massachusetts".
@Trainsandotherthings sorry about this. These are all the remaining issues I have found. – Epicgenius (talk) 15:53, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Epicgenius, I've replied to everything. There's a few points that need your input. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:16, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Everything looks good to me. – Epicgenius (talk) 22:11, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Richard Nevell

[edit]

Richard Nevell (talk) 20:04, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • What was the impact (or lack) of the American Civil War on the railroad? This article has a bit of information that could enhance the page on the P&W railroad. Richard Nevell (talk) 20:18, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    While the instance you linked is paywalled, I found the pdf on JSTOR. It only briefly mentioned the P&W, but I added a sentence to the article. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:10, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The following source provides some additional context for the early phase of the railroad, including the involvement of the city council and proposals to use the Cove Basin: Greenwood, Richard (1998). "A Mechanic in the Garden: Landscape Design in Industrial Rhode Island". IA. The Journal of the Society for Industrial Archeology. 24 (1): 9–18. ISSN 0160-1040.. Richard Nevell (talk) 00:14, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I took a look at this source last night, though I didn't have the time to edit the article. While this is more of a topic for the article on the old union station, I will add a sentence or two about this to the article at some point today. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:41, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Good to see you here Richard. Does that satisfactorily address your comments and do you have anything further? Thanks Gog the Mild (talk) 15:30, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The article is generally in good shape, and I hope to information from the IA article mentioned above added to the article. There are, however, a few topics where I think more information could be added:
  • What information do we have about the workers who built the railroad? How many were there, where were they from, was there any workers' housing? At the moment construction is largely discussed in terms of money and start and end dates.
  • What was the social impact of the railroad? Did it lead to economic investment in the area or any social changes? Did it lead to new people coming to the area for work, or changes in who lived where?
  • What is the environmental impact of the railroad?

If those can be addressed, I'd be happy to support. Richard Nevell (talk) 18:21, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There seem to be a lot of duplinks, could you sort them out?
Could you add the OCLCs for Hartley 1994 (30498667) and 2016 (945631712). And check to ensure that other available identifiers are not missing.
There are several p/pp errors. Eg cites 33, 55, 66; there are others.
Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:30, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I will take a look at the sourcing and see if I can find information on these points, but I can't promise that it exists (especially the workers and environmental impact parts, I haven't seen much of anything about that in my previous research, but again I will take a look in google books and newspapers.com and see what I can dig up). In the 1800s, there wasn't much consideration given to environmental impacts of things like railroads and industries. I'm going to do the best I can to meet your comments, but cannot promise I will address them all to your satisfaction; it depends on what sourcing is available. My book and magazine sources, which are doing the heavy lifting for sourcing in much of the article at present, do not really discuss any of these topics you're interested in; but I haven't fully read through Heppner yet (only got that book recently) so that may change. Gog, I've also seen your comments and will go through and address them. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:51, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I was totally striking out until I found the Environmental Impact Statement for the Freight Rail Improvement Project (which added a 3rd track to parts of the Northeast Corridor in Rhode Island); buried in the appendices is some discussion of the history of the P&W and its impact on the region (including a mention that many of the construction workers were immigrants, especially from Ireland). I've added a bit from this source to the article. I've also removed all duplinks, fixed p/pp errors, and added OCLC numbers to the Hartley references. The only other book/magazine I really cite is the Heppner book, which already has an OCLC listed; I don't think there's anything else that would have one (nor am I really aware of why it being listed is important). Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:49, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to look a bit more today. This isn't really FAC related, but I have started a sandbox page where I eventually plan to put together a History of the Providence and Worcester Railroad article; things that I can only dedicate a sentence or two to in the P&W article could be expanded upon here, and you're more than welcome to drop any sources you find there. From what I've seen in looking for sources so far, environmental impact is likely a non-starter as far as sourcing, but I may be able to pull together a bit more about the economic and social aspects. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:37, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Having spent more time searching for sources, I can't say I've found anything more. If you know of something I'm missing, I'd be glad to hear about it, but based on my researching I think I've adequately reported what reliable sources have to say on these areas (in some aspects, that's little or even nothing). I will also note that this articles covers 200 years of history, and it is important not to overly emphasize the earliest parts. As I said before, I intend to do a separate article on the history of the company that will go into greater detail. I've spent months working on this article, and I'm quite confident at this point it meets all the FAC criteria (though I clearly missed the duplinks until Gog mentioned it, my error there). Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:15, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild and Richard Nevell: could you both let me know your thoughts at this point? Thanks. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:26, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The remaining gaps are not trivial. We are of course bound by what the sources cover, but it would be surprising for there not to be any information on the impact of the railroad and some information on who was involved. I would expect the impact would not have been only at the start of the railroad's history, but throughout; did the railroad's changing fortunes have an impact on the region?
With the environmental impact, it may be worth looking more recent.
This is not an area I am familiar with, so I don't have leads beyond what can be Googled. Perhaps The New England Journal of History contains something, but I can't find an index online. A review of Edward Lewis' The Blackstone Valley Line: The Story of the Blackstone Canal Co. and the Providence & Worcester Railroad (1973) sounds relevant. Richard Nevell (talk) 18:34, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I could get the book in question, but it likely wouldn't arrive before New Year's Day. I am trying to find sources for what you're requesting, but with all due respect I believe you are putting an undue focus on the company's early history. Again, this article is covering 200 years, and it is essential not to over-emphasize any one aspect of its history more than reliable sources do. If someone says "you should use this source", that's something actionable. When I'm told "you should add these things but I don't even know if the sources exist", I have to spend hours looking all over the internet in search of something that may not exist. To be honest, it's a frustrating situation for me. Per WP:Summary style, we shouldn't be devoting lots of attention to just the construction workers. I've spent the past half an hour looking through old documents online and I will make some additions to the article today. But I have to ask that you be understanding of the fact that little or no sourcing exists for some of what you're asking, and it's therefore not possible for me to address. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:36, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Of the three points I raised further up this thread only one specifically related to the start of the railroad's history. The effects of the railroad - social and economic - relate to the whole period of its existence. Of course, whether there is sourcing to work from is another matter.
Have indices of history journals covering the region been consulted? Richard Nevell (talk) 22:57, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In response to your request, I've spent the past hour looking through both JSTOR and the first 10 pages of results from Google Scholar. The best I found was [29] and [30] (see page 80 on the latter). I'm really trying here, but there's limits to how long I'm going to keep looking for something I can't find. I have more than conducted a good faith search for sources to substantiate what you believe is missing. If you can identify sources that I should look at, I'll look at them, but I'm really at my limit right now as far as how much searching I'm willing to do. I have spent several hours each day over several days trying to find sources to answer your comments, and added what little I could find. There has to be a limit. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:56, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have found [31] the Engineering report for the surveys done prior to the line's construction. This goes into detail about the expected economic impact of the railroad and what lines of business it was expected to engage in, but of course was written before the line was built so I don't think it meets your expectations of "the social and economic effects of the railroad". One other source said of the line's history up to 1890 that it was an uninterrupted record of prosperity. In spite of my comments last night, I have looked even further, and found essentially nothing that meets what you're looking for. I found some stuff on the company's financial performance and the line's relation to connecting railroads built later, but as for "economic and social impact" it's nearly nothing, let alone the people who built the line. You have to give up on the latter unless you can find sources that I've somehow missed. I really don't know what more you expect me to do at this point. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:28, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Heppner's Railroads of Rhode Island states, "Construction of the Providence and Worcester Railroad began in 1847 and was both swift and relatively uneventful." Along with my total lack of any findings online as far as the workers who built the railroad, I am convinced the sourcing you seek does not exist and won't be pursing this area further. I'm finding a bit about economic impact which as I said above I will be adding. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:13, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @FAC coordinators: How should we move forward with this nomination? I have ordered a copy of The Blackstone Valley Line: The Story of the Blackstone Canal Co. and the Providence & Worcester Railroad, which should arrive around New Year's Day. Richard has not edited in five days, and until/unless he returns we can't continue here. Forgive me for getting impatient, but it's been over two months now and I'd like to see this promoted sooner rather than later. If you want to wait until I get the book and have a chance to review it, fine, but I'd appreciate one of you letting me know how this nomination stands at the moment. Thanks. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:31, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would appreciate the input of my fellow coordinators, but my first thoughts are that there does not seem to be a consensus for promotion, that it is not unreasonable for an editor not to prioritise Wikipedia for a day or two either side of Christmas and that not having consulted The Blackstone Valley Line: The Story of the Blackstone Canal Co. and the Providence & Worcester Railroad arguably means that the article does not meet FAC criterion 1 c "it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature ..." although Richard has not been crass enough to actually say this. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:37, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Without being familiar with the nature of the Blackstone Valley Line work, I don't feel comfortable speaking either way on criterion 1c, but this is an issue that will need to be resolved one way or the other before this can be promoted. Hog Farm Talk 16:21, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think that is a fair assessment to make, as we do not know if there are significant missing details in the book or not. I am fine with putting this on pause until I get the book and review the information within. I just wanted to get some input from the coordinators. I have done my best to work with Richard and address his comments and concerns, all the way to spending money to order another book. I have reviewed much of the key literature around the topic, including Heppner's book which as far as I am aware is the only book about Rhode Island railroads specifically, Karr's The Rails Line of Southern New England, which is an essential for any topic in the region, and Scott A. Hartley's two in-depth profiles of the railroad for Trains Magazine in 1994 and 2016. I have also extensively cited contemporary newspapers throughout the company's ~180 year history. To dismiss all of that because I didn't get one book (published in 1973) is simply unfair. Criterion 1c says that "it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature", not "it includes every source to ever exist on the subject".
I was not asking anyone to promote, I simply wanted coordinator input, as it had been over a week since I'd heard from any of you. I'm not demanding that Richard or anyone else prioritize Wikipedia over real life. All I asked was for your input. I'm really sick of getting dismissiveness and hostility for trying to help move the nomination forward and improve the article. I'm probably not going to participate in FAC much anymore after this article. It feels I am expected to have a perfect article, not just a very good article that represents the best possible based on the sourcing that exists. I'm sorry that I dared ask for coordinator input two months after I originally nominated the article. I have tried my best to be patient and done my best to work with everyone and address all issues. I will continue to do so for as long as this nomination is active. This whole process has become very frustrating for me, as it seems no matter what I do, more roadblocks are put up. I'd love to have a bit more information on the aspects Richard is asking about, but the coverage simply may not exist. I will read through the book when it arrives and we will see if it changes things or not. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:43, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry you feel that way. I think I may have misunderstood the purpose of your ping (and was out of the loop for several days with Christmas-related stuff). At least for me, I see the status of this nomination as pending knowing if there's anything in that book that would materially relate to potential article content, so it can't really move forward until this gets resolved. Since we don't really know if that book has anything useful or not, it's going to be pending that item until we get things figured out one way or the other. At least from a skim of this FAC nomination, that appears to be the only major sticking point. Hog Farm Talk 17:21, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I was mostly perturbed by the way Gog worded his comment. I don't have any issues with you specifically. Establishing that this is on hold until I get the book is all I wanted. It may arrive as early as the 29th, but it gets here when it gets here. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:33, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How would you prefer me to respond? You asked "I'd appreciate one of you letting me know how this nomination stands at the moment" while commenting "I'd like to see this promoted sooner rather than later." I wanted to respond reasonably fully but also succinctly. I had no intention of upsetting a nominator who has been working hard to meet reviewer concerns and was asking a reasonable question. If you could indicate what part(s) of my response perturbed you, I imagine that I could strike and rephrase them. Or just strike them if you would feel happier without some or all of my response. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:22, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote a really long reply to this, and then deleted it. I'm realizing this FAC has really gotten to me emotionally, I'm angry it's taken so long and still not on the track to promotion. I'm also frustrated that in those two months, nobody brought up me not having that book as an issue until now; otherwise, I could have ordered it long ago and already had it. All of this has combined to make me pretty frustrated at the whole process. I'm annoyed that other FACs get lots of reviewers lining up; I had to review other FACs and ask people to review mine or I would have had no reviews at all. I spent hours and hours the past week or so looking for sources for things a reviewer wanted and came back not finding sourcing for what was wanted; I've effectively been told I'm not looking hard enough, and then I'm told I need to continue the wild-goose-chase for sources for certain aspects of the company's history by ordering a book. And then what if the book doesn't have information on what people want in the article? Will I be told to go visit the National Archives in Washington D.C. and look there too? All of this has been really really stressful. FAC is stressful enough normally. I was acting irrationally today because I was upset. I need to take a break. I'll be back when I get the book, hopefully in a few days. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:45, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
TaoT, sometimes FAC just sucks. I took a break myself earlier this year as I was taking things too personally so I can relate to that. If my response added to your stress, I apologise; really, that is not something I would want to do. Things seem to be ticking along. It is going to be a long one, but that happens when you get an in depth reviewer coming late to the party. I see few problems with the FAC so far. A text is on its way, let's see what that brings; no real rush right now. Importantly - chill! (In so far as you can.) Best wishes, Gog the Mild (talk) 20:02, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi folks, apologies that my absence has been a source of concern, it didn't occur to me that might be an issue. In future if a review spans a holiday period I'll try to remember to leave a note. Waiting to see what the book may add sounds like a good course of action to me. Richard Nevell (talk) 23:04, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I got home today to find the book has arrived. I have done some quick reading. First off, there is no discussion of the workers who built the line. That line of inquiry must be given up for good. I will however be able to expand upon other areas in the next few days. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:25, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've been doing some additions from the book. I'm essentially up to the point the New Haven took over now. It's a 1973 book, so it of course only covers up to 1973. I'm trying to meet Richard's concerns, but while there's some discussion of economic impact, it's not a focus of the book at all. I'm quite familiar with scholarship on railroads like this (I've been reading nonfiction books about trains since I was a small child), and it's not often that these things are a primary focus in literature. I will be finishing up my additions from the book today and tomorrow, and beyond that I really rest my case at this point. There's no other significant literature out there that would cover the early periods of the railroad. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:09, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, ping me when you've finished adding information from the book. Richard Nevell (talk) 23:12, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Richard Nevell: Having completed a large edit tonight, I'm essentially finished with my additions. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:06, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Richard ? Gog the Mild (talk) 14:18, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: The additions have enriched the article, and we're back on track. I've switched to support so full steam ahead. Richard Nevell (talk) 08:43, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Lee Vilenski

[edit]

I'll begin a review of this article very soon! My reviews tend to focus on prose and MOS issues, especially on the lede, but I will also comment on anything that could be improved. I'll post up some comments below over the next couple days, which you should either respond to, or ask me questions on issues you are unsure of. I'll be claiming points towards the wikicup once this review is over.

Lede
  • A successful railroad, the P&W - We haven't actually defined this as a shortening of the title. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:22, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I can rewrite the lead as "The Providence and Worcester Railroad (P&W) (reporting mark PW) is a Class II railroad...", but my concern is that the P&W would be redundant with the PW reporting mark. It's also pretty self-evident that P&W is referring to Providence and Worcester; there's nothing else mentioned in the lead it could apply to. If you don't agree about redundancy, I can add the (P&W) to the first sentence. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:48, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I've gone ahead and added this. We shouldn't be asking users to make logical jumps like this. I though P&W was a different company on first view. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:50, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The company turned a profit operating lines bigger companies lost money on, and invested heavily in improving its infrastructure. P&W also absorbed a number of shortline railroads in Connecticut and Rhode Island. - this might be excessive detail for a lede this long. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:22, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Respectfully disagree. I think it's important to dedicate a sentence or two to profiling the activities of the newly independent company. These two sentences are covering a time period of 25-30 years, from the return to independence in 1973 to the 1998 purchase of the Connecticut Central Railroad. Doing that in two sentences is pretty good, in my opinion. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:48, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • de, and the Providence and Worcester - why are we now typing this out in full?
    For variety. There's no reason not to alternate between the shortened and original forms as far as I'm aware, and in my opinion this makes for better and easier to read prose. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:48, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:22, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Prose
Additional comments

Additionally, if you liked this review, or are looking for items to review, I have some at my nominations list. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:10, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Lee Vilenski: are you planning to continue this review? Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:39, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Lee Vilenski ? Gog the Mild (talk) 14:18, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: Lee Vilenski did add some more comments on January 6, I just haven't gotten around to them yet. Will address them today. Richard on the other hand we are still waiting to hear from. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:31, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, if the above is covered, I'll be happy on the support most likely. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 22:30, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I know you're obviously busy with bureaucrat duties right now, but I believe I've addressed all your concerns. Take a look when you have time. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 03:25, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to keep coming back to you Lee Vilenski, but when you have a couple of minutes ... Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:24, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 11 January 2023 [32].

Felix of Burgundy

[edit]
Nominator(s): Amitchell125 (talk) 17:18, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the first bishop of the East Angles. Now largely forgotten, he was a key figure who introduced Christianity to the Anglo-Saxon kingdom of East Anglia. Amitchell125 (talk) 17:18, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review and image review

[edit]
  • Image licensing looks fine
  • The map is badly sandwiching the infobox
Sorted. Amitchell125 (talk) 06:57, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first paragraph of "Bishop of the East Angles" needs an inline citation
Now done. Amitchell125 (talk) 07:45, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Citations are not consistent. For example, " Bede, Book II, chapter 15." vs. "Bede 1999, p. 99." In the former citation it's not completely clear to me which modern edition is being cited.
Sorted. Amitchell125 (talk) 08:59, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Fryde et al., Handbook of British Chronology, p. 216." is an incomplete citation and not consistent with others in terms of formatting.
Sorted. Amitchell125 (talk) 07:54, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Queries Support by WereSpielChequers

[edit]

Presumably the beatification took place before the Catholic Orthodox divide as the infobox says he is a saint in the Anglican, RC and Orthodox churches. If records exist as to who beatified him and when it would be appropriate to cover that, if not perhaps the earliest record of him being listed as a saint?

All the sources I know of are silent about these details, and so I can only presume there is nothing to be found. I've added the ODNB's comment that his feast day was recorded by the Anglo-Saxons in 2 kalendars. Amitchell125 (talk) 20:31, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I hadn't realised that church records of that era were so sketchy. Might be worth adding a sentence to the effect that his beatification dates to before the church divide - so he is venerated in both the East and the West. ϢereSpielChequers 23:45, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Though the article says he made a church, and the images include two old churches dedicated to him, I'm fairly sure neither of these buildings were from anything like his era. Similarly there are two representations of him, but both are likely much later interpretations. Can I suggest some clarification at least in the captions as to this. E.G. the current St Felix church of X, parts of which were built in the 14th century. ϢereSpielChequers 15:28, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have amended three captions to clarify the dates of the structures. I have also taken out the Norwich Cathedral image, as (a) the statue is a modern replica of the original (b) it is by no means certain that the figure represents Felix (see here for the information I found about this). Amitchell125 (talk) 21:08, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I was wondering if the church could be described other than medieval? By some measures so was he, but that ruin was built when he was roughly as old as those ruins are now. I'm thinking how to convey that this story is about someone so ancient that little physical of his era survives to this day.
Tricky, but yes, it can be done. Amitchell125 (talk) 10:42, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nicely written and comprehensive. ϢereSpielChequers 23:45, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Unlimitedlead

[edit]
  • I don't think the disambiguation is necessary, seeing as "Felix" does not redirect to the article.
Neither do I, now removed. Amitchell125 (talk) 08:55, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please make sure the circa templates are formatted correctly. For example, c.630 should actually read c. 630. Look into the code of this sentence to see the proper formatting.
Sorted. Amitchell125 (talk) 08:58, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Normally, the first sentence would read: "Felix of Burgundy (died 8 March 647 or 648), also known as Felix of Dunwich, was a saint and..."
Sorted. Amitchell125 (talk) 09:08, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link saint in the first sentence to provide information for readers.
Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 09:11, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Linked the latter but not the former (see MOS:OL).
  • "...founded by the Irish missionary Columbanus—the existence of a Bishop of Châlons with the same name may not be a coincidence." What does this mean? I'm sure this information is further explained in the article, but just from reading the lead, I am not grasping the meaning of this provided excerpt.
Text amended, hopefully this is now clearer. Amitchell125 (talk) 16:30, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 09:42, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • You say "where boys could be taught letters", but is this a quotation from someone? If so, who said this? Besides, the lead is meant to summarize key points of the article, so this might not be appropriate here. If I am taking the meaning of this quote correctly, you could simply say that the school taught reading and writing, or something of that nature.
I've cited the words, which is a quote from Bede. I'd like to keep Bede's words in if that's all right. Amitchell125 (talk) 09:55, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 09:46, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please explain who Columbanus is before habitually mentioning him.
Done.
  • "The connection between the Wuffingas ruling dynasty and the abbess Burgundofara at Faremoutiers Abbey was an example of the associations that existed at the time between the Church in the kingdom of East Anglia and religious establishments in Francia." Is there a source/citation for this, or is this handled by citation seven?
It looks like the text needs to be cited, Currently working on this. Amitchell125 (talk) 16:27, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you did link relics (as seen above), remove the existing link in "Felix was buried at Dommoc, but his relics were at a later date removed to Soham, according to the 12th century English historian William of Malmesbury" to avoid overlinking.
MOS:DL allows linking "the first occurrence after the lead". Amitchell125 (talk) 09:49, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unlimitedlead (talk) 19:28, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by Borsoka

[edit]
  • Could we rather describe Bede as church historian/historian? In the context, this could be more relevant.
Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 16:37, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is possible that Felix was associated with Irish missionary activity in Francia, which was centred in Burgundy and was particularly associated with Columbanus and Luxeuil Abbey. Could this assumption be attributed to a scholar? Could the scholar's argumentation be shortly mentioned?
Text amended slightly by adding the historian's name. Amitchell125 (talk) 19:34, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consider shortening the paragraph about Columbanus into a short sentence. Columbanus is not the subject of the article and he may have not any connection with Felix.
Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 20:07, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consider shortening the paragraph about the Wuffingas, Burgundofara and Columbanus into one or two short sentences.
I considered doung that but on the whole feel i would like to retain it. Amitchell125 (talk) 16:33, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Wuffingas dynasty" > "Wuffingas dynasty of East England"; "the abbess Burgundofara" > "the Frankish abbess Bugundofara"
Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 07:46, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is possible that Felix may have become a political fugitive as a result of losing his see at Châlons following the death of Chlothar II in 629. I understand there are two assumptions: 1. Bishop Felix and Felix of Burgundy are identical. 2. Bishop Felix/Felix of Burgundy left his see for political reasons. Could these assumptions be differentiated and attributed to scholars?
Text hopefully clarified now. Amitchell125 (talk) 13:02, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consider mentioning that Felix was consecrated bishop in Burgundy in section "Background and early life".
Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 14:07, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Felix is mentioned in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, a collection of annals that was compiled in the late 9th century. The annal for 633 in "Manuscript A" of the Chronicle states that Felix "preached the faith of Christ to the East Angles". Consider rephrasing. Perhaps: "Felix is first mentioned in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle—a collection of annals compiled in the late 9th century—under the year 633. "Manuscript A" of the Chronicle states that Felix "preached the faith of Christ to the East Angles".
Done, thanks. Amitchell125 (talk) 16:57, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bede wrote how the exertions of Sigeberht, king of the East Angles,... I think a verb is missing.
Word replaced, hopefully it now makes better sense. Amitchell125 (talk) 16:53, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is the second quote from the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle separated from the introductory text? If you want to separate the texts, consider using a template.
@Borsoka: Sorry, I'm unclear what you mean here. Please could you specify which texts, and what template, you are referring to? Amitchell125 (talk) 16:45, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Summarize Bede's text based on a secondary source as per WP:SOURCE.
It looked alrady sorted, except for a citation, which I have added, and the words of Bede, which now look separated from the rest of the paragraph. Amitchell125 (talk) 17:13, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Later sources tend to differ from the version of events described by Bede and the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. Is this sentence verified by a reliable source?
It's not cited, and seems to be been written to introduce the next sentence, so I've amended the text. Amitchell125 (talk) 08:49, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Liber Eliensis, an English chronicle and history written at Ely Abbey in the 12th century, states that Felix came with Sigeberht from Francia, and was then made Bishop of East Anglia. I understand this sentence is verified only by a reference to the primary source (Liber Eliensis).
Change of heart, The LE source is considered unreliable by some experts, mentioning it adds little to the article, and finding a good enough citation is tricky—so text deleted. Amitchell125 (talk) 13:42, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to another version of the story... Whose version?
Text amended to say that it an East Anglian tradition that Felix arrived at Babingley. Amitchell125 (talk) 20:53, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Felix's arrival in East Anglia seems to have coincided with the start of a new period of order established by Sigeberht, following the assassination of Eorpwald and the three years of apostasy that occurred after Eorpwald's murder. Is the phrase "seems to have" necessary? If it is necessary, please attribute this assumption to a scholar.
Attribution added. Amitchell125 (talk) 08:53, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consider summarizing the historical events now mentioned in the last paragraph of section "Arrival in the kingdom of the East Angles". These events explain why Felix was dispatched to East Anglia.
Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 19:29, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • His accession may have been decisive in bringing Felix to East Anglia. Whose PoV is this?
Sentence amended to mention Marios Costambeys. Amitchell125 (talk) 19:30, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • ... Felix went to East Anglia because of Honorius at Canterbury ... I do not understand the sentence.
Text amended to clarify that, according to Blair's reading of Bede, Honorius prompted Felix to travel to East Anglia. Amitchell125 (talk) 19:41, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could the known facts and scholarly interpretations about the location of Felix's see be differentiated? For instance, "Soon after his arrival at Sigeberht's court, Felix established a church at Dommoc, his episcopal see, on the Suffolk coast. Domnoc is widely taken to mean Dunwich, a thriving town in the Middle Ages that has since been almost totally destroyed by the effects of coastal erosion. Alternatively, Felix's see may have been located at Walton where there was once a castra (Roman fort), Walton Castle, since washed away by the sea."
Text amended. Amitchell125 (talk) 13:27, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • A church and priory were dedicated to him there by Roger Bigod, 1st Earl of Norfolk, soon after 1106. Where?
Clarified. Amitchell125 (talk) 17:00, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bede related that Felix started a school, "where boys could be taught letters", to provide Sigeberht with teachers. The statement is only verified by a referenct to a primary source.
Source added.Amitchell125 (talk) 08:14, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...maintained by later sources... Maintained?
Sentence amended. Amitchell125 (talk) 16:58, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bede praised Felix for delivering "all the province of East Anglia from long-standing unrighteousness and unhappiness". The statement is only verified by a referenct to a primary source.
Source replaced. Amitchell125 (talk) 08:42, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Introduce Fursey.
Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 16:41, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps "Fenman" instead of "fenman" (like Highlander, Marsher lord....).
Done, almost looks right... Amitchell125 (talk) 16:44, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mention Soham Abbey instead of Soham, and link it.
Link moved. Amitchell125 (talk) 16:47, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link "canonized".
Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 16:40, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • He was canonised early enough to be is venerated in both the East and the West. I assume the sentence says that he was canonised before the Schism of 1054.
Correct, sentence amended to clarify this point. Amitchell125 (talk) 16:50, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to the mediaeval Custumal of Bury St Edmunds, known as the Liber Albus, Felix is said to have visited Babingley and 'maden... ... the halige kirke' – "built the holy church". Perhaps this info should be mentioned rather in the previous section ("Bishop of the East Angles").
Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 08:23, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will comment on the lead later. Thank you for this interesting article. Borsoka (talk) 02:43, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All my concerns were addressed above. I still have one question: when was Felix consecrated bishop before or after his arrival to East Anglia? Now the text suggests that he was consecrated bishop twice which is impossible as far as I know. Borsoka (talk) 02:50, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for spotting that, Borsoka. He was a bishop already, and as such was given the see at Dummoc. Text now clarified to avoid it sounding as if he was consecrated twice. Amitchell125 (talk) 08:10, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Borsoka, how is it now? Gog the Mild (talk) 11:28, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your patience. Now I support the promotion of the article. Borsoka (talk) 11:49, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Tim riley

[edit]

I had my say, such as it was, at PR, where there was precious little I could find to carp about. On two further rereadings now I can't find any more quibbles, except to ask if I am wrong in taking the spelling "Aquataine" on the excellent and helpful map to be a typo. (Incidentally, a pleasure to see Ekwall among your sources: it sits on the shelf nearest my desk alongside Fowler and Gowers and is a constant delight.) I am happy to support the elevation of this article to FA status. It seems to me to meet all the FA criteria. Tim riley talk 17:01, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Schrocat

[edit]

Very nicely written and meets the FA criteria as far as I can see. I made one slight tweak to the spelling ("traveling" to "travelling" - the double ll version is used elsewhere in the article). I have no subject knowledge here, so I do not pass comment on the completeness of sources used, etc, but simply the standard of prose and adherence to the MOS in relation to FA criteria. - SchroCat (talk) 10:17, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Ian

[edit]

Recusing coord duties to review, I lightly copyedited as usual so let me know if I misunderstood anything. At this moment I'd have to oppose owing to oddities in the prose, a bit surprising at this stage of the review; I'm sure these can be resolved though...

  • Sigeberht was the first English ruler to receive baptism before becoming king. Probably a son of Rædwald (ruled 599 to 624) and the brother of Rædwald's successor, Eorpwald. he was forced into exile during Rædwald's rule, after which he became a devout Christian and a man of learning. When Eorpwald was killed by Ricberht in about 627, who then rule the East Angles for three years. Sigeberht became king of the East Angles after Richberht's death in 630. -- Is the full stop after "Eorpwald" supposed to be a comma? Is the full stop after "three years" supposed to be a comma? And "who then rule..."? Something is up with the passage as it stands...
Now sorted. Amitchell125 (talk) 07:56, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Felix established a church at Dommoc, his episcopal see, which is widely taken to mean Dunwich -- To clarify, does this mean that a place called "Dommac" in the source(s) is widely taken to mean Dunwich?
That's correct, I've tweaked the text to hopefully help make that clearer. Amitchell125 (talk) 07:57, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Felix started a school, "where boys could be taught letters", to provide Sigeberht with teachers. -- Perhaps I missed something but it seems unusual to start a school to provide a king with teachers; aren't the boys the ones being taught?
The text is correct as it stands—the school would have a training ground to enable young priests to spread Christianity and learning throughout East Anglia (and beyond). Amitchell125 (talk) 08:11, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So can we elaborate the article text with that? Is it sourced? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:52, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Text amended. However, as one historian puts it, Bede generates as many questions as he does answers—I think this part of the article is a case in point. Amitchell125 (talk) 18:16, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some time later, "the body of the saint was looked for and found, and buried at Ramsey Abbey" -- To whom can this quote be attributed? William of Malmesbury?
Quote now attributed to William in the article. Amitchell125 (talk) 08:43, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • an apparent attempt to out-compete their rivals from the abbey at Ely -- I'm not sure "out-compete" is necessary in an encyclopedia, do we just mean "beat" or some such?
Sorted. Amitchell125 (talk) 08:46, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • He was canonized before the Schism of 1054, early enough to be is venerated in both the East and the West. -- "to be is"?
Sorted. Amitchell125 (talk) 08:47, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to the mediaeval Custumal of Bury St Edmunds, known as the Liber Albus, Felix is said to have visited Babingley and 'maden... ... the halige kirke' – "built the holy church" -- This statement is duplicated in succeeding sections, Bishop of the East Angles and Death and veneration; once should be enough surely...? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:56, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see both instances are gone now -- you don't need it anywhere now? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:52, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's in the Arrival section. Amitchell125 (talk) 18:18, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ian Rose: Duplication removed, above issues now addressed. Amitchell125 (talk) 08:57, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Tks for prompt attention AM, I'll re-read when I get a chance and come back to you. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:28, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Aside from the two queries above, pretty happy with those responses/actions, but pls check a few more copyedits I've made. Couple of other things arising from my re-read:
  • although his name prevents historians from conclusively identifying his nationality -- To clarify, is this simply because Felix was a common name in Europe, or what? I think some elaboration would be helpful if Blair or Costambeys provide such detail.
It was a common name, dating from Roman times (see here), and came from the Latin felix ('happy'). Neither Blair or Costambeys discuss the history of the name Felix though. Amitchell125 (talk) 15:27, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other historians, such as Richard Hoggett -- This is cited to Hoggett alone, so does he mention other historians sharing his view?
No, so text tweaked to remove Other historians. Amitchell125 (talk) 18:20, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:52, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your attention to these points, AM -- taking Buidhe's source and image reviews as read, happy to support. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 18:27, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 10 January 2023 [33].

Ole Miss riot of 1962

[edit]
Nominator(s): ~ HAL333 21:42, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've been working on this intermittently for a while, but after meeting Meredith in person, I got motivated and finished this in a whirlwind effort. Now largely forgotten, the riot was a key moment in the civil rights movement and saw President Kennedy unleash 30,000 troops to quell it — the most for a single disturbance in American history. ~ HAL333 21:42, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Avoid sandwiching text between images
  • Done.
  • Don't use fixed px size
  • Done. However, the stacked image template I added to fix the sandwiching uses px width parameters. Is that okay?
  • Some images are missing alt text
  • Done.
  • File:Edwin_A._Walker.jpg: is a more specific source available?
  • Unfortunately not. Image replaced.
  • File:US_Marshals_at_Ole_Miss_October_1962_cph.3c35522.jpg: when and where was this first published?
  • The Library of Congress entry states that it was published in a 2013 LOC ebook. But I'm not sure if that was the first publication.
  • The LOC says that the image was taken by the UPI and can be found in the New York World-Telegram and the Sun Newspaper Photograph Collection, suggesting that they published it. I assume it was right after the riot, but I don't know. The LOC also states regarding copyright: "No known restrictions on publication. No copyright renewal found in U.S. Copyright Office, 2012." ~ HAL333 04:17, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it's a NYWT image you'd be able to use PD-NYWT&S, but given that the LOC page suggests it's actually a UPI work, that might not be possible. Do you know if UPI generally renewed copyrights? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:35, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:President_and_Attorney_General_confer,_03_October_1962.jpg: source link is dead
  • File:Lyceum_NPS_plaque.png needs a tag for the original work. Ditto File:Monument_to_James_Meredith_-_Who_Desegregated_Ole_Miss_-_University_of_Mississippi_-_Oxford_-_Mississippi_-_USA_-_03.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:49, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I assume this is for the artists, right? I couldn't find any kind of artist for the plaque (it is just plain text after all). However, the statue was sculpted by Rod Moorhead. I'm not sure how to add these to the images. Is there some kind of template? ~ HAL333 06:54, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The template you're using exists on enwp but not Commons. Not sure if there is a Commons equivalent - you could look for one, or just use a non-template solution. Re the plaque, most likely, but you'd need to elaborate the sourcing in the image description and add an NPS tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:27, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Plaque is now fine; statue remains problematic. What do you believe to be the copyright status of the statue itself? If it's not PD or free, a derivative work of it can't be under a free license. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:35, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Information on the statue's copyright is basically nonexistent, unfortunately, so I decided just to remove it entirely. ~ HAL333


Comments

[edit]
  • "Meredith tried to integrate Ole Miss" - is there an appropriate wikilink for "integrate" in this context (here and in the body)? Younger readers and many outside the United States will be unfamiliar with this usage
  • Linked
  • "were dispatched to accompany Meredith during his registration to maintain civil order" - I think "were dispatched to accompany Meredith to maintain civil order during his registration" reads slightly better
  • I concur. I also removed the repetitive mention of his registration as it is present earlier in that same sentence.
  • "Reporters, US marshals, and the U.S. Deputy Attorney General" - US both with and without dots - is this correct?
  • No, and removed all instances of "US"
  • "The riot, and the federal crackdown, was" => "The riot and the federal crackdown were"
  • Fixed.
  • "and avoid federal troop deployment, as had happened" - which had happened? Troop deployment or the avoidance of troop deployment
  • Edited for clarity
  • "President Kennedy federalized the Mississippi National Guard" - I don't personally know what this means, is there a way to explain without adding too much verbiage?
  • Essentially, he converted state troops into federal/national troops. I thought about adding "(thus bringing it under federal control)" but that seemed a little bulky/redundant. I added a Wiktionary link to "federalize" instead. Does that work?
  • "were less likley to upset Mississippians" - likely is spelt incorrectly
    Fixed.
  • "They began assaulting reporters" => "The protesters began assaulting reporters" for total clarity
  • Done.
  • "By this point, they evacuated the wounded" - I would think this should be either "At this point, they evacuated the wounded" or "By this point, they had evacuated the wounded"
    Fixed.
  • "They were likely not killed by stray fire from the feds" - I am no expert but isn't "feds" a bit slangy? Like calling police "cops"?
  • Fair point.
@ChrisTheDude: All comments addressed. Thanks for the help. ~ HAL333 20:15, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by FrB.TG

[edit]

Not my area of "expertise" but I'm trying to expand my horizons as a reviewer.

  • "Hoping to avoid violence and ensure Meredith's enrollment, President John F. Kennedy" - I don't think we necessarily need "President" here as we've already established that in the first paragraph.
  • I removed "John F." because it is repetitive but I kept "President" to differentiate him from RFK. Is that okay?
  • "27 marshals received gunshot wounds" - not a very good practice to start a sentence with a number.
  • "including a French journalist" - perhaps extend the link pipe to "a"? As it stands, it's a little too WP:EASTEREGG-y.
  • "20 months", "2,000 people" - WP:NBSP needed
  • Billinglea decided to divide the MP "Task Force Alpha" into two - if he indeed did do that, I would remove "decided to".
  • Kennedy underestimated the "extent to which segregation in the South was undergirded by violence." Full stop after the quotation mark, per MOS:LQ.

Good read. I expect to support once these minor concerns are addressed. FrB.TG (talk) 17:42, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@FrB.TG: All comments addressed. Nice catches. ~ HAL333 18:33, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support on prose. FrB.TG (talk) 18:53, 22 December 2022 (UTC) If you have the time and interest, I would appreciate comments on my FAC but it's obviously not required in any way.[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt

[edit]
  • "Throughout the night," I might say "During the night" and even tell the reader what night it was (dates)
  • "President Kennedy issued an Oval Office Address," I might say he "made" the address. Or even "addressed the nation from the Oval Office" with links as appropriate.
  • "maintain civil order" I'd strike "civil".
  • Did Brown apply to public colleges or was there some other decision that Meridith acted under?
  • That's a great question—that had never occurred to me... The sources are fustratingly opaque as to whether Brown only applied to primary and secondary public schools. Brown did overturn Berea College v. Kentucky, but that only applied to private universities. McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents is also relevant (On an aside, that case fascinates me because the Meredith-equivalent—McLaurin—disappeared. Some say he was killed and others think he went to more hospitable Mexico. I tend to believe the latter.) but none of the literary sources mention it in the context of Meredith's plight and it seems to apply moreso to grad school. Regardless, most of the texts seem to frame Meredith's application in Brown's aftermath and the tense atmosphere it created. If the RS do it, I think it's okay to use it to 'set the stage'. ~ HAL333 01:07, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Probably more famous is Sweatt v. Painter, but again, that was a law school. Wehwalt (talk) 13:23, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • You might want to establish that RFK was JFK's brother before talking about "the Kennedy brothers"
  • "half time" Surely "halftime"?
  • "Barnett issued" better "Barnett made"
  • I might link rector to the appropriate article.
  • "to the campus; Barnett never did" suggest, "to the campus, which he never did" (to avoid the repetition of "Barnett")
  • "Lieutenant Governor Johnson Jr. " I don't think you add Jr. under these circumstances. Also I'd delete the Jr. later in the paragraph.
  • "persuaded a large group of state troopers against travelling to the campus and launching an armed attack on the marshals." perhaps "talked a large group of state troopers out of going to the campus and launching an armed attack on the marshals".
  • "town-center" I'd delete the hyphen.
  • "At this point, they evacuated the wounded" Who is "they"? Given what comes before, it might be assumed to be the rioters.
That's it. Very interesting.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:24, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Wehwalt: I appreciate the comments. All addressed except for Brown. ~ HAL333 01:07, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. Support Wehwalt (talk) 13:23, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SC

[edit]
Kennedy dialogue and escalating tensions
  • "the Fifth Circuit found Barnett to be in contempt of court and threatened to imprison Barnett and fine him $10,000": "imprison him" would be better.
Refs
  • It looks like the page ranges are shown in the format 1—2, using an em dash. It should be 1–2, using an endash (per MOS:PAGERANGE).

Aside from that, I made a couple of edits here, which should be in line with the MOS; if I've changed a spelling from US to BrEng, feel free to revert those. - SchroCat (talk) 13:49, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't realize there were that many typos - good eye. All comments addressed. Thanks, ~ HAL333 17:19, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All good - Support. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 17:33, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Some of the details in the infobox/lead don't appear to be cited anywhere - eg the number of injuries
  • FN110: author name is backwards
  • FN106: is this an authorized republication?
  • Check alphabetization of Works cited
  • There are no citations to the first listed Eagles work. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:58, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • All addressed. Regarding the unsourced content in the IB, I removed the 300 injured mention and sourced "Meredith v. Fair". That's all I could find, unless I missed something. ~ HAL333 09:06, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nikkimaria, how is this one now? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:23, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good to go. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:47, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from mujinga

[edit]

Thanks for the article, just a few queries from me Mujinga (talk) 15:47, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • "and hijacked vehicles" - more than the fire engine mentioned in the body?
  • There's also the bulldozer-I just clarified that it was stolen. Perusing the sources, I found that the rioters were driving around in at least one of the cars they later burned, but communicating that made the sentence a little ungainly. ~ HAL333 02:01, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "elected to send federal agents as they appeared more civilian and were less likely to upset Mississippians" - i think i see what you mean here, but can you make it more explicit, like they weren't wearing military uniforms or whatever
  • I reworded it slightly for clarity. They were effectively a paramilitary force—they wore steel combat helmets, some had bandoliers and military-style vests, and they carried grenade launchers and guns (as seen in the truck photo in the "Aftermath" section). ~ HAL333 03:01, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • A triumph of law and order, Meredith's admission "crushed forever" the segregationist tactic of massive resistance. - who said crushed forever?
  • It was Doyle, the author of the cited text (which I feel is implicit). The sentence seemed ungainly when I tried to insert atrribution, however, (somewhat regrettably) I can word it in plain english sans the quote if you want. ~ HAL333 02:20, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would rather you make it explicit and say something like "Historian William Doyle, author of An American Insurrection wrote that..." but it's not a massive point for me so I can wait to see what other people think. Mujinga (talk) 14:46, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done.
  • Some observers have gone so far as to call it the symbolic final battle of the Civil War, a final failed push to enact "state sovereignty" in opposition to federal power - who are some observers, who said "state sovereignty"
  • in legacy, could you perhaps add a sentence or two about how other universities later desegregated, for wider context?
    • Per The Race Beat (a Pulitzer winner and a great read): "most southern states had long before integrated their institutions of higher learning". For instance, the University of Arkansas (the same state where we had the Little Rock Nine) integrated way back in 1948. The only notable event post-Ole Miss I can think of is Alabama (which is currently mentioned). And rereading the sources, (besides speaking in broad strokes about the civil rights movement) the only event that the books discussed as being directly influenced by the Ole Miss riot is Alabama. Nevertheless, I expanded that legacy paragraph slightly. ~ HAL333 03:22, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, so I was betraying my ignorance here in asking about later desegregation - I think the sentence you added helps clarify matters. Following the above, I would ask then for another sentence saying that most southern universities had already desegregated. Mujinga (talk) 14:46, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a fair point and helps frame the riot in its historical context. I added a sentence to the background section, which seemed a more natural fit. ~ HAL333 16:29, 8 January 2023 (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) 9 January 2023 [34].

MLS Cup 1999

[edit]
Nominator(s): SounderBruce 05:34, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Amid another wild Major League Soccer playoffs, I think it's fitting to write about the league's first cup rematch. The Los Angeles Galaxy and D.C. United played each other three years earlier in my previous MLS Cup FAC at the very same stadium, so I found it fit to nominate this one three years later. This article was written a few years ago and underwent a GOCE copyedit over the summer, with some additional tweaks. SounderBruce 05:34, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]
  • "The Galaxy hired Sigi Schmid" - as.....?
    • Fixed.
  • "The match was played six days after a home game for the New England Patriots" - maybe clarify that the Patriots are an American football team?
    • Added league name.
  • "a match against the Tampa Bay Mutiny that ended in a 4–2 comeback victory" - a victory for which team?
    • Added team name.
  • "The team then lost three consecutive matches [....] because four starting players and three reserves were injured" - can we really state definitively that they lost because of these players being injured? I mean, it probably didn't help, but I doubt it could be proven that the defeats were specifically down to this.....
    • Reworded.
  • "The second leg in Florida ended 0{–0" - stray punctuation mark in there
    • Fixed.
  • "United played the Columbus Crew, who had defeated the Tampa Bay Fusion" - think there's a typo there as to the best of my knowledge there has never been a Tampa Bay Fusion
    • Whoops, I accidentally combined the two Florida teams. Fixed.
  • "Roy Lassiter scored early for United in sixth minute" => "Roy Lassiter scored early for United in the sixth minute"
    • Fixed.
  • "Jaime Moreno scored in the 17th minute and was joined by a brace from Roy Lassiter" - no need to restate full names when they were only mentioned a couple of sentences earlier
    • Fixed.
  • "that Jolley misplayed and fell to Lassiter" => "that was misplayed by Jolley and fell to Lassiter"
    • Fixed.
  • "The Galaxy protested to Weyland the ball had crossed the line" => "The Galaxy protested to Weyland that the ball had crossed the line"
    • Fixed.
  • "After the match, Hartman attributed his miscue on the second goal on" => "After the match, Hartman attributed his miscue on the second goal to"
    • Fixed.
  • "Schmid was also suspended for first match" => "Schmid was also suspended for the first match"
    • Fixed.
  • That's what I got! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:13, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@ChrisTheDude: Thanks for the review. I've made all the needed corrections to the article. SounderBruce 18:15, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Lee Vilenski

[edit]

I'll begin a review of this article very soon! My reviews tend to focus on prose and MOS issues, especially on the lede, but I will also comment on anything that could be improved. I'll post up some comments below over the next couple days, which you should either respond to, or ask me questions on issues you are unsure of. I'll be claiming points towards the wikicup once this review is over.

Lede
Prose
Additional comments

Additionally, if you liked this review, or are looking for items to review, I have some at my nominations list. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:22, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Lee Vilenski: Thanks for the review. Is there more you'd like to comment on? SounderBruce 22:53, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy ping once again: Lee Vilenski. SounderBruce 19:39, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:MLS_Cup_99_logo.gif: source link is dead, and suggest tailoring the FUR to this subject a bit more
  • File:Foxborostade_crop_1.png is quite poor quality. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:07, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fixed the logo FUR and source link. The satellite image is the only free-licensed picture of the host venue, so its encyclopedic value is important despite its low quality. I'm attempting to figure out how to get a comparable satellite view out of NASA WorldWind, but the software doesn't work as smoothly with modern PCs. SounderBruce 02:47, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

Footnote numbers refer to this version

  • You use the location parameter on FN 19, but on no other citations. I thought this might be because the location is not evident from the name of the website, but you don't give a location for the Sun-Sentinel (FN 2) either, for example. --
    • Removed from FN 19.
  • You use the publisher parameter in two cases: FN 120, which does not use the work/website parameter; and several MLS citations, e.g. 14 and 97, which use the domain name rather than the website name for the website/work parameter. I think this should be "MLS" rather than "MLSSoccer.com" or "MLSnet.com" for the website name -- the domain name doesn't show up in the branding on those websites. And I don't think the publisher is necessary in those cases. For the BBC I would think the same applies; it would be more consistent to use "BBC Sport" as the website name and eliminate the publisher.
    • My intent is to only use MLS as the publisher for league press releases and other official announcements; MLSnet (now MLSsoccer) is a semi-independent arm of the league that is free to publish more casual pieces or even report on trade rumors and the like. I've swapped over BBC to be in line with how it is used in European cup final articles.
  • The links for FN 17 & 39 don't work and no archive links are given.

Sources are all reliable. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:13, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pass. I see MLSnet.com was the actual brand of the website, so that's OK; for MLSsoccer I don't see them using any clear branding other than MLS, so I think it's OK to use the domain name there as long as you're consistent. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:18, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie

[edit]
  • "despite coaching changes": a coaching change doesn't automatically implement an unsuccessful season, surely?
    • Switched. Usually a mid-season coaching change signals trouble for a team and it's rare for them to top the conference.
  • "The 1999 match was also played at the same venue, Foxboro Stadium, and was the first of four consecutive MLS Cup appearances for United." The 1999 match was the last of those four appearances, wasn't it? I think the problem is in the first half of the sentence though. Perhaps "The 1996 match had also been played at Foxboro Stadium, and the 1999 final was the fourth consecutive MLS Cup appearance for United."
    • Sounds fine to me.
  • There's quite a bit of detail about the 1999 season for each club -- details of individual matches, player acquisitions in the offseason, results on the U.S. Open Cup and CONCACAF Champion's Cup, key player injuries, end of year player and coach awards. In an article about an English football team I would expect to see this detail in an article about the season, not an article about an individual match. I don't see season articles for the Galaxy; can you say how this sort of detail is divided up amongst various articles for MLS teams? If this article is the place where the most detail is expected on a season, I would think the article has the wrong title. If not, then it seems more than is needed for this article.
    • The format for MLS Cup articles generally uses a layout that mixes elements of international soccer and American sports final articles; the latter includes regular season summaries to provide additional context. Since the regular season result does play a major role in playoffs positioning, I think it's worth including.
      I don't think that quite answers my question. I can see that at least a couple of sentences about the regular season need to be included, as you say, but there's a great deal of detail here that has nothing at all to do with the match. To ask the question another way, if I'm a Wikipedia reader and I want to read about the Galaxy's 1999 season, what article do you think I should go to? Surely not this one, which is about a single match? And if this article isn't the primary article about the season, there's too much detail here. I think you only need three or four sentences, not the four paragraphs that the season gets for the Galaxy here. The season is context, but it's not the topic of thee article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:57, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Trimmed back the regular season summary from 3 paragraphs down to 2, which I feel is balanced with the opener that covers the previous season(s) and off-season moves and the closing 2 paragraphs for the playoffs. SounderBruce 08:09, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      That's improved, but I'm still not clear how the articles about the 1999 season break up the content. According to the lead, this article isn't about the whole post-season -- it's only about the single final match. If every article about 1999 MLS were to be brought to FAC, what would that consist of? Is there going to be a 1999 MLS playoffs article? An article for each team's season? The FAC criteria don't require you to answer that question but at the moment it feels to me like I should oppose on "excessive detail" and understanding how the articles are going to divide up the 1999 MLS content might mean I could agree with you on this article's level of detail. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:56, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      The "Road/Route to the final" section is standard among sports final articles, especially in soccer. Several existing soccer FAs (MLS Cup 1996, 1998 FIFA World Cup Final, 2019 FA Cup Final, 1981 UEFA Cup Final, 2014 U.S. Open Cup Final) have such sections and go into even more detail at times. This article only has the season and playoffs details for the two finalists, whereas an article on the 1999 MLS Cup Playoffs would have summaries for each match (and go further in-depth). SounderBruce 19:09, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm not going to oppose over this, but I'm afraid I can't support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:56, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...now holds the record..." needs an "as of".
    • Added with source.
  • "Galaxy won the tournament": shouldn't this be "The Galaxy won..."?
    • Fixed; it was a leftover from the last copyedit that I missed.

I've copyedited a little; let me know if I screwed anything up. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:51, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie: Thank you for your comments and copyedits. I've responded to the points raised above. SounderBruce 04:54, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note to coordinators: I am neither supporting nor opposing. I think there's too much detail in the article about the prior season, so I am unable to support. I think it's a matter of opinion rather than a clear violation of the "excessive detail" criterion, so I don't feel justified in opposing. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:56, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie: May I ask that you reconsider your decision on this review? FACR no. 4 states that an article should "stay focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail", which I believe this article satisfies more than it did at the time of nomination. With the latest trimming, there are now 6 paragraphs dedicated to the preseason and regular season of both finalists and 6 paragraphs for the match summary itself (excluding the match rules change and aftermath). As the playoffs are an extension of the cup, they would also need to be covered in more detail than the regular season but not as much as the final's summary. I believe this is balanced and offers readers the appropriate context to answer why these two teams were in the final to begin with; a shorter summary would have to leave out the hardships suffered by United due to their inconsistent lineups or the Galaxy's dominance under their new head coach. SounderBruce 03:32, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I did have another look today, and I honestly don't feel I can support. I know other articles about the 1999 MLS season are not your problem. I also know that it's perfectly reasonable to repeat information from one article in another, when there's a significant overlap -- I did that with Astonishing Stories and Super Science Stories, and in fact if I recall correctly I asked at WT:FAC if it would be a problem and the answer was that it would not be a problem. But here some of the details of the 1999 season that you give seem so remote from the game played on 21 November 1999. Something like Calichman being traded away a year earlier -- sure, that impacts their season, but this isn't the article about the season; it's not even the article about the playoffs, for which I think you could probably make a slightly better case for the details, since league position is how you get to the playoffs. It's an article about the last game of the playoffs. I believe the article meets all the other criteria. How about starting a conversation at whatever the appropriate WikiProject would be? If we get a consensus that disagrees with me I'll probably switch to support, but as it stands I can't. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:23, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Mike Christie: Based on the feedback here and in the WikiProject discussion, I have cut both regular season summaries. SounderBruce 12:06, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In case any other reviewers want to comment, SounderBruce has started a discussion about this here. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:45, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support, since the season summaries have been reduced further. Personally I'd cut a couple more sentences, but I think it's now within the range of editor discretion and does not conflict with the FA criteria. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:37, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

[edit]

Recusing to review.

  • "Conference Semifinals ... Conference Finals". Why the upper case S and F.
    • They are proper names and MLS capitalized them consistently at the time.
  • LA Galaxy seem to refer to themself as "LA Galaxy". The articles uses "Los Angeles Galaxy". Is there a consensus of HQ RSs to support this?
    • Prior to their 2007 rebranding, the club used "Los Angeles Galaxy" far more than its shortened version; Google Books nGrams also shows that "LA Galaxy" only became prominent around 2024 and did not surpass the original until 2013.
  • The article is titled "MLS Cup 1999", but there is only a single sentence in the lead on the match. Am I missing something? MOS:LEAD suggests "the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic".
    • The lead was expanded as part of the GA review. I can ping the reviewer to see if they have thoughts on what the balance should be, but I'm not opposed to trimming it down.
I make no comment on whether the lead generally needs trimming (although see below), but currently the summary in the lead of the sub-section "Summary" does not, IMO, meet MOS:LEAD.
  • "and was narrowed." What does this mean?
    • The width of the pitch was narrowed. Reordered for clarity.
  • "from five to four as a cost-saving measure." How did this save money for MLS? (As opposed to for the teams, who I assume paid any fees and salaries involved.) Why was it felt that costs needed to be saved? In what way is this relevant to the 1999 MLS Cup?
    • MLS is a single-entity league, so all costs are shared by the league, including salaries. The rule change led to some changes for both finalists in the preseason (namely United losing 4 players, which contributed to their lineup troubles later on), so it is a relevant piece of context.
If it is relevant, why is the explanation provided above not included in the article?
  • "MLS Cup 1999 was contested by ..." Why no definite article.
    • A quirk of American English that also applies to the Super Bowl, where no definite article is needed when talking about specific editions but would if it was "the MLS Cup" or "the MLS Cup final" on their own.
  • "Los Angeles Galaxy" section. I read the first paragraph and had to stop part way and go back to the beginning. Why is there information on the 1998 season. How does this relate to the 1999 cup game?
    • The previous year's performance is usually part of a cup final article, but I have reworded it to focus on the years between cup appearances rather than just the 1998 season.
  • "head coach Octavio Zambrano signed several young American players". 1. Is it known how many the "several" was? 2. Why specify "American"? (Were some or all of the three players who left not American?)
Any reason why readers can't be told this? And my query 1?
    • Two of the departing players were international talents; at the time, signing young Americans to replace them would have been a risky gamble due to their unknown quality.
  • "lost three consecutive matches where they scored only three goals." In each match or in total?
    • The latter; added.
  • "By the end of May ... with a 5–6 record ... The team won three of five matches in July to reach second in the West with a 12–8 record". From this I calculate that they won all four matches they played in June. Why is this not mentioned?
    • It is mentioned in the last sentence of the second paragraph.
  • "a 20–12 record and 54 points". How are points allocated in the MLS?
    • Three for a win, one for a shootout win, zero for a loss; there were no ties until the 2000 season.
This may be worth mentioning. Entirely optional, but if it were me I would put it in a footnote.
  • "and failed to score in five consecutive matches." Was that thei 'their last five consecutive matches'?
    • Fixed.
  • "The Galaxy hosted the first leg and won 3–0 despite a red card in the 18th minute for midfielder Simon Elliott. The Galaxy had been leading from an eighth-minute strike from defender Ezra Hendrickson and extended it to 2–0 from a penalty scored in the 52nd minute by Greg Vanney; five minutes later, Mathis scored the match's final goal with a strike that Colorado goalkeeper Ian Feuer deflected into the net." Can I recommend that this is rewritten in chronological order.
    • Redone.
  • "having taken advantage of the Burn's weakened defense in their starting lineup." In what way was it weakened?
    • Added mention of the injury and suspension without naming the players, ad it would overburden the summary.
  • There seems an awful lot of information on the Galaxy's route to the match that the article is about, proportional to that on the actual MLS Cup 1999. 748:731 in terms of words. There are 725 words in "Match", compared with 1,745 in "Road to the final". [!] While the FAC criterea require that an article "places the subject in context", they also require that "[i]t stays focused on the main topic ... and uses summary style."
    • @Gog the Mild: Thanks for picking up this article for review. I have started a discussion at WT:FOOTY about how long/comprehensive a Road to the final section should be, but generally for finals where the competing teams are chosen through merit, there has to be sufficient context as to how they got there. It's no different for many other sports finals FAs that I linked above in the discussion with Mike Christie (such as 2016 FA Cup Final or 2001 UEFA Cup Final). For this section, like most other MLS cup final articles that have passed GAN and FAC, there is one paragraph with the previous season and offseason changes, two (or more) for the regular season where seeding for the playoffs is determined, and two (or more) paragraphs for the playoffs themselves.
"It's no different for many other sports finals FAs that I linked above in the discussion with Mike Christie (such as 2016 FA Cup Final or 2001 UEFA Cup Final)." No it isn't. Your Match:Road to the final (excluding "Details") word ratio is 1:2.4 compared with 0.85 for the 2016 FA Cup Final and 0.96 for the 2001 UEFA Cup Final. Ie, each of these provides less information on immediate background than on topic of the article, while you provide nearly two-and-a-half times as much. A startling difference. The two articles which you reference seem to have a sensible degree of context and to "stay[] focused on the main topic" while yours does not. I am basing this on an objective word count, I have not read either of these articles, but they absolutely are not "no different". I also suggest that you address my query as to how this article meets the criteria rather attempting to establish a precedent. (Especially when you chose comparators which establish the opposite.)

SounderBruce 01:32, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to pause and await your responses to the above, before deciding whether I need to review further. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:37, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Having read the nominator's responses and the discussion at WikiProject Football I am actually less happy than I was before. I am leaning oppose and see no reason to review the rest of the article unless and until my qualms over FAC criteria 2 "It follows the style guidelines" (MOS:LEAD) and 4 "It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and uses summary style" are resolved. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:31, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: The contentious sections have been cut down. Will you be able to continue this review? SounderBruce 12:09, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure, but not before the lead was rewritten so that "the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic". Gog the Mild (talk) 21:34, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The lead has been rewritten to add extra content on the match and reduce the amount covering the regular season and playoffs. SounderBruce 03:47, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: Forgot to ping. SounderBruce 17:43, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead is much better. You might, optionally, consider running the second and third paragraphs together.
  • The "Road" section still seems overlong in elation to the "Match" section; 1,266 words to 920. And that is with "Match rules" generously being included in the total for "Match". However, "Road" includes a little of what would normally be included in a 'Background' section, so I suppose that I can just about grit my teeth re criterion 4. The closing coordinator may quite reasonably disagree. Otherwise you have a quality article, so I am going to support. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:49, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from TAOT

[edit]

This is mostly drive-by; for full disclosure we were discussing this briefly on the Discord server. Having read the relevant sections, the discussion here, and the discussion at WPFOOTBALL, my stance is there needs to be a decent amount of background information provided. I do think this article goes into somewhat more detail than I would like to see, but this comes with the caveat that I am by no means a subject-matter expert in sports (I last played soccer in 2nd grade). I'd prefer each team's background sections being cut down to four paragraphs rather than five. With that said, I'm not sure it's to the point I would actively oppose the article's promotion, assuming it otherwise meets the FA criteria. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:49, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Support by Amakuru

[edit]

The single-match football final now has a fairly well-established format, as established at several FACs by both myself and The Rambling Man, so I'll be looking to the format of those others, e.g. 2014 FIFA World Cup Final in deciding what I think is missing or overdetailed from this article. Here are a few thoughts on structure to start, I'll hopefully do a more detailed prose review if these are addressed:

  • A lot of what's in the first paragraphs of "Road to the final" is actually what would normally go in a "Background"; that's details about the structure of the competition, how many teams play in it, when it was inaugurated that sort of thing.
    • MLS Cup final articles have been structured this way for years with no issue (see MLS Cup 1996 or the numerous GAs); I'd rather follow the precedent set in American articles first and foremost.
  • Prior performances in the competition of the two finalists of the 1999 MLS Cup can also go here, including a brief mention of any prior finals they were involved in.
    • This was removed per the above reviews.
  • Personally I wouldn't have a separate "Venue" section, I'd fold that into "Background", but probably not a show-stopper.
    • The venue is pre-determined through a bidding process akin to the Super Bowl, and there were additional considerations (field width and quality) that need to be explained for context.
  • The FIFA final articles usually mention the match ball, but if there's not much to say about that then fine to omit.
    • The match ball is the same that was used for the season, but I don't have a reliable source on the specific model or type.
  • Road to the final: The table-within-a-table format is now not permitted by MOS:ACCESS. I'd suggest either omitting the tables altogether, as per the World Cup articles, or maybe separate them out as we see at 2017 EFL Championship play-off Final (it's tricky though, since MLS has two tables to show rather than just the one found in an English league).
    • The tables are needed to provide sufficient context, especially since the points system is different from the modern MLS.
  • A "pre-match" section is required, detailing who the referee was and assistant referees, any injury issues for either team leading up to the game, a pre-match ceremony if there was one, national anthems, celebrity appearances, all that jazz.
    • Beyond the names of the referees and possibly the injured players, none of this information is available through reliable sources. MLS coverage was very much limited to beat writers at this point. I put the national anthem singer in the Broadcasting section due to their participation in the half-time show, which would make it awkward to include as a Pre-match activity.
  • Oh, and additionally the match summary in the lead should be a bit longer than it is. Remember, this article is about the match, so at the very least more detail on how the goals were scored, and any major chances or saves in the remaining part of the game.

Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 10:38, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • The lead has two paragraphs for the match summary, which I believe is sufficient. SounderBruce 17:43, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Given that per the comments above, my points have not been addressed, I an oppose at the present time. Certainly I can understand differences in structure and layout from other match FAs, but omitting key information present in other articles means that we're missing fundamental building blocks for an article of this type, in particular prior performances and mention of prior finals. Without this information, it fails WP:FA? criterion 1b (comprehensive). And also the lead is not long enough as noted above - the match summary is only one paragraph... the next one is more about the aftermath and background info such as game clock changes. Finally, MOS:ACCESS is not optional; a table within a table is a clear breach, meaning this article will not render correctly on screen-readers. Hopefully the above issues can be resolved, then I can continue with a prose review here. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 21:24, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Your comment said that the tables are "now permitted". Is that a mistake? As for the lack of information, it's simply not available in the newspapers, books, and archived websites I have on hand, especially from reliable sources. This was one of the earliest MLS Cups, so it received far less media coverage than a modern one would. SounderBruce 00:06, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Apologies, I meant "not" rather than "now"... silly mistake! Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 15:00, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Amakuru: I've split up the tables, which should hopefully help with accessibility compliance (though I don't have an easy way of checking). The other changes requested simply aren't feasible due to the lack of available information about the final's match ball, referees, or ceremonies without going into OR territory. SounderBruce 06:37, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @SounderBruce: thanks for the update and note. I'm a little busy today but will have another look in the next few days. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 09:15, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Amakuru, can you revisit now? Tks and Happy New Year, Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:33, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ian Rose and SounderBruce: sorry it's taken me so long to get back to this, but I'm willing to accept the assertion that the sourcing doesn't exist for some of the things I was looking for here. I've scanned through the article and it looks good to me otherwise, and thanks for splitting out the tables. Happy to support. Good work, cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 21:06, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note

[edit]

Just walking through the article with a view to promoting, a couple of referencing points:

  • I don't think every result under Playoffs is mentioned/cited elsewhere in the article.
  • Perhaps I missed something but under Details I couldn't spot in the cited source (Gutierrez) where the players' countries of origin were given.

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:52, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ian Rose: Added a citation for the playoff results. As for the nationalities, these are usually not cited for soccer articles (e.g. 2020 FA Cup Final) and are hard to source due to the lack of a centralized database or list. The team rosters (e.g. this 2000 one for DC) only list their hometowns and previous clubs/colleges, which do not necessarily correspond with the FIFA nationalities, which can be a country of origin, country of citizenship, or country with ancestral ties. Removing the nationalities may require consensus from WP:FOOTY, since it would be inconsistent with thousands of other entries on matches and clubs. SounderBruce 00:29, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Tks for the playoff citations. Re. the player nationalities/flags, I'm not aware of such an exception to referencing requirements. Specialist WikiProject conventions don't trump MOS or CITE. This isn't like the sky being blue, it's not even as obvious as the numbers on the players' backs. If there's any doubt or confusion, that's all the more reason for citing them. If you want to include information, difficulties in referencing don't negate the need. In fact, if there's no single source that lists the players in this match with their nationalities, I'd question how common it really is to display them. It might be ubiquitous in WP, but we should reflect reliable sources, not editor preferences. Incidentally the last time I brought this up at a soccer FAC it was actioned quite simply and quickly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:19, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd second this... a WikiProject doesn't have the authority to mandate something uncited to be left in an FA article. The absence of this in other FA-level football finals is an oversight that I've previously not noticed when nominating and reviewing such articles, not a precedent to follow. I've had a quick look and unlike the 2015 FA Cup Final, unfortunately there doesn't seem to be an immediately obvious reliable source detailing all player nationalities in one page for the 1999 MLS Cup. Maybe you one can find one, but otherwise I suspect the options are either to remove the flags, which IMHO aren't essential for this article, or else to put a citation against each player individually, confirming his nationality, onerous though that is. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 11:51, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ian Rose: Removed the nationalities, as it is not worth the extra work to find suitable citations for each player. MLS Cups do not have the benefit of 100+ years of history with meticulous recordkeeping, so resources are scant and often lost to the unarchived void of the early 2000s Internet. SounderBruce 20:41, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay tks, I think we can wrap this up now. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:09, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 9 January 2023 [35].

New Jersey's 1927 biannual elections proposal

[edit]
Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 23:53, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about... an incident in the history of New Jersey, the state where I grew up, that I learned about, oddly enough, when I was playing College Bowl as an undergrad and a question came up mentioning it and asking us to differentiate biennial and biannual, as the legislature of New Jersey had some trouble doing. I've been meaning to write this for years and finally have enough material to put it at FAC. New Jersey is not famous for spelling or grammar, and, as this article will show you, there's some reason for that. Enjoy.Wehwalt (talk) 23:53, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from HAL

[edit]

This made me chuckle. Here's what I noticed:

  • I would link Jersey City in the lead, as you do in the body.
  • "That document, which would remain in force until 1947" - "which remained in force...". More concise.
  • Maybe add {{See also|History of the New Jersey State Constitution}} the Background section. Feel free not to
  • Unlike the two other fellows, A. Harry Moore isn't linked in his caption.
  • "Legislators could have re-passed" --> I think it's just "repassed"
  • "The Bergen Evening Record editorialized" --> Should "The" be italicized as well?
  • There is a duplicate link of The New York Times
  • I would link Parimutuel betting for the uninitiated

That's all. ~ HAL333 23:40, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I got those things. Thanks for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:51, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
( Peanut gallery comment) The Record (North Jersey) tends to include "the" in the proper name of the paper, so I agree with HAL's suggestion that it be italicized. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 18:48, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. In my youth I was a paper boy for The Record so I should have known. Wehwalt (talk) 19:52, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by FrB.TG

[edit]
  • Before the proposal could be put before the voters for final approval, it was noticed that it provided that Assembly members, instead of being elected biennially, once in two years, as was meant, were to be chosen "biannually", meaning they were to be elected twice a year. The three parentheses between "assembly members" and "were to be chosen" make the sentence a little hard to read.
  • "Prior to 1926" - I would just use "before" and have one less word.
  • "In 1915, amendments for women's suffrage, allowing excess condemnation" - I feel like there's something missing after suffrage because it looks like an incomplete sentence (without the verb-ing modifier)."
  • "Several amendments, sponsored by Assemblyman Clifford R. Powell of Burlington County, a Republican.[8] were" - there should be a comma after "Republican" instead of full stop.
  • "...trying to get rid of a watch dog, the Democratic governor, that the people had placed to guard against Republican excesses" - it reads as if the watch dog is the Democratic governor?
  • Governor Moore said that the vote "shows that the people of New Jersey hold the constitution too sacred to permit political manipulation." Full stop after the quotation mark, per MOS:LQ.
  • If it had been adopted it would have plunged us into endless confusion".[83] Full stop within the quotes, per MOS:LQ.

Interesting article. FrB.TG (talk) 11:04, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I think I've gotten to everything above.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:49, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support FrB.TG (talk) 20:23, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the review and support. Wehwalt (talk) 23:55, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SC

[edit]
1926 passage
  • "Several amendments, sponsored by Assemblyman Clifford R. Powell of Burlington County, a Republican,[8] were passed". It's a bit choppy. "Several amendments, sponsored by Republican Assemblyman Clifford R. Powell of Burlington County,[8] were passed" may read a little easier (although I leave that to your discretion.
I'm afraid that if I do that, the Jobtitles MOS hawks will deem it not a title but a descriptor and lower case it.
  • "the Senate on June 29 adjourned until July 7," that also reads a little inelegantly: "the Senate adjourned on June 29 until July 7" may be a thought?
Done a bit differently.
Campaign
  • "Hague disciple": this description is a bit POV for me
The source describes Hague as Daly's "political mentor" and Daly as the "Hague representative" in Bayonne.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:28, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there a reason we have "Governor Moore, Senator Edwards" at one point and "state senator William B. Mackay" at another? I don't see the difference in the use of title, so shouldn't they all be capitalised?
I'm really not certain what to do with "state senator" so I've capped the Senator.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:28, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Edwards, Norton, Hague and Heher" has no serial comma; "Italian-American, African-American, Jewish, and rural voters" has. It should be consistent.
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:28, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An interesting article - beautifully written as always. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 18:02, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All done. Thank you for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:28, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent stuff - a support from me. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 18:34, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Ceranthor

[edit]
"You from Joisey? What exit?" 171 on the Parkway in my case.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:09, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Lead
  • This is a very long lead. I think it should be consolidated to three paragraphs
Done, but there's a lot going on. I've saved words where I could and deleted some phrases as surplus.
  • "one, and also lengthen" - don't need the comma here
  • Why is the title "1927 biannual elections proposal" if it was in both 1926 and 1927? Just trying to clarify
Since the vote took place in 1927. I've relied on the titling of campaigns and elections where the campaigning bridged two years but the vote took place in the second year, for example William Henry Harrison 1840 presidential campaign, where the convention took place in 1839 and the election in 1840.
  • "The original version, passed by the Assembly, did not mention "biannually" but the version passed by the Senate and then accepted by the Assembly did use the word." - need a comma here before "but the version"
  • "and a vote set for September 27, 1927." - "was" is missing from "was set"
  • ", and set the referendum date for September 20, 1927." - don't need the comma here
Background

Looks good.

1926 passage
  • "o pass zoning regulations, in March 1926," - don't think commas are needed
  • Second and third paragraph should be combined
  • "The provisions altering the terms of the senators passed by 44–11, the same tally as passed the provision extending the governor's term.[15] " - not sure if this is a typo or missing a word, but "the same tally as passed the provision" doesn't read easily to me. What about "the provision extending [...] passed by the same tally"? Also switches to active voice.
  • "Sponsored by Senator Henry A. Williams of Passaic County[21] and a substitute for a version prepared by a Senate committee" - reads a bit weirdly since the first bit is "sponsored" but the second bit lacks a verb... what if you added a verb like substituted or something along those lines?
Substitute seems to be a legislative term and I'd like to stick to that. I've rewritten the passage a bit differently.
1927 passage
  • " governing document, but stated his opposition to the lengthening of the gubernatorial term" - don't need comma
  • "It was passed on February 22, with two of the Senate's four Democrats opposing (the other two were absent),[34] a vote of 13–2.[35]" - cut out "was", better as active voice anyway. I'd also switch the 13-2 to the start so it reads as "It passed 13-2 on February 22, with [...] opposing ([...]absent)."
Discovery and reaction
  • "The legislature was not limited to the subjects mentioned by Moore, and could consider" - don't need comma
  • "to change the date of the election, and to authorize two more judges" - no comma
  • "urged that the amendment be abandoned.[57][56]" - refs should be in ascending order
Campaign
  • "supporting the zoning amendment, but opposing the term extender.[63]" - don't need comma
  • "routine in presidential years, and that national issues " - no comma
  • " that they were trying to get rid of the Democratic governor, that the people had placed as a watch dog to guard against Republican excesses" - comma splice here I think, but easy to fix. Just get rid of comma and add and, so convert to "governor and that [...]"
I've gone back to the source and rephrased. See what you think.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:07, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Election and aftermath
  • "beaten amendments, and voted for zoning" - don't need comma
  • "He called it "a bad things to use the state constitution " - Need an [sic] tag or to change things to thing if it's just a typo
  • "1947,[94] and provided that the General Assembly shall consist of members "elected biennially".[c][96]" - don't need comma

Looks great otherwise. Nice work. ceranthor 18:57, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I think I've either done or responded to everything. Thanks for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:07, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Support. Happy with the explanations/actions in response to my comments. ceranthor 14:28, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Suggest adding alt text
  • File:1927_New_Jersey_Question_4_results_map_by_county.svg: see MOS:COLOUR
I've made it more clear that full statistical information can be found in the freely-available source. The alternative would be to add an effective duplicate of that to the page. While MOS:COLOUR says not to rely on color to convey information, it doesn't say that the alternative means of getting the information to the reader has to be on the page.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:32, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Ex-Gov._E.C._Stokes_(...),_2-17-23_LCCN2016847236_(cropped).jpg: when and where was this first published?
The Library of Congress says no known restrictions on National Photo Company, but I see there's a PD-no-notice tag. I've removed that.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:32, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria (talk) 20:02, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the image review.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:32, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by Z1720 - pass

[edit]

Version reviewed

  • Ref 26: "Assembly bills". Legislative Index.: Is there a way to get a link to this anywhere? Should a longer ref be included in the Bibliography section?

No other concerns, please ping when the above is addressed. Z1720 (talk) 23:07, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Z1720, the Legislative Index is not online, it was most kindly emailed to me by the New Jersey State Law Library. And since it is a periodical and we're putting periodicals in individual references, I'm trying to be consistent. Thanks for the source review.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:12, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pass: I did a random spot check for formatting and verifying, and I have no other concerns. Z1720 (talk) 23:19, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 6 January 2023 [36].

South Asian river dolphin

[edit]
Nominator(s): LittleJerry (talk) 20:30, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

South Asian river dolphins aren't as well known or as studied as their Amazonian brethren but they are fascinating and unique in their own right. I've compiled the most important information on these rare animals from the best sources. Have at it! LittleJerry (talk) 20:30, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Suggest adding alt text
Added. LittleJerry (talk) 18:47, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Platanista_gangetica_noaa.jpg: source link is dead. Ditto File:Delphinapterus_leucas_NOAA.jpg
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 13:58, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The former is credited to a photographer rather than the agency - was this a work for hire? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:23, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Replaced. LittleJerry (talk) 13:38, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:South_Asian_river_dolphin_size_comparison.svg: what is the source of the data underlying this illustration? Ditto
  • File:Vaquita_swimming_through_the_void._(Phocoena_Sinus).png, File:Ankylorhiza.jpg
Removed all. LittleJerry (talk) 18:37, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto File:Subadult female spectacled porpoise.png. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:23, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Removed. LittleJerry (talk) 13:16, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Pontoporia_blainvillei.jpg needs a US tag
Added. LittleJerry (talk) 14:15, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Its a picture of a museum model with the background and holding string removed. LittleJerry (talk) 14:15, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
See commons:Commons:Copyright_rules_by_subject_matter#Models. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:23, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Removed. LittleJerry (talk) 13:38, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dunkleosteus77

[edit]
"South Asian river dolphins are stocky in build with broad, square-ending pectoral fins, elongated, slender rostras, and shallow, triangular dorsal fins" here, you're using commas to separate items in a list as well as adjectives to describe some of these items, so you should instead use semicolons to separate list items Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 00:15, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 01:07, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
perhaps "slit-shaped"? Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 00:15, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's whats used in the source. I'd prefer to paraphrase more. LittleJerry (talk) 01:09, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that's not a widely understood adjective, like if I look up "cleft-shaped", google tells me it means a V-shaped indentation which is not what you're going for here Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 01:33, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Changed. LittleJerry (talk) 01:49, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dunkleosteus77, done. LittleJerry (talk) 13:29, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reaper Eternal

[edit]
Sources
  • The "fossilworks" site is just a portal. The citation should be to either the database or both the portal and the underlying database.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 01:05, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Reaper Eternal (talk) 05:29, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is currently citation #3 (Braulik et al) is cited 12 times and references a large page range (38 total pages). This does not, in my opinion, meet verifiability standards.
It is a peer-reviewed journal article. They don't need specific page citations like books. Hog Farm? LittleJerry (talk) 00:13, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(responding to ping) IMO it's somewhat desirable to narrow down page ranges beyond that. I try to cite individual pages in my FA nominations (which are in the history sphere), but I believe the standard in biological FAs is to not unless the page range is ridiculous. I personally wouldn't consider this a deal-breaker as a reviewer. Hog Farm Talk 00:32, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I personally cite individual pages, and I was under the impression that citing multiple pages was limited to roughly 5 or so. It makes it rather difficult for me, at least, to verify the information in the article matches the citation given when the page range is nearly 40. Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:48, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The standard for Bio article is to cite pages for books but not journal articles. I recall being told that I've reached a point where I don't need spotchecks anymore, having done FACs for over ten years now. LittleJerry (talk) 01:30, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wah, ha, ha. Whenever I do a source review I spotcheck a few cites. No matter how experienced the nominator or how many FAs they already have. And as a source reviewer I would throw a 40 page range straight out. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:12, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Merriam-Webster citation (currently #4) does not include relevant information. You're citing a dictionary, not a generic website.
It is being use for an etymology cite, which I have done in a dozen other FA articles. Hog Farm? LittleJerry (talk) 00:13, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(responding to ping) I don't see how you're suppose to format this other than how it's currently formatted. Online dictionaries and encyclopedias are sometimes structured quite different than the old print tome, so I don't see why there'd be an expectation to cite it like it was accessed via a printed work. It's not like this is in a standard ebook format. Hog Farm Talk 00:32, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What about this: "Platanista". Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary. Retrieved 23 December 2022. Merriam-Webster themselves recommends using this is the name of the work. (See "Cite this Entry" on the page.) Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:54, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 01:09, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Pilleri et al citation (currently #5) goes to a 31 page total range.
See above. LittleJerry (talk) 00:13, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Content
  • I think this article covers all major topics. Nice work!
  • Should the date that the dolphin was listed as endangered be included? Currently, the article just states that "as of 2022, the IUCN Red List of mammals lists both South Asian river dolphins as endangered." I know that NOAA added the Indus River Dolphin to a different endangered species list in 1991 (see here). Maybe you can find the information for the IUCN list?
2022 is the latest update on their status. The history of the status of the individual species are not relevant. LittleJerry (talk) 01:21, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really agree with you that it is irrelevant. The Indus River dolphin is one of the most endangered cetaceans, so something about this should be included in the section on conservation. The history of its endangerment demonstrates how well conservation is going and how long the dolphin has been at risk of extinction. Reaper Eternal (talk) 05:37, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The IUCN only has its most recent assessment. Nothing on Wayback prior to 2022. Anyway this is more relevant for the Indus river dolphin article. LittleJerry (talk) 14:21, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Understandable. Reaper Eternal (talk) 05:26, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Copyright
  • Someone copied this entire article here. This is not an issue with the article—I'm simply noting it here that you didn't copy this page.
  • Copyright spot checks done. No copyright infringement found.

Happy to support. Reaper Eternal (talk) 05:29, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from HAL

[edit]

Science entries make up a disproportionally small amount of featured articles and lists, so I'm always glad to see a nomination like this.

  • "a 2021 study re-analyzed" Shouldn't that just be "reanalyzed"?
  • "major differences in the structure of their skulls" --> "major differences in skull structure" more concise
  • mitochondrial DNA is linked twice
  • "Full body (above)" --> "(top)" may be more apt as both images are above the caption
  • "River dolphins likely traveled from the Ganges River basin to the Indus" --> The rivers or river basins—whichever is more appropriate—may need to be linked. Some of the rivers are linked later, and might need to be linked here in their first mention instead. I would just check
  • "clicks spaced 10 to 100 ms apart" --> I think "milliseconds" should be spelled out before the abbreviation is used

That's all. Good work. ~ HAL333 06:40, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

HAL333, fixed all. Thank you. LittleJerry (talk) 14:25, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dwai

[edit]
Added. LittleJerry (talk) 16:03, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "They range from the Himalayan foothills to the Ganges Delta in Bangladesh, India, and southern Nepal." This sentence is slightly confusing. The range starts from Himalayan foothills (in Southern Nepal and India) and ends in the Ganges Delta in Bangladesh and India. However, the sentence in the article can be interpreted as if the range ending in Southern Nepal.--Dwaipayan (talk) 01:26, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 16:03, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Vanamonde93

[edit]

Looking forward to reading this. Please feel free to revert and discuss any copyedits I make. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:50, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Do we lack information on their first scientific descriptions?
Changed. Lebeck has priority as Braulik (2021) states. LittleJerry (talk) 16:31, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Based on differences in skull structure, vertebrae" wondering if this is number of vertebrae, or something else; if number, could be worth clarifying.
Clarified LittleJerry (talk) 23:57, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wondering if we can supply an image for each tip of the phylogeny; also, as these are examples and not the entirety of the taxon, is there a way you can make the taxon name appear when hovering? Is alt-text supported within a cladogram?
There are no good or free images I can use. See image review above. LittleJerry (talk) 00:11, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Their numbers peaked around the early Miocene" number of species, or abundance of fossil specimens?
Clarified. LittleJerry (talk) 00:11, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is the classification as two species accepted by more than the paper's authors? If not, some minor reframing may be in order; taxonomy is dreadfully messy, and changeable, we shouldn't be definitive if it's unjustified.
Yes. See the IUCN and Google scholar. LittleJerry (talk) 00:11, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would be really nice to have a map of the Indus river and its barrages, or failing that, at least a more detailed map of the system. On a related note; I assume the range map in the infobox is a contemporary one, and the caption should say so.
A map of the Indus river is more relevant for the Indus river dolphin article. Added "current". LittleJerry (talk) 00:11, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "They can be found in waters as deep as 30 m (98 ft) or more" a confusing sentence; do they prefer shallower waters up to 30m, or deeper?
Clarified. LittleJerry (talk) 00:32, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "South Asian river dolphins appear to be active throughout the day" sounds like a personal observation: "thought to be"?
"Appear to be" is shorter and sounds better than "are thought to be". LittleJerry (talk) 00:15, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Echolocation signals are not frequently used as the fish..." I assume from context this means "not frequently used at the surface", might be worth
Clarified. LittleJerry (talk) 00:15, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "substrate" is a technical term meaning many things based on the context; can you link/explain?
Changed. LittleJerry (talk) 00:15, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I have for prose, I'll do another scan once you're through with these. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:50, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vanamonde93, finished. LittleJerry (talk) 16:33, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Returning for more: I believe there is a little more information that could be mined from sources such as these [37], [38], particularly related to distribution and conservation. In particular, the information about the threat of bycatch and direct competition with fisherman for prey and fresh water. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:32, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Added some more. I believe I have written enough on distribution and habitat. Any more information belongs in the articles on the individual species. LittleJerry (talk) 21:36, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not a full source review, lacking time at the moment, but: unsure about the Aisha/Khan source, as it does not appear to be peer-reviewed. If I'm not mistaken, there are several papers reviewing similar information; can it be replaced? Vanamonde (Talk) 18:47, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It still fits under RS. Not every source needs to be peer reviewed (eg books) and its only being used for two cites. LittleJerry (talk) 21:37, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from me, notwithstanding the final comment which I'm not entirely convinced about; let's see what a source reviewer has to say about it. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:08, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot that Reaper Eternal already reviewed the sources. LittleJerry (talk) 15:05, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gerda

[edit]

You invited me, and I'm looking forward to take a closer look than for the DYK review. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:17, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I read it now, and my only concern is the taxonomy; knowing little, it might be better for me to read first the end, about family and superfamily, and then about the difficulties in defining the species. But that's minor. Support --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:37, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vanamonde93 and Dunkleosteus77, will you finish your reviews? LittleJerry (talk) 14:13, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Hog Farm via FACBot (talk) 6 January 2023 [39].

Banjo-Kazooie: Nuts & Bolts

[edit]
Nominator(s): JOEBRO64 14:16, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What do you get when you throw a niche-but-beloved late '90s franchise, cars, Legos, and infuriated fanboys into a blender? You get Rare's misguided masterpiece, Banjo-Kazooie: Nuts & Bolts. This honest-to-God attempt to innovate in a genre that'd stagnated outside of Mario ultimately did more to kill the series it was attempting to resurrect than it did to, well, resurrect it, but it's seen a bit of a renaissance in recent years thanks to its inclusion in Rare Replay. Nowadays, you're more likely to hear about how it was unfairly maligned and innovative, offering a massive amount of constructive freedom a full three years before Minecraft's proper release.

This article has been a GA for several years, but I recently gave it a major overhaul as part of a personal project I've started and I believe it's the most comprehensive resource for the game on the internet. I hope you enjoy the article! JOEBRO64 14:16, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from DecafPotato

[edit]
DecafPotato, there is alt text for those images already present. Not sure why it isn't showing up in the toolbox? EDIT: fixed it, just had to separate the two alts. JOEBRO64 01:30, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I went to try splitting the alt text, and you already did it. Nice. The issue might be something to do with the multiple image template? Idk. DecafPotato (talk) 01:35, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi DecafPotato, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:23, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I was just leaving quick comments, but after looking through the whole thing, I support the nom. DecafPotato (talk) 16:51, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another thing—refs 11 and 12 cite Nuts & Bolts itself, which is fine, but they cite a specific page number, which confuses me? How is there a page number when citing the video game? Does it use the script of the level? I would assume that it refers to the instruction manual, but it specifically mentions Spiral Mountain—a level with in the game. Is that something that needs fixing? DecafPotato (talk) 16:59, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @DecafPotato: that was supposed to be going to the manual, which is cited at the bottom. For some reason the SFNs were targeting the game cites rather than the manual. I've fixed it. JOEBRO64 22:39, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additionally, fan requests for Banjo and Kazooie's inclusion in Nintendo's crossover fighting game series Super Smash Bros. led to their addition to Super Smash Bros. Ultimate (2018) in 2019 – Is this relevant to Nuts & Bolts specifically? It seems like something more suited for the character or series articles. DecafPotato (talk) 07:31, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    We say immediately after the enthusiastic responses to their addition could convince Microsoft to commission another Banjo-Kazooie game JOEBRO64 13:09, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]

@Nikkimaria: responded above, thank you for the image review! JOEBRO64 14:45, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from SnowFire

[edit]

This is not a full review and I don't intend it to become one... but as a passerby comment... I'm skeptical of the way the article currently presents the critical reassessment as if it was more broadly-supported than it really seems to be. I would tentatively suggest either rephrasing such claims to be more along the lines of "Critical reappraisals from Journalist X, Y, and Z" think Nuts & Bolts was actually awesome, rather than suggesting that this opinion was uncontroversially shared. That or finding stronger sources suggesting that such a positive reappraisement really is more widespread than I get the impression from the linked sources. For example, the 2020 XBox magazine retrospective calls it "daring, divisive" in its subheader, suggesting that the division hasn't gone away, along with "often seen as the black sheep of the franchise," suggesting that not everyone is as positive as Mayles. The Polygon list on Rare Replay in 2015 does indeed rank Nuts & Bolts highly, yes, but still behind the original Banjo-Kazooie, which weakens the case for other lines like "Retrospective reviewers have reappraised it as the best Banjo-Kazooie game". Put another way, for other series with even more reviews, it's comparatively easy to find some journalist, somewhere, saying that any given Final Fantasy or Halo or Zelda game is the best one. But we shouldn't claim that each game in these other series is considered the best one in the series in each one's own individual game article by citing the journalists who liked This Specific Version the most. It's fine to say "Journalists X and Y call it the best game in the series;" saying that "reviewers" in general have reappraised it as such probably requires a stronger analysis (whether via having a long footnote detailing critical opinions, or via an outright meta-source RS that analyzes the matter).

On a more minor note, I think you linked the wrong reference in "Influence" - you've referenced the contemporary GamesRadar+ 2008 review, which certainly does not talk about alleged influence on 2015 games! (Going to presume it was really the "misunderstood gem" GamesRadar article.)

Finally, and this is very much a personal preference item - I know editors who swear by the reverse - but I'm not a huge fan of talking about publications rather than game journalists. This can make sense for publications with very strong editorial views that overwhelm the individual author (e.g. Nintendo Power) but this isn't true for most publications - Kotaku is not a hive mind, etc. I'd be more inclined to credit journalists rather than publications for opinions, or both if you don't mind being wordy. But this is optional. SnowFire (talk) 19:39, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SnowFire, I did a good amount of work on the lede and retrospective assessments subsection to address this. Let me know what you think.
Thanks for catching that GamesRadar+ ref error—I've fixed it.
As for publications vs. journalists: I see where you're coming from. It's my personal preference to use publication names over journalists (unless the journalist is notable on Wikipedia, like Jim Sterling or Jason Schreier) because journalists are usually speaking on behalf of their publications in reviews and retrospectives, unless otherwise noted. I also think it's a little easier for readers to follow with publication names rather than people's names. I can still take a stab at using journalist names if you'd like. JOEBRO64 00:57, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I believe it is an improvement to stick with "Some" before "retrospective reviewers". I consider my concern met on this, for the closer.
On attributing journalists vs. magazines - like I said, I consider this a stylistic concern up to you, so more of an "FYI" thing. I'll defer to your knowledge on this, but the one case where I'd definitely recommend citing journalists rather than publications unconditionally is if a single publication has published notably inconsistent reviews (unsure if that's true of any of the currently cited sources on Nuts & Bolts). For one famous example, IGN graded God Hand a 3/10, "Awful" in 2006 and also published a retrospective review saying that it was AMAZING in all capital letters in 2019. That wasn't a case of some combined entity called "IGN" having muddled thoughts, but rather just the journalist who wrote the original review having a different take from a separate journalist writing a decade later, and so attributing the specific journalist rather than IGN would be important in such a case of contrasting reviews. SnowFire (talk) 01:28, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But that example is not the publication changing its mind, as reviewers too can and do change their minds over time. The point remains that a reader will not follow the introduction of five unknown reviewer names in one paragraph into the successive several paragraphs. They're more likely to understand and associate the opinion of a publication metonymically. czar 21:59, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Czar: First of all, to be clear, this was not something I considered oppose-worthy, merely mention-worthy. Perhaps some readers might better recognize the publication name than the journalist name, I agree. I believe the gain in accuracy makes the trade worth taking, though. In practice, reviews are actually the opinion of the specific journalist doing the review most of the time; this is more relevant than usual to discuss when there's a claim of a shift of opinion over time, like there is for this topic. Happy to continue to discuss elsewhere such as at WT:VG if desired to not sidetrack this FAC.
As for my God Hand example, those two reviews are written by different people, not one long-term employee changing their mind. There's no reason to think that the original reviewer changed their opinion (he seems to have restated in 2014, at least). SnowFire (talk) 03:21, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by David Fuchs

[edit]

Review will be forthcoming this weekend. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 17:16, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

David ? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:23, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I had to travel and my review's still mostly back at my place. Hope to get back to it before the end of this week. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 17:12, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay. I want to perform a copyedit addressing some issues I had, but others that I thought needed more discussion or expert input I've left and listed below:

  • General:
    • The structure of the gameplay section feels a little off. We explain the basic premise, talk about the hub world, and mention you collect Jiggies through missions: the next paragraph then switches to talking about vehicles, and then a whole paragraph later explains what the missions are. Feels like this should be more proximately located next to the first mention of what missions are.
    • In a similar vein, I think the opening of the development section should probably be rearranged to be more chronological. It seems odd to me we don't discuss the company being bought until after mentioning sequel ideas and the games that clearly Microsoft was involved in since it was post-purchase.
    • Per WP:NOPRICE, I think the DLC price should just be axed (no one knows what MS points are anyhow.)
    • I'm kind of confused about some of the use of quotes throughout; either the content could be summarized better without the quotes (good, because it'd reduce wordiness), or the quoted content is so minimal that I'm wondering why it's used at all (e.g. "became popular, and credited Nuts & Bolts with "lay[ing] the groundwork" for them"—laying the groundwork is a really common phrase, and if the rest of the sentence isn't cribbing its language it doesn't make sense to only quote the very end.
    • When it comes to the retrospective assessments, there seems like an inordinate amount of space spent on individual staffer's opinions that could be trimmed.
  • Prose:
    • "They do not retain their abilities from prior games" Without knowing anything about the previous games, this sentence strikes me as less than useful, and the rest of the clause further clouds the issue. Is it referring to attacks? Different sorts of weapons? Or mobility abilities.
    • Humba Wumba doesn't link to anything in particular in the series article.
    • "Following the release of Banjo-Tooie, Rare's Banjo-Kazooie series went on a hiatus"—I get that the Gemspot source is more or less saying this, but I don't think hiatus is really a good word to use considering the franchise still had regular releases, just not for consoles.
    • "Vehicle gameplay was introduced after Rare, in a departure from their previous reliance on proprietary software, acquired Havok. " This makes it sound like Rare acquired Havok the company, not that they decided using it would complement their game.
    • "Especial difficulty came from the user interface" I assume we didn't go Spanish and this should be 'special'.
    • The development section suffers from what are to me an excessive use of quotes and repetitious sections. They mention the interactive Lego set once in the conception section but it gets repeated (and I feel like the accessibility concerns regarding aspects of the game gets hammered way too many times and said more times than is necessary.)
    • "Rare initially used a high-polygon version of Banjo and Kazooie's model from Banjo-Kazooie and Banjo-Tooie, but they felt it lacked the charm of the older games. Several redesigns were proposed; the team chose artist Ed Bryan's suggestion for a cuboid version of the original design that resembled a high-resolution, low-polygon model. Bryan felt this retained the sharp edges characteristic of the original model and fit Nuts & Bolts's direction" I'm not sure this scans to a general reader. (Even I don't know what a "cuboid" version of the original design means in this specific context, and I work in motion design for a living.)
    • The origins of Minecraft are pretty well discussed, and as far as I know there's no common "oh we got it from Banjo" statements from the devs, so I'd say the quotes (especially from the developers themselves) asserting this are undue weight and should be excised.
  • Media:
  • References:

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 22:54, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@David Fuchs: thank you for the comments! I've responded to everything above. Sorry for the long wait JOEBRO64 20:20, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from czar

[edit]
Extended content

Nice to see these improvements to the Rare Replay good topic! (And perhaps a good reason for us to revisit some of the other FA-eligible articles...) While I wonder what Jaguar would say about this being a "Great Game™", at the very least I do owe this a review.

  • I'll copy edit directly as I read, so my comments here will mainly be structural
  • "Rare's first game made specifically for the Xbox 360" This feels misleading for the lede, per footnote b, since multiple other games predated it for the console. Is the catch that it was not "made specifically" for the console? If that doesn't matter to the essence of the game, I'd cut it as trivia.

§ Gameplay

  • This section is very heavy on comparisons with the series even though this is a completely different genre. For a general readership, I would think it's better to introduce the game in how it works (mechanics and objective), first in broad strokes and then in detail (e.g., how vehicle construction works), and then touch on similiarites with the series insofar as those details are not trivial.
    • I've restructured it as you've suggested. I was actually thinking about trying to avoid bogging it down with comparisons as I wrote it... guess I got a bit sloppy :P JOEBRO64 01:36, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • A few unclear concepts: Whose "attack power and agility"—the spanner's or BK's? Are game globes just tokens to unlock worlds (if so, do we need to mention that they're globes?) Do the BK eggs and Ice Key spawn the crates in N&B?
  • Stop N Swop's trivia either belongs in the Development section or removed
  • Do reviews discuss the game's plot? If not, it should be reduced to what the reader needs to know about its premise and fit within Gameplay, per WP:VGMOS.
  • Is the series really on hiatus if Rare made spin-offs?

§ Development

  • This is a very involved section. It reads twice as along as what a general audience member would want/need to know about the subject. A lot of the unsurprising stuff (they wanted the world to be "living, breathing" and "populated by many characters"; Loveday was excited to write the script) can be cut. Basically if it doesn't show in a secondary source, there should be a really compelling case to prove that it's noteworthy for a general audience.
  • "remembered as unique" and not "just another platform"; "impossible on older hardware" and "not until the Xbox 360" aren't these the same thoughts described in parallel? Shouldn't they be combined?
  • "the effort to re-model and texture the environments" It isn't entirely clear by this point which are "the environments"? More succinctly: "Development began ... based on Rare co-founder's suggestion ... but staff felt that their time spent remodeling those environments would be better spent on an original game." Right now the thoughts are disconnected.
  • How does the Viva Pinata game engine relate to Havok? They're covered separately.
    • Havok is a middleware physics engine, not a game engine. Game and physics engines are separate and do different things—the game engine implements all the basic technologies, while the physics engine uses information it's fed to simulate object physics. JOEBRO64 15:50, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Betteridge considered community a key element since players could share designs" What made it key or showed that they treated it as key?
  • Shouldn't the two mentions of playtesting be combined together?
  • The interview section on testing each vehicle part seems superfluous
  • "Especial difficulty came from the user interface" Passive voice
  • WP:GEOCOMMA for the Wales/France caption
  • Were all editions of the game in American English?
  • "very upsetting time for me" Because the Stampers left? The connection is left vague.
    • I've removed the Stampers leaving because it wasn't important. I thought it added a little more context for why Kirkhope wasn't happy during his last year at Rare (when he was working on Banjo) but I can see why it's confusing so I've binned it. JOEBRO64 01:36, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Was Kirkhope the lead composer or were they all equals? It's unclear.

§ Release

  • Why is the detail of when the promotional website launched important? All of these dates can be summarized so that readers don't have to follow the blow-by-blow archaeology of everything that happened in the game's marketing.
    • I think it's noteworthy as it marked the beginning of the proper marketing campaign and Rare/Microsoft starting to back the curtain on the game. Happy to discuss further though JOEBRO64 01:36, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Generally the Fan response can be greatly summarized
  • "over 100,000 copies in the United Kingdom" In the same time period or overall?

§ Reception

  • From my recollection, its vehicle mechanics were clunky and buggy as all hell. Is it true that it was only a minor point to reviewers? Here only two reviewers are cited as saying the controls were difficult and a bundled ref glosses over framerate issues as occasional. (Not that my opinion is right or must be expressed—I'm just surprised to see this buried here as minor points!)
    • Yeah they weren't big points in a lot of reviews, for whatever reason. I took some pretty thorough notes on every review (which are here for reference)—a good number of critics noted the frame rate as irritating, and some thought the vehicle handling was annoying, but they weren't seen as terribly significant, let alone dealbreakers. JOEBRO64 01:36, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree with SnowFire's comment above re: source attribution but there are parts that could be better combined here. "Reviewers praised the writing and humour" should have a direct citation so we know which, or they can be listed here. It's also different to say that reviewers praised its writing before going into examples vs. saying they praised its writing and adding that "they found the jokes hilarious", as the latter makes "reviewers" sound more like a monolith instead of individuals. Perhaps distribute that second sentence further within the paragraph?
  • Why start with its writing and humor? Isn't that a secondary facet of the game? The whole article has been about a new approach to gameplay up until this point, so I'd expect that to come sooner.
    • That's how reviews were structured (starting with the premise/writing and then getting into the meat) so I went with that. Regardless, I see what you mean; I've moved it down below the exploration paragraph. JOEBRO64 15:10, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The visuals were commended" Passive voice
  • "Showdown Town" could be replaced with "the hub world" or "the overworld" throughout the article with only improvements to clarity
  • With these bundled/combined refs, why group them as a footnote of footnotes? It would be better for the reader to see the footnote explain which refs are being combined, i.e., {{harvnb}} instead of <ref>...</ref> (or even better, just the names of the publications).

The rest

  • "Following the Nuts & Bolts demo's release, players with standard-definition televisions complained that the dialogue font size was too small to be readable. Rare initially said the problem would be too expensive to fix, but quickly reversed their stance and pledged to develop a patch to make the font size bigger.[86] The patch was released on 22 December.[87]" This is a good example of what can be consolidated for a general audience. I.e., "Rare released an update two months after release to make dialogue text more readable on standard-definition televisions." (no other context needed)
  • "400 Microsoft Points" WP:GAMECRUFT#8
  • After all we have on the developers, were there no reactions to the game leading to the company's restructuring, apart from Kirkhope's comments on it being a mistake? That aspect of its impact is ostensibly very important to cover.
    • Unfortunately, not really. I found some commentary on Rare's decline/restructuring in the late 2000s/early 2010s but not really reactions to the role Nuts & Bolts played in it. The closest I found was this Hardcore Gamer piece calling Nuts & Bolts an example of how Rare's secrecy led to their problems post-buyout, but it's far more about the company itself than this game in particular. JOEBRO64 15:10, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "journalists continue to characterise Nuts & Bolts as divisive" This is the type of claim that would benefit from direct quotes in the bundled ref. I.e., Noam Chomsky#Notes
  • This section is far more negative than is reflected in the lede
  • What does it mean that reviewers called it "unique"? Like what is the value assessment of that?
  • Influence paragraph: Wouldn't this fit in the section just above the Retrospective assessments? And are Retrospectives a separate topic? Making it less about enumerating what retrospectives said and more about its overall Legacy would be better for a general reader.

Overall, nicely done, though there is a fair amount that can be further summarized. czar 21:55, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Czar and David Fuchs: thanks for the comments! I'm chipping away at them currently. It's finals week so my editing is a little slower than normal, but it should pick up once I finish on Thursday. I'll ping you once I've addressed or replied to all comments. JOEBRO64 18:53, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Czar: responded to all comments. Thank you for the thorough review! Sorry this took so long, the last week or so was incredibly chaotic so my Wiki-time was limited. The comments were extremely helpful and I'm looking forward to further work. JOEBRO64 15:10, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Second read

  • Copy-edited as I read
  • Is there no source better than the instruction manual for those few Gameplay citations?
  • Players who own Banjo-Kazooie (1998) on the same Xbox can unlock bonus content. would seem to encompass everything that a general reader needs to know about this topic. To call it "Stop 'N' Swop" is jargon that adds heat without light, unless it's going to be discussed by that name in a way the reader needs to know it. In this case, it only comes up in the Development (a fact that also reads to me as trivia) and not the Reception. I.e., all the reader really needs to know about this is that there is some cross-over function unless another source is going to discuss its importance.
  • The WP:TITULAR essay gives a lot of bad advice, imo (the open sentences of the example article it gives is a case in point) :)
  • "their first game developed specifically for the Xbox 360 ... without Nintendo" This still doesn't register to me as important unless this fact somehow influenced what they did (which isn't said). Alternatively this could be mentioned elsewhere in the article as a stand-in for the game's name, but it feels like a random point to highlight in this paragraph that can be removed at no loss to the reader.
    • I've separated the two and moved them up to Conception in places where they have more meaning. I still think they're worth including: the Xbox 360 point connects to them wanting to wait until they felt the hardware would allow them to make a worthy Banjo game, and the Nintendo point is important for context (it was a Nintendo franchise that became a Microsoft one, this being the first Banjo game entirely developed post-acquisition, and as discussed in Release the game left a sour taste in a lot of Nintendo fans' mouths) JOEBRO64 15:54, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • reaching objectives was often the weakest part of platformers Unclear what this means: The reaching objectives was hard? Objectives were poorly designed? Objectives should be removed?
  • Rare defined and programmed the primary vehicle parts early on Seems tautological that they programmed the primary parts first. I think this whole paragraph could go at no loss to the reader, especially if it's all from a primary source.
  • The next two paragraphs similarly feel gratuitous for the same reasons—a lot of primary source detail that doesn't directly pertain to a general audience. The line on the building editor being challenging can fit into an existing paragraph and the Klungo stuff doesn't express much more than that they built exactly what it is.
  • Here's my takeaway from the "World and characters" subsection: distinctive look (environment and upscaled Kazooie), hub designed to look real (unlike the rest of the game), Loveday wrote self-deprecating humour. These points could be made in a short paragraph or two and included in the existing Design subsection.
  • In general, the Development still goes into extreme detail on topics that no secondary source found printworthy, like the paragraph on the map/hub elements, which I think can be cut at no loss to the reader. These details might be better preserved on a fan wiki, but for a general audience reader, it's too much detail. Primary sources should mainly be used to help round out key details that the reader needs but for whatever reason were left out of secondary sources, but they should almost never themselves form the majority of a paragraph or section (WP:PRIMARY#5). Want me to take some red ink to it?
  • BK fans were excited at the X06 reveal: but no actual content was shown? So is this just saying fans were excited in general? Why is that needed?
    • I've added an additional source for clarification/context: it had been years since Tooie, naturally Banjo fans were longing for a new game and were excited that it was finally happening... and then the game was revealed and it was nothing like what they'd expected. JOEBRO64 19:46, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "mixed reception": bad and good (separately), or "meh"? Mixed can mean either.
  • "protracted some challenges" Clarify what challenges and made longer how?
  • "integration of the customisation" unclear what this means
  • IGN cited twice in the same paragraph re: inexperienced players
    • Whoops, my mistake—removed the second "inexperienced players" JOEBRO64
  • The GamesRadar+ interview with Mayles is from CVG so should probably link there instead
  • Reception section is much improved as a narrative—nice work
  • Players who purchased both receive the winners' vehicle blueprints by collecting the Stop 'N' Swop items in Tooie. You know what I'm going to say. :) Why would a general reader need to know this?
  • The "divisive" group citation is great
  • Reviewers said it was among the compilation's best Can you believe it?
  • The Development section's readability is the only part holding back my support. The article reads really smooth so nicely done! czar 02:07, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • One of the many reasons I disagree with blanket application of WP:ELEVAR is examples like this. If the point of "ELEVAR" is to avoid confusion for readers who are unaware, what is more natural for them to see in this sentence: the name of someone who was introduced in passing in the last paragraph (and not mentioned or elaborated since) or the title of the role so that they don't need to do any cross-referencing to figure out who "Mayles" is? It's quite clear to me. czar 07:06, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • If the problem was that Mayles was only mentioned in passing, I've made him the subject of the sentence we introduce him in. We're already told Mayles led the team so I don't think we don't need to say "the game's director" here, and I actually think it's a little less clear; since we didn't introduce him as the director, it begs the question of who we're referring to. (Not to mention, the title is incorrect—he was the lead designer, not the director. Nuts & Bolts doesn't have a credited director.) JOEBRO64 19:46, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • My mistake on the specific title then but going off of "Gregg Mayles led the 71-member team" there. In any event, the way we tend to know these names is by their epithets, not their names themselves. "Mayles the lead designer" for otherwise who is "Mayles", etc. This is a side point, though. czar 22:21, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Beanland and Clynick" mentioned a second time at the end of the Music section. Unintentional? In general, I think that last Music section paragraph isn't necessary or can be reduced. czar 22:21, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Czar: I've responded to all points above and made edits accordingly. Thank you for the thorough review! I hope you're having an excellent Christmas/holiday season. JOEBRO64 19:46, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Development section is much improved. Nicely done. Added a few points for clarification above but happy to support on prose and happy holidays to you as well! czar 22:21, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Brief Comments Support from The Night Watch

[edit]

Just a few brief comments from me. Feel free to ignore any or all of the remarks if desired.

  • "Players who surpass a best score are rewarded with a trophy; collecting four trophies earns them an additional Jiggy" —What exactly is this "best score"? Does the player have to surpass their previous best score, or do they have to meet a certain pre-set score?
  • "Microsoft acquired Rare in 2002, making them part of Microsoft Game Studios, and gained the Banjo intellectual property rights from Nintendo, which had held a large minority stakein Rare during the first two games' development." —This feels like a bit of a run-on sentence, can you break this up if possible?
  • "Especial difficulty came from the user interface; Rare wanted to make building in 3D understandable,[26] and prioritised simplicity. Early editors required players to keep parts attached to vehicles or they would fall." - I’d prefer to change Especial to "Particular" and mention that it is a vehicle editor due to not everyone being familiar with that term.
  • "Malpass created the hub world, Showdown Town. The team knew that the third Banjo's hub world would be a large, singular area, unlike Banjo-Kazooie and Tooie's modular design, before the focus on vehicles had been decided." —This personally feels like three conflicting ideas. My preference would be to talk about "the team knew about ___ before the focus on vehicles would be decided" then talk about Malpass' role and why he was chosen.
  • Good job writing reception. Quite a pleasant read.

That’s all, that I have with the prose. No spot-checking done, but appears comprehensive. The Night Watch (talk) 00:40, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@The Night Watch: thank you for the support! Responded to your points above, I think I've resolved all of them JOEBRO64 15:14, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Shooterwalker

[edit]

I've reviewed the article and the FA discussion. The article is well written, clear, and thorough. It does an excellent job summarizing the game's coverage, and centralizing it in an encyclopedia article. It is deserving of featured article status, pending an accessibility review and source review. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:41, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

Spotchecks not done

@Nikkimaria: thank you for the source review! Responded above JOEBRO64 21:40, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nikkimaria, how is this one now? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:51, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to replace the Shacknews refs because I couldn't find a published editorial standards page on the site—should happen later today JOEBRO64 18:12, 3 January 2023 (UTC) done JOEBRO64 01:06, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like the question re: credits is still pending? Nikkimaria (talk) 05:27, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops, didn't notice that one—I've addressed it, @Nikkimaria: JOEBRO64 19:18, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, should be good to go. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:13, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Hog Farm via FACBot (talk) 6 January 2023 [42].

American transportation in the Siegfried Line campaign

[edit]
Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:35, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about American transportation in the Siegfried Line campaign. It is the second half of of what was once one article on the logistical support of the American armies between September and December 1944, but the article was split. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:35, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from TAOT

[edit]
I remember reviewing this last time it came here. Happy to see it back, and I'm hoping we reach a consensus to promote. Comments will come shortly; this is a long article, so I will go section by section. I do have an active FAC as well if you wish to return the favor. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:25, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

More later. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:19, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Background

  • This is nitpicking (and the article is very well written, so most of my comments will be nitpicking), but in the first sentence, do those emdashes eliminate the need for a DATECOMMA?
    The military date format eliminates it. Parenthetical commas are only required with the mdy date format. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:08, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • This stretched the logistical system to breaking point. Same comment as I made regarding the lead section.
    Changed too. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:08, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Between 25 August and 12 September, the Allied armies advanced from the D plus 90 phase line, the position the Operation Overlord plan expected to be reached 90 days after D-Day, to the D plus 350 one I didn't understand this on first reading, due to "D plus 350 one". Wasn't sure if this meant D plus 351, or was a typo. Suggest instead saying "D plus 350 line" or something similar to eliminate confusion.
    Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:08, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rather, the problem was the inability to deliver fuel and supplies. Suggest "deliver fuel and supplies to the front lines" or similar.
    Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:08, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • there was a shortage of suitable vehicles can you name any examples here (I found 6-ton 6×6 truck in a navbox, for instance) of suitable long-haul vehicles that were in short supply? You name the deuce and a half truck later, which is helpful, and I think examples of what wasn't available would be similarly helpful.
    See American logistics in the Northern France campaign#Motor transport for the details. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:08, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • If six to eight weeks could be gained, then bad weather would set in, further restricting the Allies' mobility, air operations and logistical support. This is referring to the onset of winter, right? Suggest making that more explicit.
    Autumn rains and storms. Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:08, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Will continue in the near future. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:25, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ports

More to come soon. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:05, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Highways

  • Although the Red Ball Express was the first and most famous express highway delivery route, it was by no means the only one. The first of these was the Red Lion, which ran from 16 September to 12 October, and hauled 18,000 long tons (18,000 t) of supplies from Bayeux to Brussels. You say the Red Ball Express was first here, but immediately contradict that in the following sentence.
    Tightened the wording. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:32, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Railways

Air

Inland waterways

Outcome

Overall, well written article. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:33, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to support on prose. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:49, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt

[edit]
  • "From September onwards, an increasing volume of supplies came directly from the United States in Liberty ships that were stowed to make optimal use of cargo space." You have in this sentence "an increasing volume of supplies", that takes a singular verb, and "Liberty ships", that takes a plural noun. You say "were stowed", so I'm forced to assume the Liberty ships were stowed, not the volume of supplies. Yet that seems odd.
    Trying to say too much in the one sentence. Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:28, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "quayside". "Dockside" seems more American. Not also that this link goes to a waterfront area in Newcastle-upon-Tyne.
    Changed to "dockside" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:28, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The ending of the lede doesn't sound like an ending, but seems to leave off.
    Added another paragraph
  • "albeit on reduced scales" This is a bit unclear whether the units were pared down or their rations and supplies were.
    Added "of rations and supplies". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:28, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The German strategy was to conduct a fighting withdrawal to the Siegfried Line (which they called the Westwall) while holding and demolishing the ports and harbors. These would be held as long as possible." Probably these could be combined into one sentence (beginning after the parenthetical) " ... while holding the ports and harbors for as long as possible, and demolishing them".
    That will work. Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:28, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
More soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:53, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You use this phrase multiple times.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:17, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "as they were being lured away to work on the higher-priority amphibious cargo ships and Boeing B-29 Superfortress programs." Lured? By what incentive? It makes it sound like they were choosing to work on the higher-priority projects, something which may be beyond what ordinary workers would be expected to do. Were there greater incentives such a spay or benefits for the higher priority projects.
    Yes, they were offered better pay and conditions. Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:50, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Naval harbormaster would take the Army's preferences ... office of the Naval Harbor Master" which?
    Gone with "harbor master"; this seems to be the official military spelling. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:50, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "439,660 long tons (446,720 t) of Army cargo discharged at Cherbourg by 13 September, just 38.4 percent was unloaded at quayside berths or over LST ramps; the rest was unloaded by DUKWs and lighters.[60]" This sentence should probably start with "Of".
    Um, it does? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:50, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "bogged vehicles" To me, as an American, "bogged-down" seems more natural.
    Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:50, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and he devolved the necessary authority" Hm. Similar issue. Maybe "devolved" could be "delegated"?
    I think "devolved" is more correct, but changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:50, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "pontons" Again, EngVar (multiple usages). I usually hear pontoons, i.e., the pontoon bridges they have near Seattle. Unless military usage is different.
    Yes. Military usage is different here. For some reason the US military uses "ponton". In Australia we would say "pontoon". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:50, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Phoenix breakwaters salvaged from the Mulberry harbour" You linked the mulberry, though it was a while ago. And should it be "harbor"?
    Unlinked and changed to "harbor" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:50, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "noted that the entrances Antwerp and Rotterdam could be blocked and mined" Missing word. Also "but 85,000 long tons (86,000 t) accumulated first two weeks of the port's operation."
    Added missing word. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:50, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
More soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:32, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "but only 1,358 2-8-0s and 362 0-6-0s were on hand by the end of June.[113]" 1944?
That's all I have.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:36, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I know logistics isn't everyone's cup of tea, and reviews are greatly appreciated. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:48, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Wehwalt (talk) 22:46, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by JennyOz

[edit]

Placeholder, making a start... JennyOz (talk) 05:53, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Phew, finally got to the end...

lede

Background

Shipping

Ports

Highways

Railways

Outcome

Captions

Ship prefixes -

Hawkeye, let me know if you need clarification on any of my comments, JennyOz (talk) 13:38, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think I have them all. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:57, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • New consistency - Liège v Liege and Rhone v Rhône
I just made 2 minor tweaks to article. Everything else seems fine so trusting you'll tweak those inconsistencies, I'm ready to s'port. JennyOz (talk) 06:28, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Tweaked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:00, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Iazyges

[edit]

Source review - pass

[edit]

Recusing to review.

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:05, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Where in Ruppenthal 1959, pp. 49–50. does it support "noted on 5 September that ..."? (Footnote 11 suggests 3 September.)
    Typo. Should be 3 September. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:49, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where in Pogue 1954, pp. 366–367 does it support either part of "Port operations were interrupted by the German Ardennes offensive, which commenced on 16 December 1944"?
    That is only there to support the date of the German Ardennes offensive. The rest is supported by the next footnote, Bykovsky and Larson p. 323 "Normal port operations at Antwerp were interrupted by the German counteroffensive of mid-December 1944. Because outlying depots and dumps, particularly those in the Liege area, were threatened, large quantities of supplies again accumulated in the port." Placed a duplicate of that footnote after the first comma, so Pogue is only supporting the middle clause. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:49, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild (talk) 16:05, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please hold off for a few days. I will re-check everything. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:24, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: I have done a pass through the article re-checking all the references. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:23, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Further random sampling has thrown up no issues. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:32, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]

Nikkimaria (talk) 17:31, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In the unlikely event that Nikkimaria feels there isn't, can I flag up that it is extremely unlikely that the closing coordinator will consider "Travail personnel avec [Google Maps]" to be a high quality source, or even a reliable one. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:32, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Google maps as a reliable source was discussed as a source at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 388#Google Maps. On Commons WP:OR and WP:MAPCITE do not apply. I am not using the map as a source myself. I could use File:Cherbourg - demolitions and underwater obstacles-1.jpg and File:Cherbourg - demolitions and underwater obstacles-2.jpg instead. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:47, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The source of these images (Crist) could be used for WP:V on Wikipedia, but that policy does not apply on Commons either. Instead Commons has an essay Commons:Verifiability which says "Commons does not require reliable sources or any independent evidence that an image or other file contains what it purports to contain." There is another essay, Commons:Evidence-based mapping, which says: "English Wikipedia has a well-earned reputation for valuing accuracy and verifiability in its texts. It also uses media files from Wikimedia Commons, which, however, has different rules than English Wikipedia. Commons values free artistic expression above all else, including accuracy and verifiability, as long as nobody's copyright is violated. Therefore, you can still 'get away with' a lot of unsourced, inaccurate and misleading visual information on Commons, especially in mapping."
This essay contains a section on English Wikipedia policies and conventions which summaries the results of two long discussions about this matter in May and July 2021, and the policies and guidelines that apply here on Wikipedia.
With great reluctance I have switched to the alternative multiple map. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:06, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SC

[edit]

Support. An interesting piece. I made a few minor tweaks on my readthrough – feel free to delete anything inappropriate. Just two comments, neither of which will affect my support:

  • "Over 15,000 vehicles were deadlined": I'm not sure what "deadlined" means – as the term appears a few times, is there a way to translate?
    Deadlined: "A military term used to describe the operational condition of a piece of equipment. It means the equipment in question is NMC [not military capable] or is broken down. Equipment can be deadlined for safety reasons such as fuel leaks, inop headlights, Missing seatbelts, etc." Urban dictionary Added a link to the wiktionary definition. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:07, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 17:59, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 5 January 2023 [44].

Manos Arriba

[edit]
Nominator(s): Aoba47 (talk) 17:49, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Although Rosanna Tavarez has largely fallen into obscurity, her Spanish-language extended play Manos Arriba holds a special place for me. I discovered the EP through the iTunes Store back in 2008 and I likely connected with it because I was exploring Latin music while taking Spanish classes in high school.

Tavarez rose to prominence as a member of the girl group Eden's Crush, and after working as a television host, she recorded Latin alternative music under the stage name Chana. She described the EP as "trop-electro-hip-pop", and critics have discussed the different genres and styles present in the songs. After transitioning away from music, Tavarez is currently more focused on dance, which she does with the stage name La Dansa Dansa, as well as teaching.

I created this article back in 2017 and it received a very helpful GAN review from @Carbrera:. I completely rewrote the article this year after finally getting my hands on a physical copy of the EP. I would be very surprised if anyone else has heard of this EP, but I hope you find the article to be engaging. I would greatly appreciate any feedback on how to further improve the article. Thank you in advance! Aoba47 (talk) 17:49, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NØ

[edit]
  • Image review - pass: The cover art comfortably passes the fair-use criteria at the very small size of 9KB. However, Discogs is an unreliable source so I would suggest replacing it with iTunes, AllMusic or a primary source.--NØ 19:05, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apple Music gives the release date as January 1, 2008. Is it incorrect in this case and if so is it known on what day in March it was released?
  • This is a very good question, and I appreciate that you have asked that. I had use the January 1, 2008 release date in earlier draft of the article, but I could not find any other citations to support this. I have updated the bundled citation to include a Billboard source, which directly names the release date as sometime in March.
  • I trust that over the Apple Music source, especially given that was the time of the release party and the promotional push on the iTunes Store. While that kind of delay is plausible for an independent project, it seems off to me. This citation from Diario Libre seems to indicate that the EP was released on March 25, 2008 (as in the article, it says it was released "today" which I would assume means the publication date).
  • I am toying with the idea of adding a note to this part, which would mention both the Apple Music and Diario Libre dates. I am uncertain if the Diario Libre citation is strong enough by itself to support the more specific release date as I just find it odd that other sources do not use this more specific date. What do you think? Apologies for the length of this reply. Aoba47 (talk) 19:39, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • This was more of a clarification question on my behalf but I really appreciate you going the extra mile and looking at some more sources. I think it would be fine as it is, although I can't think of any reason why a note would be harmful either. I'll leave this to your preference.
  • Thank you for the response. Apologies for going way over-board. I probably thought about it just way, way too much. I will do some potential drafts of a note in my sandbox over the next few days and see if that kind of thing is appropriate for the article. Aoba47 (talk) 05:22, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "She wrote and produced all five songs with Chan, and recorded them in Los Angeles, including at his personal recording studio" - Nitpick-y but this could be "She wrote and produced all five songs with Chan, and recorded them in Los Angeles, at locations including his personal recording studio"
  • I'm not sure the last sentence of the lead's second paragraph is currently demonstrated by the Critical reception section. I was confused about this because a Ctrl + F search for "Latin American" turned up just the one mention in the lead. Is it in some other section?
  • The sentence that begins with "Tavarez rejected their offers" and ends with "did not have any vocal training" could be split into two parts.
  • The name of Eden's Crush's debut album, Popstars, should probably be mentioned in the prose to avoid an WP:EASTEREGG
  • "The iTunes Store featured the EP as the "Best of the Week" in iTunes Latino" - Should it be "on" instead of "in"?
  • "For these performance" - Maybe "performance" should be plural
  • "Falling James appreciated that the EP's levity" - Maybe "that" should be removed here
That's it from me. It is truly remarkable how comprehensive, elaborate and engaging this article is given that the EP did not chart. Amazing work!--NØ 14:11, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @MaranoFan: Thank you for your review! I greatly appreciate it and you have helped to improve the article by a great deal. I have left a response to your question on the release dates. It is a more annoying point as the release date is not super clear, likely because it is an independent project, but I have proposed adding a note to hopefully clarify this point, but I want to get your feedback prior to doing so. Thank you for your kind words! I was pleasantly surprised to find so much coverage on an EP that not only did not chart, but was released independently. I have a soft spot for this EP so I hope it will lead to some readers discovering it in the future. Apologies for being so lengthy in my responses. Aoba47 (talk) 19:42, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Moise

[edit]
  • Lead: "Chana was initially a member of the girl group Eden's Crush and following their disbandment, she worked as a host on music television shows and decided to record Spanish-language music after meeting producer Marthin Chan." Consider breaking into two sentences (feels long).
  • "She had previously rejected offers from executives from Latin music record labels to seek out a career in more alternative genres of music rather than conventional Latin pop." From the context we can get the meaning, but grammatically it could be read as "offers to seek out" or "rejected in order to seek out" (I understand it's the second of these). Moisejp (talk) 04:52, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Normally "alternative" is treated as a single genre, and "alternative genres" seems like an unusual usage that raised my eyebrows at least. But I haven't read the whole article yet, not sure if you had a special reason to make it plural. Moisejp (talk) 04:56, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for both notes. I agree that the wording is unnecessarily ambiguous and I have removed the "alternative" wording to avoid connections with more specific genres and styles of music. Aoba47 (talk) 17:41, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Background: "was frequently approached by Latin music record executives". Is "frequently" correct here? It seems surprising that record executives would approach her when she had only sung at karaoke. Was she dazzlingly beautiful, or did they all see her karaoke performances, or might you have more information for why record executives "frequently" approached her? (Even "occasionally" would seem surprising without more information.) Moisejp (talk) 05:02, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the comment. Upon further examination, I misread the citation and I apologize for that. When I look back at the source, she says that she was approached by "top producers in the Latino music industry" and I get the sense it was a one-time thing. She says the producers approached her because of her appearance, and I'd imagine her being in Miami also helped with this encounter. I have revised these parts in the lead and article. I can remove that part from the lead if it is being given too much weight. Let me know if this part needs further revision and apologies again for my mistake with this part. Aoba47 (talk) 17:53, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Although initially reluctant to discuss the group in interviews,[4] Tavarez was later more open about it,[2][5] and said: 'I used to be like, oh, no, let’s not talk about that. Not now. It was a unique opportunity, and I ran with it.'" This doesn't seem to me really relevant to the story of Manos Arriba. But if you do want to mention it, I suggest you paraphrase the quote. Using a quote here gives extra weight to the detail that I'd argue isn't warranted. Moisejp (talk) 05:10, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed. I have removed that sentence. I had initially thought it would add to the greater context of Tavarez wanting to move away from what she viewed as conventional pop and make her own name, but I fully admit that is pushing it. Aoba47 (talk) 18:01, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Along with her television work, Tavarez was also signed to SESAC and Warner Chappell Music as a songwriter." Do you have more information about how she got signed as a songwriter? I noticed she didn't write any of the songs of the Eden's Crush album, and there is no indication in the article about how she may have developed her songwriting skills, and impressed people at SESAC and Warner Chappell Music enough to be hired by them. I confess I don't know exactly what's involved in being hired at a song publishing company, but it seems like a big achievement that not just anybody, even someone in a successful girl's group, could necessarily easily do. Moisejp (talk) 05:24, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wish I had more context for this information. The citation references it without any context and I was unable to find further information about it. I cannot even say when she signed this deal. I have removed the sentence from the article as I do not think it is really adding any information about the EP. When I originally worked on this article, Tavarez's article was a redirect to Eden's Crush and this kind of information would seem more appropriate in her article than in this one. It does seem like a big achievement, especially when you factor in Tavarez seeminyl did not have any prior songwriting credits and her biggest musical achievement prior to this was being in a girl group created on a reality television show and that disbanded after one year. It is an odd one. Aoba47 (talk) 18:15, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

More to follow soon! :-) Moisejp (talk) 05:27, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Moisejp: Thank you for your comments. I appreciate your help. Apologies for misreading one of the sources. It was something that I misread back in 2017 and I should have double-checked to make sure it was accurate as like you have already said, it is a rather extraordinary thing to happen to someone. I hope you are having a great week so far! Aoba47 (talk) 18:15, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    OK. Whenever I nominate something for FAC I always always go through every single citation for a final check that the cited information is accurate. It's a good practice. :-) Moisejp (talk) 18:38, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll continue my review soon. Moisejp (talk) 18:39, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing:

  • "Chana and Chan wrote and produced all five songs on the extended play (EP) Manos Arriba." This feels a bit sudden to me. Maybe it would be better to mention that their bonding led them to start writing some songs together. Possibly don't even mention EP or the title in this paragraph, since it seems at this stage in the timeline it was all about their (exploratory?) collaborative songwriting. Likely they didn't know how long it was all going to take or how many songs they'd end up with (unless it happens your sources say they already had some kind of clear vision they wanted to make an EP). Moisejp (talk) 04:18, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Or if you feel the narrative in this paragraph needs to specifically mention the Manos Arriba EP (to not lose the reader?) another option could be to make reference to something like "songs that would eventually comprise the Manos Arriba EP". Moisejp (talk) 04:26, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there any info in the sources about why she/they only released five out of the eighteen songs, and she/they chose to release an EP instead of a full album? (Or any information about the outtakes?) There could be lots of reasons, and I'm not saying it's necessarily surprising, just curious whether there might be more info about that side of things. Moisejp (talk) 05:18, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfortunately, I could not find an exact reason for this decision. The citation presents it more as a fact and does not follow-up with any quotes from Chana or Chan. I only found one citation that mentioned this so I could not find further details or explanations elsewhere either. If I had to give my personal opinion about it, I'd imagine that it would be cheaper and easier to release and promote an EP as an independent artist, but that's just pure speculation on my part. Aoba47 (talk) 16:24, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In a 2008 interview with Univision, she discussed wanting to release a full album, which would include some songs from Manos Arriba". This was after she had already released Manos Arriba that she said this, I presume? It may not be clear.
  • "but said creating music without support from a record label was more challenging". I can guess some why of she may have meant, but did she happen to give more details about this?
  • The only explanation I can find in the citation is that it takes more time. I have added that to the article, but I know that it is not really detailed information so apologies for that. I would imagine that her difficulty was with having to do everything herself (i.e. scheduling time to record music in the studio, hiring and working with people on the personnel end, etc.), but she does not go into any real detail about that (at least from what I have seen and read). A lot of the questions I have seen focused more on her transition from Eden's Crush to Latin music, her insecurity with music, or her dance background. Aoba47 (talk) 16:34, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "she talked about working with Thom Russo to expand her sound". Are there any more details available about what she meant by this? She wanted to explore new genres, or she wanted to be more creative with her sound within her current genres, or possibly something else? Moisejp (talk) 05:30, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have expanded this section. I clarified that at least according to Chana, she was already in the process of recording an album with Thom Russo (that in retrospective must have stalled or had other issues) and I added more to her reasoning for this statement. The "more layered" bit is a bit generic I admit, but I think it at least helps to indicate something. Her statement about having more resources provides the clearest explanation to me. Aoba47 (talk) 16:40, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Aoba, I'll finish off this review v. soon, thanks for your patience! Moisejp (talk) 22:49, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the update and no worries. Take as much time as you need. I know that this is a busy time of year for a lot of people, and this nomination is still relatively new at this point. I appreciate your review so far and I am looking forward to your suggestions in the future. Have a wonderful rest of your weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 23:20, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "harder, funkier and more readily danceable ska backing": In the source, is this being compared to something else (funkier, harder, more danceable than...)? It feels a little incomplete.
  • "When asked about the reception to the EP's sound, Chana responded that various Latin communities responded to it differently as they had different definitions of mainstream and underground music". The first part of this feels a bit forced and incomplete to me. What was the context in which she was asked that? If the context were clearer, I think it would go a long way. But also Chana's response seems unclear, maybe again due to the lack of context. Additionally, the sentence as a whole also feels a bit removed from what comes before it; I'm not saying there's absolutely no relationship, but the flow of the story seems a bit disjointed. In sum, I guess I'm asking if ideally there could be more given to make the context of the question and answer clearer, and also to fit this piece better into the story as a whole. Maybe there might be other addable details in González or from other sources that you already use, to make that link and flow stronger, if possible. :-) Moisejp (talk) 04:16, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the comment and question. I completely understand your point. This is Chana's full quote from the source: “Here in New York, there’s a different definition of arty, and people think it’s too commercial. In Miami, it’s not mainstream enough. But in L.A., it’s just right.” This quote follows this sentence: "Subtle differences between cities with large Latin populations also affect how her music is perceived." I am not sure if this part is particularly useful or beneficial to the article so I ended up removing because I could not find a way to clearly engage this information with the rest of the article, but I am more than open to recommendations. Aoba47 (talk) 00:16, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just confirming "genres that Chana listened to as a child" (sorry, that's my edit from something a little different that you had) should not be something like "genres that Chana would have listened to as a child" or "that Burstein presumed Chana would have listened to as a child"? The source seems to be in Spanish, so I did not try to read it. :-) Moisejp (talk) 04:26, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I double-checked the citation and you are correct. She listened to these genres as a child, and it is something brought up in other citations. Thank you for the edit to this part (and to the rest of the article) as you have helped a great deal! Aoba47 (talk) 00:16, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • She never ultimately released a full album after Manos Arriba, did she? Do you have any sources saying so that you can cite? Right now the article talks about her working on an album with Thom Russo, but the reader is left to wonder whether that was realized.
  • I could not find any sources that explicitly said she never released a full album after Manos Arriba or that she did not release any music in general after the EP. I did add in two short sentences that discuss how Tavarez has transitioned away from music to solely focus on a dance career. That should help readers understand that the album did not happen and her music career is no longer ongoing. But, there are not any sources that provide the information you are asking for in your question. Aoba47 (talk) 19:45, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "an artist or a band who's on the cusp of success" feels like an unnecessary direct quote that would be better paraphrased. In general I'd argue overall you use still just a few too many direct quotes across the article, and if you could go through and cut out maybe a quarter of them throughout the article, it would flow more smoothly—especially ones that don't really add extra flavour, if you know what I mean.
  • I have paraphrased the part that you have mentioned. I have gone through the article to paraphrase some of the quotes, and I will likely go through it again in the near future to see if there is anything further I can do about this matter. I do have a tendency to over-quote things so it is always good to pass through a few times to separate what is really necessary from what is not. Aoba47 (talk) 19:58, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Levin interpreted the track as a "sarcastic imitation" of the practice,[7] while Gurza said it is treated with "mocking disdain"." I wonder if there's a way to combine both of these into one overarching paraphrased comment supported by both sources? This sentence also feels overly quote-y, partly in that what they are both saying seems at least somewhat similar.
  • Understandable. I have combined the sentences and paraphased the quotes. For whatever reason, when I first read these sources, I took them as meaning as slightly different things (i.e. Levin viewing it as more light-hearted than Gurza), but upon further reflection, I agree that they are pretty much saying the same thing. Aoba47 (talk) 19:58, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Chan uploaded a making of for the "Icaro" music video on August 13, 2008": On YouTube? Or where was it uploaded to?
  • "eclectic schedule": Are you sure "eclectic" ("deriving ideas, style, or taste from a broad and diverse range of sources") is the right word here? Do you mean something like "her schedule of eclectic performances" and if so, could "schedule" be removed altogether?
  • "industry showcases": Is there anything you can wiki-link to here, or possibly add more context? Personally I don't have a clear idea what it means.
  • Fair question. Surpisingly, there is not a Wikipedia article on this type of event. I am surprised because it is rather common within the music industry, and I have run across it several times in my research on various singers. I have added a note to hopefully provide a clearer definition, with a source to support this information of course, as a wiki-link is not available (at least at this time). An industry showcase is basically when an up-and-coming artist does a private performance for people within the music industry to try and further develop their career. If you would like a video example, here is one of Britney Spears doing one back in 1998. To put it in the simpliest terms, it is a networking event. Please let me know if further clarification is necessary. Aoba47 (talk) 20:31, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Paragraph 2 of "Critical reception" begins with "Manos Arriba's production was the subject of praise" so I thought this was going to be a new topic from what is in paragraph 1. But I didn't notice any clear distinction about the kinds of stuff critics talked about in paragraph 1 and paragraph 2.
  • Fair enough. I collapse the two paragraphs into a single one. For whatever reason, I thought the first paragraph was more separate from the production angle (i.e. Latina calling it the best unkown EP, Ben-Yehuda focusing on the hooks and lyrics, and James appreciating that Chana did not "dumb down" her music and still made something that was more positive. Aoba47 (talk) 20:09, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I went back in and revised this further. For the first paragraph, I started with more general praise followed by two reviewers who focused on Chana and how she sold the music and then I separated the production praise into a separate paragraph. I felt rather lazy for just clumping everything into a single paragraph so I wanted to try and make it more engaging than that, but feel free to let me know if the separation is still not transparent or clear. Aoba47 (talk) 22:47, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's all for my first read-through. Moisejp (talk) 07:14, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for your comments so far. I just wanted to let you know that I will respond to them later today if that is okay with you. Just wanted to let you know that I am aware of the more recent comments and will get to them when I have the opportunity to do so. Aoba47 (talk) 18:48, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Moisejp: Thank you again for your review. I have addressed all of your points. I will do a few readthroughs of the article over the next few days to look through the quotes more closely to see if there is anything else I could paraphrase, but I wanted to get your assessment first. Please let me know if there is anything else I can do to improve the article, and I hope you have a Happy Holidays! Aoba47 (talk) 20:34, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support – This article has improved a lot, the prose flows a lot better, and the storyline is more cohesive. One minor thing you could still look at is there are a small number of instances where people are mentioned just by their name and it would be good ideally to give them some kind of title to suggest their authority in the topic (critic? reviewer? even just writer? some other title as the case may be?)—these include Ayala Ben-Yehuda, Jordan Levin, Agustin Gurza. There may be one or two more, but if so it's easy for you to find them and remedy the situation. Cheers, Moisejp (talk) 04:22, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for the support and for your review. You have helped me to improve the article immensely and I greatly appreciate that. I had some very silly errors in that so apologies for that. Your edits were very helpful!
  • For the individuals you have pointed out above (i.e. Ayala Ben-Yehuda, Jordan Levin, Agustin Gurza), they are actually introduced upon their first mention in the article with their publications. I used their full names in their first mentions in subsequent sections as I thought it would be rather jarring to just use their last names after that, but I know that is also a common approach used by FA writers. I hope you are doing well and have a great rest of your week! Aoba47 (talk) 04:27, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]
  • "did not want to pursue a career in contentional Latin pop" - conventional?
  • "For the beginning of March 2008, "No Me Mandes Flores" was the third most downloaded song on iTunes Latino" - it was the third most downloaded song of the "beginning of March"? Is there not a more precise timeframe for that stat? (see also where it appears in the body)
  • Unfortunately, I could not find more exact information about this statistic. It was only reported by one source, which uses the vague "early March" time, and I do not believe there are any records kept for iTunes charts so I cannot look back on it for further information. I considered looking through the Internet Archive, but I would need to have a link to find that kind of information if it is available at all. Aoba47 (talk) 18:22, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Chana released a music video for the track "Icaro", which reviewers described as inspired by Chana's modern dance training" => "Chana released a music video for the track "Icaro", which reviewers described as inspired by her modern dance training"
  • "Eden's Crush disbanded after London-Sire Records closed in 2001.[2] In 2008, she told" - it's been quite a while since Tavarez was specifically mentioned, so maybe replace "she" with her name for total clarity.....?
  • "through his mutual friends" - mutual friends are by definition friends to both parties, so "his mutual friends" doesn't make sense TBH
  • "guitarist for the rock band Volumen Cero,[7][4] " - refs in wrong order
  • "but later decided release an EP" => "but later decided to release an EP"
  • "Tommy Calle wrote" - who's he?
  • "Fonseca's "Te Mando Flores" ("I Send You Flower")" - flowers (plural), surely?
  • "a man who does not paying attention" => "a man who does not pay attention"
  • "In his verses, Malverde assumes" - maybe mention earlier that Malverde contributed to the EP, as this is the first mention and it's a bit "out of the blue"
  • Could you clarify this point for me? Malverde is only a featured artist on one song and did not contribute to the EP's recording, production, etc. so I am not sure how to introduce him earlier. Aoba47 (talk) 18:22, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe change the sentence to something like "Rapper Malverde adds guest vocals to the track in which he assumes the role of a cat-caller"? Just saying "in his verses, Malverde does such-and-such" comes across like the reader was already aware that he had contributed to the EP, even though he hasn't been mentioned before -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:39, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "on iTunes Latino, the name of the store's Latin music section" => "on iTunes Latino, the store's Latin music section"
  • "Two singles – "No Me Mandes Flores" and "La Duda" – were released from Manos Arriba" - EP title should be in italics
  • La Duda" was selected - opening quote mark is missing
  • "Along with her U.S. performances, Chana did a show at the Hard Rock Cafe in Santo Domingo" - if it's not in the US, what country is Santo Domingo in? I personally wouldn't know without following the link
  • @ChrisTheDude: Thank you for your review and apologies for all of the very, very silly mistakes and typos that I had made in the article. I do have a quick question about the Malverde suggestion, and if possible, I would greatly appreciate either further clarification and a suggestion on how to better incorporate that information into the article. Hope you have a wonderful weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 18:22, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review – pass

[edit]
  • Is chanamusica an official YouTube channel? If not, it's a WP:COPYVIO.
  • I believe it is her official YouTube channel, but I cannot find an official confirmation. Do you think I should remove it? I am leaning toward removing it, but I wanted to get your opinion on this matter first. Aoba47 (talk) 19:57, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, an official account usually has something in channel info section - (social media) links or some introductory text, but I would understand if she didn't care enough to do that (given her low amount of subscribers). FrB.TG (talk) 20:13, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed. Since I cannot confirm if this is her official YouTube channel or not, I have removed it from the article. I have also removed Chan's YouTube reference for similar reasons, but also because the information is rather trivial. Aoba47 (talk) 21:09, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Endgaget source was published on 26 March 2008, not 25.
  • On my end, it says that it is 25 March 2008. I have encountered sources before that change slightly depending on your time zone, etc. so this is likely one of those cases. What do you think I should do in cases like this one? Aoba47 (talk) 19:57, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure if the "Made for each other" source by LA Times needs a |url-access=subscription parameter since I could access it without having any kind of subscription.
  • I have removed the paramater. For whatever reason, it popped up when I first was accessing the source, but it does not appear anymore. Thank you for catching this for me. Aoba47 (talk) 19:57, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • It happens sometimes. In one of "my" articles recently, I encountered this issue where I could read an article from one device but would need a subscription to read on another. FrB.TG (talk) 20:13, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am using it for the interview so I believe it is reliable in that context. I am only using it to support information that Chana says and I am not using any of the information that the interviewer or the website says on their own. Aoba47 (talk) 19:57, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fine.
  • @FrB.TG: Thank you for the source review! I have addressed everything. I have asked a few questions to just get your opinion on it, and I am looking forward to your answer. Have a great weekend and thank you again! Aoba47 (talk) 19:57, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 5 January 2023 [45].

Marina Bay MRT station

[edit]
Nominator(s): ZKang123 (talk) 10:50, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is actually an old GA of mine, promoted back in 2020. Now, with the opening of the Thomson East Coast line, I've greatly expanded the article particularly information on train services and the artworks in the station.

Cheers to the new triple-line interchange station on the Singapore MRT network! ZKang123 (talk) 10:50, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Steelkamp

[edit]

Comments

[edit]
  • "The main challenges of the construction include" => "The main challenges of the construction included"
  • " one of the four stations that participated in Exercise Northstar V" - appreciate there's a link, but it wouldn't hurt to clarify what this was eg " one of the four stations that participated in Exercise Northstar V, a large-scale emergency preparedness exercise"
  • "Contract 886 for the construction of cut and cover tunnels at Marina Bay Area" - previously you wrote "cut-and-cover" with hyphens
  • "This is due to the layers of weak and strong old alluvium" - is there a wikilink for alluvium?
  • "the piles supporting the NSL tunnels have to be" => "the piles supporting the NSL tunnels had to be"
  • "As announced during a visit by Transport Minister S. Iswaran" - don't think you need to give his job title twice in two consecutive sentences. Just using his surname the second time will suffice
  • "6:25 am on Sundays and Public holidays" - no reason for capital P (in two places)
  • That's all I got - great work! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:09, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Rectified above problems. ZKang123 (talk) 10:14, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy ping to ChrisTheDude. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:39, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: Apologies, forgot all about this one. Will take a look this evening....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:42, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment

[edit]

More than four weeks in and just the single general support. Unless this nomination makes significant further progress towards a consensus to promote over the next two or three days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:53, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Steelkamp, Epicgenius, and Mitchazenia: Pinging you as you have all commented on this page. Unless there is some rapid movement towards a consensus to promote, this nomination is going to be archived, so if you have comments or supports, now would be a good time to communicate them. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:19, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Epicgenius

[edit]

I will leave some comments here later. – Epicgenius (talk) 23:55, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lead:
  • "becoming another triple-line interchange on the MRT network." - I would either clarify that Dhoby Ghaut MRT station was the first triple-line interchange or simplify this to "becoming a triple-line interchange".
  • "The station features many forms of artwork as part of the MRT network's Art-in-Transit programme" - Instead of "many forms of artwork", I wonder if "numerous works of art" could be used. Though this might be just a WP:ENGVAR issue.
  • I would also split the sentence "An overhanging flower sculpture Flowers in Blossom II is displayed over the CCL mezzanine, the CCL platforms feature a series of photographs Train Rides on Rainy Days by Nah Yong En and the TEL station features a series of murals Walking Into The Interstitial by Tang Ling Nah." into at least two sentences. Currently, the lead doesn't clearly state how many works of art the station has.
History:
  • "The first confirmation that the station would be among the Phase I stations (from Ang Mo Kio to this station)" - This is a little awkward, as Raffles Place MRT station and City Hall MRT station seem to indicate that Phase I ran from Novena to Outram Park stations.
  • "Due to the soft marine clay, open excavation was not possible." - Does "open excavation" in this context mean cut-and-cover?
  • "A concrete base for the tunnels was then laid with the water pumped out for the tunnels and the station to be built on." - For a minute, this was difficult for me to understand, but I get what this is trying to say. Perhaps something like "A concrete base for the tunnels was then laid. with the water pumped out, upon which the tunnels and the station were to be built."
  • "During the construction, a World War II-era bomb was found at the work site. The Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) Bomb Disposal Unit was called and the bomb was safely detonated elsewhere." - Since this is a relatively minor detail, I recommend condensing this into one sentence.
  • "until the NSL extension to Marina South Pier station opened in 2014." - Given that you are describing the CCL extension in detail in the next subsection, I recommend adding a few more details about the NSL extension (e.g. when was it announced, and how much did it cost?).
  • "During the construction, the entrance (Exit A) to the station" - This is somewhat awkward as well. I recommend "During the construction, Exit A"
  • "Marina Bay station was first announced to interchange with the 22-station Thomson line (TSL) on 29 August 2012" - This should be rephrased, e.g. "On 29 August 2012, it was announced that Marina Bay station would interchange with the 22-station Thomson line (TSL)"
  • "at S$425 million" - Should this be "for S$425 million"?
  • "especially as the piles supporting the NSL tunnels have to be cut off for the underground walkways and mined train tunnels" - I'd change "have" to "had" since the project is already complete.
Details:
  • "The station is also within walking distance" - The MRT map specifies this distance (4 minutes), so I'd recommend adding that, but it's not necessary.
  • "11.30 pm" - For consistency with other times that are mentioned in this article, this should be "11:30 pm" with a colon.
  • "A temporary maintenance facility near the station is to be converted" - Any time frame for this? Also, I'd specify in this sentence (rather than in the next sentence) that the facility is closed.
  • "The translucent entrance canopy" - For the CCL, I presume.
  • "but it has been upgraded to include lifts, ramps and dedicated toilets for the disabled" - Do you know which year this happened?
Artworks:
  • "the sculpture was disassembled after ION Orchard was constructed over Orchard station" - What is ION Orchard - is that a development of some kind?
That is all I have for now. I reviewed the "Details" and "Artworks" sections previously, but overall, the article looks to be in good shape. – Epicgenius (talk) 16:47, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Rectified most of the above.
"The first confirmation that the station would be among the Phase I stations (from Ang Mo Kio to this station)" - This is a little awkward, as Raffles Place MRT station and City Hall MRT station seem to indicate that Phase I ran from Novena to Outram Park stations.
Well, Phase I when first announced actually consist of AMK to this station and two other stations. See source. For the case of City Hall and Raffles Place, it is then specified which segment of Phase I the stations are part of... the full history is a little complicated. But basically: Phase I consists of AMK to Marina Bay (plus Tanjong Pagar and Outram Park), but then it is later decided to open a specific segment of the line from Novena to Outram Park, and Marina Bay is opened later.
No timeframe has been given for the conversion. As for now the facility is defunct.
I'm also not sure exactly when the station is upgraded to include these facilities. ZKang123 (talk) 07:11, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I see now. All of these are minor issues, though, so I'll support on prose. – Epicgenius (talk) 16:45, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Quick image review by Mitchazenia

[edit]

Just having taken a look at the article, the image templates in the history section are really bulky and make it tough to read. There are no requirements that every platform have a picture in the article. Gallery sections are considered no-nos as well, so my personal suggestion is that we need to break up the templates, pick 1 image for each set and move them to prose. Mitch32(sail away with me to another world.) 01:05, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Did as requested. Added a construction photo for the TEL section ZKang123 (talk) 06:34, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Still think you should move the photo in the bottom section up to help not have stacked imagery. Mitch32(won't you be my neighbor?) 03:03, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Removed photo instead ZKang123 (talk) 05:24, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I still think the boxy setup is still bulky, but it's much better in its current form. All photos are copyright-legal, 4 self-created by the nominator, 2 by others.Mitch32(won't you be my neighbor?) 02:06, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, I think the image box is fine. Steelkamp (talk) 05:26, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ultimately this is just my opinion, but I support the article in its current form. If we use those boxes, I personally like them embedded in prose and right-aligned myself. Mitch32(won't you be my neighbor?) 02:13, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by Epicgenius

[edit]

I will do a source review soon. This should mostly consist of formatting and spot checks. I notice that the NewspaperSG website will be unavailable for more than a day starting tomorrow, so I will take that into account.

– Epicgenius (talk) 16:49, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I checked and all the newspaper citations to |via=NewspaperSG have this paramter. The other two with the domain are to the Web Archive Singapore... should I put |via=Web Archive Singapore for these cases then? ZKang123 (talk) 01:04, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@ZKang123, sorry for the delayed response. Yes, you should put |via=Web Archive Singapore in these cases. – Epicgenius (talk) 13:46, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Alright added. ZKang123 (talk) 14:17, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Formatting:
  • Ref 29 ("LTA | News Room | News Releases | LTA Awards First Three Civil Contracts for Circle Line 6". Land Transport Authority. Archived from the original on 5 March 2020. Retrieved 21 April 2020.) - The title should probably be just "LTA Awards First Three Civil Contracts for Circle Line 6". Similar issues with these refs:
    • Ref 39 (""LTA | Upcoming Projects | Rail Expansion | Thomson–East Coast Line". Land Transport Authority. 13 February 2020. Archived from the original on 13 February 2020. Retrieved 13 February 2020.)
    • Ref 41 ("LTA | News Room | News Releases | Factsheet: Constructing Thomson–East Coast Line Marina Bay Station: Ground-Freezing Technology". Land Transport Authority. Archived from the original on 21 April 2020. Retrieved 21 April 2020.)
    • Ref 62 ("LTA | Getting Around | Public Transport | Rail Network | Circle Line". Land Transport Authority. Archived from the original on 1 November 2019. Retrieved 22 April 2020.)
  • Ref 49 ( "Marina Bay – Map". SMRT Journeys. SMRT Corporation. Archived from the original on 23 April 2022. Retrieved 15 November 2022.) and ref 50 ("Marina Bay – Exits". SMRT Journeys. Archived from the original on 13 November 2022. Retrieved 15 November 2022.) are from the same website, but one of these has a publisher parameter, and the other doesn't. Can you check throughout the article to see whether citations to the SMRT Journey website consistently have (or don't have) the publisher field?
– Epicgenius (talk) 21:05, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed all of the above. ZKang123 (talk) 08:53, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. For consistency, can you add an access-date to ref 57 ("List of public CD shelters" (PDF). Singapore Civil Defence Force.")? You have access-dates for all the other {{Cite web}} refs. My internet is acting up right now, so I won't be able to get to the spot checks until tomorrow, my time. – Epicgenius (talk) 20:07, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Added access date. ZKang123 (talk) 00:19, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
More formatting issues:
  • Add publication dates to these references:
    • Ref 16 (Dhaliwal, Rav. "East-enders get ticket to ride as MRT opens line". The Straits Times. Singapore Press Holdings. p. 23. Retrieved 21 April 2020 – via NewspaperSG.)
    • Ref 22 ("Award Of Contract For CCL Marina Bay Station". Land Transport Authority. Archived from the original on 31 December 2013 – via Web Archive Singapore.)
    • Ref 25 ( "The extension on Circle Line opens with two events held concurrently at Bayfront Station and Esplanade Xchange". SMRT Corporation. Archived from the original on 22 April 2020. Retrieved 22 April 2020.) - The reference doesn't say the date separately, but the text of the reference says "today, Saturday, 14 January 2012"
    • Ref 29 ("LTA Awards First Three Civil Contracts for Circle Line 6". Land Transport Authority. Archived from the original on 5 March 2020. Retrieved 21 April 2020.)
    • Ref 30 ("First Circle Line 6 contracts worth S$1.75b awarded by LTA". Channel NewsAsia. Mediacorp. Archived from the original on 5 March 2020. Retrieved 21 April 2020.)
    • Ref 36 (Goy, Priscilla. "Thomson-East Coast Line to run through estates in the east including Marine Parade". The Straits Times. Singapore Press Holdings. Retrieved 25 November 2022.)
    • Ref 43 ("Written Reply by Minister for Transport Ong Ye Kung to Parliamentary Question on Updates on Thomson East Coast Line, Jurong Region Line and Cross Island Line". Ministry of Transport. Archived from the original on 17 May 2021. Retrieved 17 May 2021.)
    • Ref 46 ("Factsheet: Thomson – East Coast Line Stage 3 to Open for Passenger Service from 13 November 2022". Land Transport Authority. Retrieved 7 October 2022.)
  • Ref 43 should be marked as a dead link.
  • Ref 75 ("August 9 Babies". eastpix.com. 19 May 2021. Retrieved 15 November 2022.) - Who is the publisher of eastpix.com? Is it the personal website of one of the artists?
Spot checks:
  • Ref 2 ("Marina Bay MRT Station (CE2)". OneMap. Singapore Land Authority. Retrieved 15 November 2022.) - No issues.
  • Ref 11 (Soon Neo, Lim (8 April 1986). "Joint venture wins last big MRT deal". The Business Times. Singapore Press Holdings. p. 3. Retrieved 21 April 2020 – via NewspaperSG.) - No issues, but you should clarify that the 900 metres of tunnels are separate from the station.
  • Ref 16 (Dhaliwal, Rav. "East-enders get ticket to ride as MRT opens line". The Straits Times. Singapore Press Holdings. p. 23. Retrieved 21 April 2020 – via NewspaperSG.) - No issues.
  • Ref 22 ("Award Of Contract For CCL Marina Bay Station". Land Transport Authority. Archived from the original on 31 December 2013 – via Web Archive Singapore.) - No issues.
  • Ref 28 ("Speech by Mr Lui Tuck Yew at visit to DTL1 Chinatown Station on 17 January 2013". Ministry of Transport. 17 January 2013. Archived from the original on 28 August 2021. Retrieved 16 April 2022.) - No issues.
  • Ref 33 ("Thomson Line to open from 2019 with 22 stations". Channel NewsAsia. Mediacorp. 30 August 2012. Archived from the original on 30 August 2012. Retrieved 30 June 2021.) - No issues.
  • Ref 36 (Goy, Priscilla. "Thomson-East Coast Line to run through estates in the east including Marine Parade". The Straits Times. Singapore Press Holdings. Retrieved 25 November 2022.) - No verification issues, but see my comment about dates above.
  • Ref 52 ("MRT System Map" (PDF). Land Transport Authority. Retrieved 15 November 2022.) - No issues.
  • Ref 66 ("World Architecture Festival 2012 awards shortlist announced". Dezeen. 18 July 2012. Archived from the original on 6 May 2019. Retrieved 22 April 2020.) - This reference only cites the fact that the station was shortlisted for the award (it was one of several finalists, but it did not win the award). Ref 61 ("Marina Bay Station, Singapore, Republic of". World Buildings Directory. Archived from the original on 20 October 2012. Retrieved 6 July 2013.) also says the station was shortlisted.
  • Ref 70 ("More MRT stops ready for disabled". The Straits Times. Singapore Press Holdings. 24 December 2002. p. 1. Retrieved 15 November 2022.) - I think this can be used to cite "Wider fare gates allow wheelchair users to access the station more easily" (the second use of this reference), but it does not cite "The NSL station was built without accessible facilities, but it has been upgraded to include lifts, ramps and dedicated toilets for the disabled" (the first use of this reference).
– Epicgenius (talk) 14:42, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Rectified above problems. Not sure about eastpix, but it's likely by the publisher. ZKang123 (talk) 07:13, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Eastpix is likely Tay Kay Chin's website, but that is a relatively minor issue. I haven't seen any other issues regarding citations, so I am passing the source review. – Epicgenius (talk) 15:04, 4 January 2023 (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 2023 [46].

23 Wall Street

[edit]
Nominator(s): Epicgenius (talk) 15:28, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a building in Manhattan, New York City, which served as the headquarters of J.P. Morgan & Co. from 1914 to 1988. Though only four stories tall, the "House of Morgan" has been described in The New York Times as one of "the big little buildings of Wall Street". 23 Wall Street's marble and masonry facade still bears scars from the 1920 Wall Street bombing, just one of several indications of the building's long history. In recent years, 23 Wall Street has sat largely empty, despite several plans for its redevelopment. Nonetheless, its architecture is widely admired, to the extent that it was one of the first buildings to be designated as official New York City landmarks in 1965.

This page was promoted as a Good Article almost two years ago after a Good Article review by JBchrch, for which I am very grateful. In addition, the page received a GOCE copyedit last year from Twofingered Typist, who is unfortunately no longer with us, but whose efforts I also appreciate. I think it's up to FA quality now, and I look forward to all comments and feedback. This is the second FAC for this article; the previous nomination failed because it didn't receive enough reviews. Hopefully, that won't be the case this time around. Epicgenius (talk) 15:28, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from ErnestKrause

[edit]

Place holder for upcoming comments. That holiday season image in panoramic format at the start of the article looks like it might catch the eye of many readers. If others look at that panoramic image at the start of this article then holiday season wishes to them. ErnestKrause (talk) 23:02, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

One short comment to start things moving forward is in the '21st Century' section when you state: '...because Sonangol would not guarantee Pa would receive none of the money'. The wording 'not guarantee...none of the money' might look better as 'not guarantee...any of the money'? More later. ErnestKrause (talk) 00:16, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Technically this is correct, but I've reworded this. After Sam Pa was arrested, Jack Terzi wanted to buy the building but didn't want Pa to see any of the money. Epicgenius (talk) 14:16, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Lead section
[edit]

Should mention why and when the main office was moved, when the new building and location were established.

Actually, the company had occupied the Drexel Building on the same site. J. P. Morgan & Co. just wanted to develop a new structure to replace the old one (it didn't merge with Chase Bank until much later, if that is what you're concerned about). Epicgenius (talk) 14:16, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm thinking of the move in 1985 to 60 Wall Street being added to the lead section; when 23 Wall Street is no longer the main location for Morgan. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:39, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Architecture and facade
[edit]

Is that 34 feet for the building facade of the entrance, or the actual measurement of the curb space occupied by the corner?

It is for the building facade. I've clarified this now. Epicgenius (talk) 14:16, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Features and upper story
[edit]

The upper stories were occupied by the bank officers including Morgan, but how much time did Morgan spend there, and where was Morgan spending most of his office time? Its stated that he spent a great time of time at the Art Museum in NYC in the last decade of his life; where did he spend most of his 'office' time in the last decade of his life?

Good question. I have to look into this (and also the meetings that you mention below). Epicgenius (talk) 14:16, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Let me know if this information turns up. The Chernow biography on Morgan might be useful on these points. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:41, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
History
[edit]

History and anecdote are likely mixed in the story of how Morgan and other financiers saved the USA from default and bankruptcy at some point during desperate economic transitions. Did any of there meeting take place at this location? Is there anything resembling a list of the most important 'historical' meetings which took place at this address, or in Morgan's office?

Impact
[edit]

The Paul Strand image is very well known; its worth making it appear in larger than regular format if all the copyrights are ok for using this image.

The larger image looks good here. Its a stand out image. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:44, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Let me know when you are ready for more notes for the article. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:00, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Those were nice edits over night and I've added some optional references to look at further above. Moving my comments to now Support this article. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:44, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Wehwalt

[edit]

Support per my detailed comments at the last FAC.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:45, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from TAOT

[edit]

I will get to this at some point in the next week. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:37, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is a pet peeve of mine. Can you make the footnotes in numerical order when more than one is used in the same place? Seeing [23][4][7] drives me nuts and doesn't look nice.
  • There's a few CS1 errors in references throughout the article (mainly url-status).
  • Is it worth linking chamfer?
  • In the center of the room, was a main lobby shaped like an irregular hexagon. That comma can go.
  • The superstructure is made of a steel frame, but the beams are hidden within the walls because Morgan had requested that they not be visible. Suggest changing are to "were", to match the tense in "Morgan had requested that they not be visible".
    • Done. Honestly, I was thinking "the beams are still currently hidden in the walls". However, I see what you mean - the verb "hidden" could mean that the contractors were actively hiding the beams in the walls during construction, but that the action has now been completed. Epicgenius (talk) 01:43, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • During the late 19th century, the bank became one of the most influential institutions in the United States, and the elder Morgan became one of the country's most powerful financiers. Suggest rephrasing to avoid the use of "became" twice in a row.
  • There had been an unsuccessful proposal to replace the Drexel Building and the adjacent Mills Building. This begs the question, replace them with what? Do we have any information in the source?
  • Use inflation templates where costs are mentioned.
  • After Jack Morgan funded the Allies of World War I Who? There's no mention of a Jack Morgan anywhere else in the article. Is this a typo?
    • That is actually correct, as J. P. Morgan Jr. was nicknamed Jack to distinguish from his father. It must have slipped my mind that Jack wasn't mentioned by his nickname anywhere else. I have therefore fixed this. Epicgenius (talk) 01:43, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the early 20th century section, I recommend linking Wall Street bombing. While technically a DUPLINK, that part of the MOS also states a link "may be repeated if helpful for readers".
  • You have The New York Times linked on its second mention in the body, but not on its first mention.
  • You mention the company's name changing to Morgan Guaranty, but not its subsequent reversion to the previous name. This is somewhat confusing.
  • It's, for lack of a better word, a mess. When 60 Wall Street was announced in the 1980s, it appears that Morgan Guaranty was a subsidiary of holding company J. P. Morgan & Co. I'm trying to find a reliable secondary source for when that happened, but it would indicate that the company didn't technically change names, it merely became part of another company which so happened to be called J. P. Morgan & Co. Epicgenius (talk) 01:43, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the 21st century, you first say "China International Fund" and then "China Investment Fund". Which one is correct?
  • That's all I've got. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:22, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
  • File:23 Wall Street New York.jpg. The creator's name could be more clearly stated on the image page.
  • The Paul Strand photograph. How is it PD? It was exhibited, certainly, in Philadelphia, but that's not itself publication. What is the pre-1927 publication?--Wehwalt (talk) 18:49, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am confused about this. c:COM:PACUSA says "Due to these requirements, statues and art installed in a place open to the general public prior to 1978 are likely in the public domain if they do not comply with copyright formalities." The page further says that if a work of art was published prior to 1927 and placed "in a public location where people can make copies", it would be in the public domain regardless of whether it complied with formalities. As I understand it, the mere act of displaying the art publicly was enough for the photograph to become public domain, unless it wasn't displayed publicly until after 1926. Epicgenius (talk) 19:34, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was displayed at the Wanamaker Exhibition in 1917.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:53, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the clarification. I should also mention that according to COM:PACUSA, "exhibiting, displaying, or releasing the work in a public place where anyone can make unrestricted copies of the work could publish the work" should be sufficient. So unless the Wanamaker Exhibition prohibited people from copying the work, the mere act of exhibiting the photograph was enough to constitute publication. – Epicgenius (talk) 22:12, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from KJP1

[edit]

To EG's usual high standard. A few comments/suggestions.

Lead
  • "Since the late 2000s, it has been in a state of disuse" - "a state of disuse" reads slightly oddly to me. "stood empty" / "vacant" / "unoccupied"?
  • "The building contains an astylar exterior" - can you "contain" an exterior? "has"?
  • "The ground story is rendered as a single high piano nobile over a low basement" - "rendered" threw me here; in the architectural context, I thought of Cement render. Perhaps, "comprises" / "consists of"? And should piano nobile be italicised? It is in our main article. This occurs again in the Facade section.
  • "a main cornice," - "the main cornice"?, as opposed to the subsidiary one below.
  • "contained offices and was used for banking transactions. This space contained a coffered ceiling" - two "contained"s, and there's another "contains" earlier. Perhaps, "housed offices and was used for banking transactions. This space had/has a coffered ceiling"?
  • "J.P. Morgan & Co. predecessor Drexel, Morgan & Co." - Is "J.P. Morgan and Co." missing an apostrophe?
That's exactly what I meant, thanks. KJP1 (talk) 09:36, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "J.P. Morgan & Co. refused to repair the damage in defiance to the bombing's perpetrators" - this might be a Br/Am thing, in which case ignore, but we would use "in defiance of" rather than "to". This reoccurs in the second para. of "Early 20th century".
Site
  • "contained a mansard roof and marble walls" - as with its exterior (above), does a building contain its roof and walls? Would "had" be simpler? And were the marble walls exterior walls, or marble-cladding to interior walls? If the former, perhaps "that building was constructed of marble with a mansard roof"?
Architecture
  • "23 Wall Street was built with only four above-ground stories" - is there anything on why it was built only four storeys high. That real estate must have been super expensive even then, and Morgan repeatedly found they didn't have enough space. Was it a prestige thing, or did J.P. Jr want the piazza effect, with a building on the scale of the Treasury and the Federal Hall (see Public Square comment immediately below)? Perhaps the sources don't say, but it is odd, particularly given that the Substructure and basement section says they laid foundations sufficient for 30 storys!
    • I couldn't find a source saying this directly, but the building was intended for the exclusive use of J.P. Morgan & Co.. At the time, banks in NYC were either designed as standalone structures or as skyscrapers. Having a skyscraper meant that J.P. Morgan would have needed to rent out the remaining space, which actually would have made sense given the high land value. However, the site was also pretty small, which meant that a significant amount of space in a skyscraper would be taken up by elevators and stairs, rather than rentable office space. The fact that the company needed to expand into 15 Broad Street, later on, probably indicated how short-sighted their initial decision was. Epicgenius (talk) 21:58, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "contained up to five intermediate mezzanine levels" - aren't mezzanine floors intermediate by definition? I think "intermediate" could go.
  • "When the building had been designed, Morgan had stipulated" - "was being"?
Facade
  • Facade - I'm sure this is Br/AM, I'm assuming you don't use the fancy French squiggle, Façade.
  • "Morgan's request that the marble be identical to that used in his 36th Street residence's library" - here, the timing of the build (1913-14) and J. P. Morgan Sr's death in 1913, got me a bit confused. I guess we are still talking Jr., as above, but the library was really Sr.'s. Although it became Jr.'s by inheritance. Does it need clarifying?
  • "The main cornice, between the second and third stories, is inspired by Italian Renaissance architecture" - Is it possible to say anything more about how it is inspired by Renaissance examples? I'm assuming that it's because it's about the only decoration/embellishment on the whole frontage. Do any of the sources (this bit's not cited) say from where Trowbridge and Livingstone drew their inspiration?
    • The source says only that "Its elements of Italian Renaissance architecture reflect the identification of J. P. Morgan with the great merchant-banker princes of the Renaissance". Unfortunately, I don't know exactly which buildings inspired the firm. Epicgenius (talk) 21:58, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A penthouse containing air-conditioning machinery" - "penthouse" isn't the term that springs to mind for a utilitarian structure housing the aircon. Would the link to Mechanical penthouse work better?
  • "a bronze-and-glass set of doors underneath a transom made of bronze and glass" - get that this is a usual Americanism, but I wonder if Transom window in full would help a non-US audience?
  • "Morgan had stipulated that there not be any company name signs" - re. my earlier point on the Morgan Library, this is clearly referring to Morgan Sr., as it mentions his death later in the sentence. Do we need to clearly disambiguate between whether we are on about Sr. or Jr.?
  • "Another entrance on Broad Street led to the transfer department in the building's basement" - Two things here. First, are we talking about bank transfers? If so, would the link help. Second, in trying to see what the source said, I see that Cite 29 brings up two sources, rather than the usual one. It may just be the kit I'm using, which isn't my usual stuff, but was this intended?
Substructure and basement
  • "foundations were built to be strong enough to support a tower of at least 30 stories" - thanks for the clarification given above re. the building's height. I shall leave off speculating as to why the, very-clever, Morgans made such a decision.
  • "The interior of the vault measured either 18 by 22 feet (5.5 by 6.7 m)[4] or 23 by 27 feet (7.0 by 8.2 m)" - I got confused here - often happens - and the Source didn't clarify it. The vault varies in size? It's one of two sizes but we don't know which?!? I'm guessing it means that the stories of the three-story vault have different dimensions, i.e. they are bigger/smaller the further up/down you go. Is it possible to clarify it?
Ground story
Upper stories
  • "and generally contained English oak decorations" - Is it decoration, or indeed panelling? Decorations sounds a bit like Christmas decorations.
  • "doubling as additional conference space during the winter" - Should this not be "summer"? It would be rather cold on the roof in a New York winter, even with an awning! The source says "covered with awnings providing place for conferences in warm weather" (my italics).
Early 20th century
  • "After J. P. Morgan Jr. funded the Allies of World War I" - rich and generous though he was, he didn't pay for everything! And he made rather a lot on the deals. I definitely thinks this needs a bit of unpacking. Something like, "J. P. Morgan Jr.'s strong support for the Allies during World War I; through major loans, through his positioning J. P. Morgan and Co. as the sole purchasing agent for the British Government, and through his promotion of Liberty bonds; saw him receive numerous death threats from those opposed to US involvement in the war." Possibly also worth mentioning that this went beyond mere threats - Eric Muenter shot him twice. Either a footnote, or "numerous death threats, as well as one attempted assassination, from those opposed..."
Critical reception
  • Just an observation, but apart from Stern, who could be described as an "architect and writer", has there been no recent coverage in the architectural press? I mean serious criticism, rather than the journalistic "its reserved presence reflects its reserved founder" sort of stuff? It is an interesting building, in appearance as well as history, and I'd have thought that might have been picked up somewhere. But if it hasn't, it hasn't, and I'm certain you would have found the sources if they were out there. [But see below].
Landmark designations
  • You could fillet out something from the 1965 Designation Record for the Critical reception section. There are some nice quotes which illustrate the building's importance. "handsome classical details, yet because of its broad smooth wall surfaces, great windows and unusual design, it is virtually without precedent." "a fine marble building in perfect scale with its neighbors, at the north end of Broad street which widens at this point to create the illusion of a small square." "a commanding feature at the head of a great, open street and notable as a handsome, classical building, unique in its design." Not saying this is essential for FAC, but for me they do give a good sense of the building's importance as a building. It would also lift what for me is currently a slightly low-key ending, an "unimpressive, gray five-story building". And they're a bit more up to date. Disappointingly, the Federal Register seems to say nothing other than to record its listing. Which was a pity given how long it took me to get to page 7349! As an aside, I saw somewhere a nifty trick an editor had for making the cite to a pdf go to the desired page. But unfortunately, I've forgotten it.
    • Thanks for the tip - I completely forgot about the fact that I could directly link a page in a PDF. I have added a quote from the LPC, and I've also added a direct link to the relevant page of the PDF. Epicgenius (talk) 14:15, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Epicgenius - That's me done. Thanks for a(nother) great article on a very interesting building. And for your very fast and full responses. You'll see I found much less to chew over, after I moved out of the Architecture section. Although some of the rather "dubious" owners in the 21st century caused a raised eyebrow. I'm not sure J. P. Sr. would have approved. I would be delighted to Support, once you've had a chance to review this morning's batch of comments. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 09:32, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@KJP1: Thank you very much for your comments. I don't think I could do much about adding contemporary criticism, as there seems to be little modern-day commentary of the building, but I have addressed all of your remaining comments. Epicgenius (talk) 14:15, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

[edit]

Drive by query

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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 3 January 2023 [47].

Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus

[edit]
Nominator(s): Eddie891 Talk Work 15:50, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

One of the most famous editorials of all time, I think this article is comprehensive and otherwise meets the FA criteria. A nice Christmastime theme, if nothing else. Apologies for rusty-ness after a long break from FAC. Eddie891 Talk Work 15:50, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
@Nikkimaria would Template:PD-US-unpublished therefore apply? Eddie891 Talk Work 01:12, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Depends - what is the earliest publication that can be confirmed? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:20, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'll answer my own question: actually it's 1998. So no it doesn't apply. Eddie891 Talk Work 15:03, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Unfortunately per the Cornell chart a first verifiable publication in 1998 would give us a non-PD image. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:26, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria, Eddie891, according to the Cornell chart the photo is in public domain, as it is by an unknown photographer and was created in 1868, thus: "Unpublished works when the death date of the author is not known. 120 years from date of creation" comes to 1988. If first publication found is 1998 then that clears by 10 years the Cornell bar of 120 years after creation. Randy Kryn (talk) 07:58, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately that's not correct. The reason the PD-US-unpublished has the 2003 cutoff is because of the provisions of the Copyright Act of 1976: this act provided that for works created but not published before 1978, "in no case, however, shall the term of copyright in such a work expire before December 31, 2002; and, if the work is published on or before December 31, 2002, the term of copyright shall not expire before December 31, 2047". Prior to 1976 unpublished works had "perpetual copyright" per this source. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:59, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria The Church image was kept on commons-- it would seem that per the Hirtle chart a 1998 publication would still fall more than 120 years after creation meaning that it is PD? The Virginia O'hanlon image has a first publication of 2010, meaning PD-unpublished should definitely apply. Does that sound right to you? Eddie891 Talk Work 23:54, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As above, no on the Church image. The unpublished provision only kicks in for works that were not published before 2003. (It appears that unfortunately no one corrected this misconception at the Commons discussion). Nikkimaria (talk) 00:42, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Then either let's move the image to Wikipedia, ask the WMF to step in and challenge this in court, or just let it go even if this feature nomination has to be ended because of it. The image of the author of the most famous editorial in history is essential for the "Yes, Virginia" page, for his own page, for the Editorial page, and yes, essential for the Santa Claus page as this man championed Santa like nobody else did at the turn of the century and maybe ever since. The image was taken in 1868 by an unknown photographer (actually the photo used was of the image in a signed frame - is that picture available to use?), if you say it's now copyrighted, who owns the copyright? Randy Kryn (talk) 03:26, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter who owns the copyright, but that the image is under copyright. We can't leave a copyright violating image in an article just because we feel like it. This isn't a question about a featured article or not. Eddie891 Talk Work 14:13, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's from 1868. Nobody owns the copyright. Or just pay 50 dollars for the Wikipedia website use of that photo it came from. Christmas week too. This seems the only photograph of a person who wrote the most famous editorial in history, so move it to English Wikipedia from Commons. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:20, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's not true, and paying that website wouldn't change anything, because Wikipedia images can't be restricted to a single site. Commons spells it out: "if it was published in 1978–2001, that copyright is extended to December 31, 2047 if it's shorter". It doesn't really matter what time of year we are having this discussion. And to be honest, I personally doubt that anyone would lose their Christmas spirit by seeing one less picture of a dead white guy without that image in this article. But if you really feel the need to ignore copyright laws and stall this FAC completely, go ahead. I'm not going to stop you. Eddie891 Talk Work 14:33, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@FAC coordinators: It would seem we have hit a brick wall here. You can go ahead and archive this if you see fit. Randy Kryn, I will remove the page from my watchlist and cease work on it. Merry Christmas. Sincere apologies for wasting the reviewers time, particularly that of Nikkimaria. Eddie891 Talk Work 14:36, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Can't cancel a feature review once it's started. You say the copyright is until 2047, please realize that's coming up on 200 years since the photo was taken, a photo that nobody owns the copyright to. And maybe strike the racist bit. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:40, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Randy Kryn, withdrawing a FAC is very much allowed ... Hog Farm Talk 14:42, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not entirely sure what's racist about my comment but if you do specify what you find offensive I would be happy to strike. That was not my intention. Eddie891 Talk Work 14:45, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The dead white guy comment. Could be just "dead guy" (although, corpseist?) And please don't give up on the feature, thanks. I do have good faith intentions, especially as a former journalism major. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:50, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've amended my comment, apologies on that front. I don't doubt your good intentions, it's clear you care about improving the wiki. Eddie891 Talk Work 14:55, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Eddie891, and your good faith intentions are very clear and commendable (except for giving up, keep on keeping on, the well-deserving page should be featured next Christmas season since this one's queue is all taken up already, although if a spot could be traded in the couple days remaining and the photo is the only thing holding it up I'd temporarily withdraw my objection to removing the photo from the Virginia article, although how about Hog Farm's point below?). Randy Kryn (talk) 15:02, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It does seem to make sense to me, but I'm not confident enough on any aspect of image licensing to make the change myself, to be honest. Eddie891 Talk Work 15:10, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Would Commons:Template:PD-old-assumed not work? It looks like a Commons community discussion came to a consensus that in these weird situations where it's unclear, that > 120 years old it's same to assume no copyright is still enforceable. Hog Farm Talk 14:41, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Good find Hog Farm. As for the feature try, can't someone else take it over if Eddie891 doesn't want to follow through? Randy Kryn (talk) 14:47, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately that particular tag wouldn't work either - that replaces a life+70 tag for an older work with an unknown author, but as the template itself notes a US tag is still needed. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:37, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What gets chosen for TFA is pretty much the scheduler's call. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:57, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Eddie, is there any reason why you haven't pulled this image? Gog the Mild (talk) 13:43, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No. Gog the Mild, removed from the article. Eddie891 Talk Work 14:04, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
From the Cornell chart, boldface mine, which shows that, if created before 1978 and first published from 1 March 1989 through 2002, copyright expires from the "greater of the term specified in the previous entry", i.e. 120 years from creation:
"From 1 March 1989 through 2002 Created after 1977 70 years after the death of author. If a work of corporate authorship, 95 years from publication or 120 years from creation, whichever expires first"
"From 1 March 1989 through 2002 Created before 1978 and first published in this period The greater of the term specified in the previous entry or 31 December 2047"
What am I missing in this language? Created in 1868 by an unknown photographer, first published in 1998, more than 120 years after creation. How is this not public domain. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:25, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"The greater of". In this case that is 31 December 2047. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:34, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm reading, boldfaced mine: "the greater of the term specified in the previous entry" as 120 years. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:39, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The full quote is the greater of (term specified in previous) OR (31 December 2047). In this case the latter is greater. You can confirm this with reference to the act quoted above: "if the work is published on or before December 31, 2002, the term of copyright shall not expire before December 31, 2047". Nikkimaria (talk) 16:42, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still reading it as 120 years from date of creation, as defined by the wording within "the previous entry". Randy Kryn (talk) 16:51, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The previous entry is one of the two options you compare with "the greater of". In this case the previous entry is the lesser of those two options, the greater being 2047 per the Act. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:56, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Presumably you read the "or 31 December 2047" and decided that the phrase was solely for dramatic effect. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:54, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Greater" comes to 120 years, which put the public domain year at 1988, and once in public domain in can't be taken into copyright. The article that it was published within is what was copyrighted, not the photograph itself which, at the time it was published, was in public domain. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:18, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
While I don't endorse the phrasing of AirshipJungleman's comment, I do agree that you seem to be overlooking a critical part of what you've bolded: 31 December 2047 is greater than 120 years from creation. If the wording of the chart is confusing, the wording of the act is crystal clear: "if the work is published on or before December 31, 2002, the term of copyright shall not expire before December 31, 2047". This work was published on or before December 31, 2002, and therefore its term of copyright shall not expire before December 31, 2047. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:05, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]
  • "which appeared in The Sun" - I would say "New York newspaper The Sun", as when I read this my immediate reaction was that it meant The Sun
  • Image caption gives the paper's title as the New York Sun but everywhere else it is just The Sun
  • "Church's authorship was not disclosed until his 1906 death" => "Church's authorship was not disclosed until after his 1906 death" unless it was disclosed at literally the moment of his death, which seems unlikely
  • In the Church section, just link his name in the first sentence rather than using an unnecessary "main article" template
  • "Church had returned to The Sun to work part-time in 1874 and after The Galaxy merged with The Atlantic Monthly in 1878 he joined the paper's staff full-time as an editor and writer." - which paper's staff? You just mentioned three, so this is very confusing wording
  • "the letter was sent sent shortly" - duplicate word
  • "Church was not disclosed as the editorial's author until he died in 1906" - as above
  • "Campbell argued in 2006 that Church might not not have welcomed" - another duplicate word
  • "its content was have been" - doesn't make sense
  • "Beach also wrote that paper's should not" => "Beach also wrote that papers should not"
  • "the 1975 Emmy Award for outstanding children special" - guessing this should be "the 1975 Emmy Award for outstanding children's special"
  • Think that's all I got -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:59, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, @ChrisTheDude, I think I've addressed all of the above (instituted all those suggestions). Eddie891 Talk Work 17:06, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:17, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt

[edit]
  • "about it." Campbell theorizes the letter was sent shortly after O'Hanlon's birthday in July and "overlooked or misplaced" for a time." I would put a "was" before the quote.
  • Done
  • "The historian and journalist Bill Kovarik described the editorial as part of a broader "revival of the Christmas holiday" that took place during the late 19th century in various publications such as Thomas Nast's art.[33] " Thomas Nast's art is a publication?
  • I suppose not. Rephrased to "publication of various works such as Thomas Nast's art"
  • I wonder if the 1951 opposition to it is worth including since it the source is contemporary and had no lasting impact.
  • I mean, I think it's an interesting anecdote and Campbell does cite it in passing in his analysis, but I'm certainly not wedded to keeping it in.
  • "She kept her ex-husband's surname the rest of her life, styled as "Laura Virginia O'Hanlon Douglas."[21" Perhaps "styling herself" rather than "styled"?
  • Done
  • You allude to "early republications" being in newspapers besides the Sun. A look at Newspapers.com shows a fair number of contemporary reprints in 1897. Is anything known about how this came to be? Also, you may find this clip and the image there useful.
  • Is there any discussion of what's probably the second-most famous quote from the exchange, "If you read it in the Sun, it's so", which has come to mean a (possibly naive) believe in the truthfulness of newspapers?
That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:17, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Wehwalt, I think I've responded to all of the above. Eddie891 Talk Work 18:26, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass

[edit]

I can tell you believe in Santa Claus because you've nominated an article at FAC in December in the expectation that it will pass by Christmas. As Santa would say: ho ho ho.

References
[edit]
  • fn 1: publisher?
  • fn 1: location?
  • If standardized to no location parameter in the bibliography, I'd image it would be nixed here as well, correct?
  • fn 1: publication date?
  • It already has year of publication= 1989 I think
  • fn 2, 20: CS1 maint warnings: remove the url-status card
  • fn 2, 14, 20, 50: use publisher instead of website
  • fn 7, 9, 31, 53: location required where name of newspaper does not contain it
  • fn 7: add via=newspapers.com
  • fn 22, 49, 52: issn?
  • fn 33: Link isn't working for me
  • Added archive url
  • fn 43: Gonyc.about.com is a website
  • fn 44: date?
  • fn 44: byline?
  • fn 44, 53: Consider marking as requiring subscription
  • added both
  • fn 48: Add degree=PhD
  • fn 55: Should be the New York Times
Bibliography
[edit]
  • Bowler, Crump, Forbes, Hirsch, Kovarik, Nissenbaum, Turner, Woolery: location?
  • Standardized to no location
  • Nissenbaum, Turner: title case?
  • title case
  • I have reformatted your ISBNs to ISBN-13
Spot checks
[edit]
  • fn 32, 43, 50, 55 - okay
  • Could not verify fn 31
    • I can send you a scan, if you want to verify.

Sources are of high quality.

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:51, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Hawkeye7, all points (I believe) responded to or addressed. Let me know if there's anything else. And yes, perhaps we will have a Christmas miracle with regards to promotion... Eddie891 Talk Work 23:44, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Added all locations of publication for consistency, on second thought. Eddie891 Talk Work 23:48, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I should have mentioned that I followed your own formatting. I wouldn't normally have added an ISSN to The New York Times, for example, but you did in some places and not others... Same with the location; it was there for some but not all. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:18, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ceranthor

[edit]
  • Refreshing to see a short article with a short lead!
  • "The Sun gradually accepted its popularity and republished it during the Christmas season every year from 1924 to 1950, when the paper ceased publication." - I don't know if "accepted" works as the verb here - I suspect you're trying to convey coming to terms with popularity but I think there are better ways to convey that. What about "As the editorial became popular over the years, The Sun started republishing it [...]" - I think that reads a little better.
  • yes, added
  • ""Is There a Santa Claus?" is commonly reprinted during the Christmas and holiday season" - Is it reprinted by a specific paper or just widely? I think worth clarifying that detail (I assume the later, in which case widely can probably replace commonly)
  • Yes, widely-- changed
  • I think I see a relatively minor, but widespread pattern of what appears to me to be incorrect comma usage. For example, in the first sentence, "[...]1897, and became one of the most famous editorials ever published" has a comma before "and" that isn't needed. The comma is only necessary if the second clause of the compound sentence is an independent clause, ie, if this read "and it became [...]." You should either stick to getting rid of that comma or adding a subject for the second clause in those sentences throughout. If this doesn't make sense, perhaps this explains it better [49]. I notice this issue a number of times in the article, and I can happily point them out if you'd like.
  • I do agree-- but in that case the comma is there per MOS:DATECOMMA "Dates in month–day–year format require a comma after the day, as well as after the year". I've gone through and cut a few others that I think are unnecessary. If there are more that I missed, I would greatly appreciate it if you either put them here or just go ahead and cut them yourself. No worries either way.
  • "founded and edited several publications: The Army and Navy Journal (1863)," - is the date in parentheses the year they founded each journal? I think it would be helpful to clarify by adding "in" for the first instance and then the "in" would be implied for the following two examples.
  • Sure
  • "and later at The Sun." - I'd add, as you did in the lead, New York newspaper The Sun since it's a very common newspaper name
  • Done
  • "scholar W. Joseph Campbell as favoring "vituperation and personal attack"." - you should cite immediately after a direct quote
  • Added, but is there a policy that says cites are needed directly after quotes? If there is I'm either unaware of it or forgot it.
Under "Attribution" the MoS states "The reader must be able to determine the source of any quotation, at the very least via a footnote. The source must be named in article text if the quotation is an opinion". Gog the Mild (talk) 20:07, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "to her letter for long enough that she "forgot about it."" - don't think the direct quote is really needed here, but if you keep it that way you need a citation immediately after
  • Cut the quotes
  • "Mitchell reported that Church, who was initially reluctant to write a response, produced it "in a short time"[1] during an afternoon.[12]" - does the source say when? Especially since the sentences before spend a lot of time discussing a timeline?
  • Unfortunately not, though I'd imagine near to its publication
  • "gradually began to "warm to" the editorial." - citation after direct quote
  • Sure
  • "and the editorial as definitely "the nation's best known."[31]" - I'd cut out definitely; it adds nothing here
  • Done
  • "The editorial came under attack in 1951" - I think the last two sentences are meant to show that not all reception is necessarily positive for the editorial, but I have two issues with the paragraph. First, you should probably add a topic sentence to better drive home that point. Second, it's weird that the year is given for this "attack" and for several other critics in this section, but not for the comments from Geo Beach or Rick Horowitz
  • Done, dated Horowitz, but Beach is also from 1997 (in the same sentence as Newton) and not sure the best way to date it.
  • "The phrase "Yes, Virginia, there is (a)..." has often been used[45] to emphasize that "fantasies and myths are important" and can be "spiritually if not literally true".[46]" - You need to add a bit more here. In which settings? Also, a few more sentences would be nice otherwise this seems like an orphan statement that doesn't add much to the article or this section.
  • I agree it feels a bit like an orphaned statement, and I haven't been able to find anything else clearly outlined in reliable sources. However, I'd prefer not to axe it entirely, as it's one of the most prominent uses of the editorial. And the phrase is used in a lot of settings (see [50] and [51] in the past few days, for instance) but again I just can't really find anything cementing it. Thoughts? I'm not sure the best course of action.
  • "doctorate" in education? In what? Do sources say?
  • Added
  • Why is the "Virginia O'Hanlon" section at the end of the article but the Francis Pharcellus Church section is at the beginning? Also, while I appreciate the work that went into all the details of her life, is it really necessary to provide all of this biographical information beyond the first half of the third paragraph in this section? It doesn't seem she is notable on her own, and I certainly think a lot of the information seems gratuitous (details about her husband, her education, where she is buried, or the scholarship fund). I am open to discussion of this point, but having a hard time understanding the need for all of this detail.
  • This is interesting to me. Virginia is almost certainly a BIO1E (she never did become notable for anything besides writing the letter), yet her whole life was after the editorial, so it wouldn't make sense to put information about her life in the 'background' section, to me. Conversely, the biographical information we include in the article about Church largely takes place before the editorial was published.
    Since the editorial's publication Virginia has undeniably attracted fairly enduring coverage that discusses her life after the editorial was published. See, for instance, 1914, 1927, 1936, 1958, 1959, 1971, 1987, 1997, 2014, 2019. So, I think we'd be remiss to cut the information about the rest of her life, but I also don't think there's much more that can be said than is in the article (there probably isn't enough room for a stand-alone article). So, I'm not sure the best way to handle it but, imo it might be the way it is currently presented. What do you think? Eddie891 Talk Work 17:16, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work. Think this is nearly there prose-wise. ceranthor 04:19, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As to the Church section being before the O'Hanlon section, because he is the author of the editorial. The O'Hanlon section should be kept and even expanded, any information about her seems pertinent to this page. As the person who wrote and letter and was addressed in the editorial, O'Hanlon is an important historical personage in the expansion and maintaining of the tradition of Santa Claus as relates to the Christmas holiday. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:44, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't follow. My question was why is the O'Hanlon article at the end when the Church section is at the beginning, not the sequential order of them. Further, if O'Hanlon herself is an important historical personage, I'd like to see demonstrable evidence to support that claim, as I suspect most historical coverage has been about her in relation to the editorial but not much beyond that. Either way, my point stands; the level of detail in this section does not belong in an article about the editorial. It may be appropriate for her own separate article, but I am not sure whether she meets the notability guidelines. ceranthor 14:11, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As the instigator of this event she is notable and relevant to this page, and facts about her life merit encyclopedic importance pertaining to this topic. She's appropriately hightlighted here. As for order, the editorial itself and facts surrounding its creation seem ordered well as, even though O'Hanlon's information could follow Church's, because of its length it serves the page well in its present configuration. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:21, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly we disagree, but since Eddie891 is the nominator and on vacation I'll wait for their return to discuss the point further. Thanks. ceranthor 16:29, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
thanks for the comments! I’m out of town until the 31 but will endeavor to address them as soon as I get back. Eddie891 Talk Work 12:03, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ceranthor, I've responded to your comments, mostly just instituted, with some questions. Let me know what you think. Eddie891 Talk Work 17:28, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Everything looks fine now, but I'm still not sold on the inclusion of all her biographical details. I'm willing to support, but I'll defer to the delegates to make the call with regard to the, in my opinion, unnecessarily detailed Virginia O'Hanlon biography section here. ceranthor 19:48, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ceranthor and @Gog the Mild, on second thought I've gone ahead and split the Virginia article to Virginia O'Hanlon. I think there is enough biographical information covered in RS that doesn't fit in this article. Eddie891 Talk Work 22:46, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps put "Douglas received mail about her letter throughout her life. She would include a copy of the editorial in her replies." somewhere in "Legacy"? Gog the Mild (talk) 22:51, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild, I've reorganized the article slightly and I think it fits better now (put it in 'Later republication'). Eddie891 Talk Work 23:02, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from RL0919

[edit]
  • Overall this looks good, so all my comments are relatively minor.
  • The most pervasive thing I noticed was logical quotation problems with quoted phrases that end with punctuation inside the quote marks. Examples include "[d]ay after day.", "the most wonderful piece of writing I ever saw.", "[r]eal literature.", "enduring inspiration in American journalism.", "the nation's best known.", "phony piece of writing.", "[w]rite if you want to,", and "anything back,".
This is, of course, entirely permissible if the same punctuation occurs in the original, otherwise not. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:45, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've checked the sources and corrected the ones that were incorrect, leaving the ones where the same punct is in the original.
Thanks. FWIW, keeping punctuation at the end that is in the original is technically allowed, but hard to understand for those who aren't looking at the sources. Don't be shocked if some wikignome eventually "fixes" more of these. But that's not an FAC problem as such. --RL0919 (talk) 15:53, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My interpretation of MOS:LQ is that this is required, rather than [technically] allowed. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:06, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was slightly confused to read that the editorial was "in the paper's third and last editorial column that day", but then see a list of three subjects that came before it. Was it fourth, or was there one item that discussed two topics?
Rephrased to "third and last column of editorials" does that make sense? There could be multiple editorials in a single column (or not)
That is more clear (to me at least), thanks. --RL0919 (talk) 15:53, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Later republication" section includes a book "based on" the editorial and illustrated children's book. These both sound more like adaptations than straight republications, and as such would belong in the "Adaptations and legacy" section instead.
Moved, good call
  • The title of that first book, Is there a Santa Claus?, should have a capital T for there.
Done
  • I didn't review the citations generally, but it caught my eye that notes 30 and 31 (as of this writing) include quotations from the sources. Is there some reason quotations are needed? The claims being sourced don't seem likely to be contentious, and I didn't spot anything on the Talk page suggesting a need for quotation of these sources.
cut
  • I typed up another comment then noticed it contradicted one of the suggestions you were given by another commenter, and it's too minor a point to hassle you with conflicting feedback. So you get this mysterious allusion instead. :-) --
Go on! We like a good reviewer fight. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:45, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RL0919 (talk) 05:31, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments, RL0919, responded to the above to the best of my abilities. Eddie891 Talk Work 15:13, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Replied only where relevant. It looks good to me now, so support on prose. --RL0919 (talk) 15:53, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 1 January 2023 [52].

The Dark Knight

[edit]
Nominator(s): Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 12:20, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about The Dark Knight, the 2008 superhero film that redefined the genre, broke bunches of records, and established Heath Ledger as one of the greatest comic character incarnations of all time! Based on all the learning and feedback from previous FACs, this is one of my most recent projects and, I think, the greatest culmination of everything I've learned here so far. Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 12:20, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by FrB.TG

[edit]

TDK is for me simply the greatest superhero film of all time, and I very much look forward to learning more things about it. Comments to come soon. FrB.TG (talk) 13:32, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi FrB.TG, just a friendly reminder :) Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 13:02, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reminder. I'll get to it by the end of this week at the latest. FrB.TG (talk) 08:37, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead writes about the interest surrounding the casting and performance of Ledger before the film's release in great details after which the box office performance and the critical reception are mentioned. I was wondering if the critical reception part could be moved directly to the part after "from the press and public regarding his performance". This way, the reader immediately gets their answer on how Ledger's performance (and the film) was actually received.
  • "organizations from the police, Batman, and the Joker. The Joker" - it does not read particularly well to finish a sentence with "the Joker" and start the next with "the Joker".
  • "Gordon sacrifices himself to save the mayor" - maybe it's just me but "sacrifices himself" implies that he dies in the process of saving the mayor. If I remember correctly, he fakes his death at this point, but the plot mentions it later when he is revealed to be alive. IMO it has a suspense-dissolving effect and somewhat violates the neutrality policy.
  • "The Dark Knight's cast includes Eric Roberts, Michael Jai White, and Ritchie Coster as crime bosses Sal Maroni, Gambol, and the Chechen" - a respectively is needed at the end.
  • "The first scene to be filmed was the bank heist"
  • Perhaps link "extras" to Extra (acting) for those who might not be familiar with the concept?
  • "Christopher only used computer-generated imaging (CGI)" - abbreviation unneeded if it's not used anywhere else.

Down to the end of Production section. Not much to complain so far except for some minuscule queries. FrB.TG (talk) 14:46, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done! Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 19:20, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "reviewers appreciated his charismatic Dent portrayal" - this subjective claim is made in Wikipedia voice. It should be something along the lines of "..praised his Dent portrayal as charismatic".
  • "Ledger won the Academy Award for Best Supporting Actor, making him only the second performer to win an award posthumously" - who was the first?
  • According to professor Martin Fradley, among others, Batman and Gordon's "noble lie" is a cynical endorsement of deception and totalitarianism - which lie concerning Gordon are we talking about here? The paragraph previously talks about the lies told by Batman and Alfred, but not that by Gordon. Does it refer to Gordon supporting Batman in his lie?

This is it. Excellent work. FrB.TG (talk) 10:37, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done, thanks FrB.TG Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 15:43, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support on prose. Remarkable work - thank you for improving the article of this masterpiece film. FrB.TG (talk) 16:03, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from TheJoebro64

[edit]

Possibly my favorite film of all time so I can't miss the opportunity to review this. Should come within the next few days JOEBRO64 15:29, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a great article, so I don't really have much to say. But here's what I do!

  • My only real problem is that the critical response section feels a bit summary-ish. I think it'd be useful to provide more examples of how critics felt about the "complex moral tale about the effects of vigilantism and terrorism on contemporary society", for instance.
  • In the accolades and awards section, it's probably worth noting that the increased Best Picture limit became known as "the Dark Knight rule". [53]
  • In the post-release section, I think the other media stuff would fall under marketing, no? It feels a little weird to put promotional materials like this in a separate section under post-release, especially when most of the things discussed came out before the film itself was out!
  • Thinking about it, I don't think the subheading title "lasting reception" in the legacy section makes much sense. Reception is how something is received when it arrives; you can't keep being received over and over again forever, especially not by the same people. I think something like "retrospective assessments" would make more sense.
  • It's not necessary—I think the article is perfectly comprehensive without it—but Glen Weldon's book The Caped Crusade: Batman and the Rise of Nerd Culture has some commentary on The Dark Knight that could be useful, mainly how it was received within the Batman fandom. I have the book but won't have access to it until the 23rd, so I can send you the relevant pages (it's only like, seven pages, from what I remember) when possible, if you're interested.

And that's all I've got to say, really great article that absolutely does this film justice. Nice work JOEBRO64 15:16, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah Crit reception sections are not the easiest, some reviewers want it tight, others want more detail. I've expanded on it a little with what I could find, the reviews just tended to mention the themes exist but rarely discussed them in detail, although I think I've found some decent comments, if few.
Done
This is a tough one as I'm not fond of the idea of labelling a roller coaster, a novel, or a DVD movie as marketing. It's certainly tie-in material that helps promote things but I get the Post-release label isn't necessarily appropriate. I've changed the header name although I'm not 100% on it, but i'm open to suggestions.
Done
Sure I can take a look at it. Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 00:08, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm satisfied with the changes, so declaring a support. I'll email you the Caped Crusade pages as soon as I get the chance. JOEBRO64 14:52, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Vami

[edit]

Ooh. I've been wondering when this film would get its bronze star. I look forward to reviewing the article within a few days. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 21:32, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK, here we go! –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 22:25, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewed version. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 22:25, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • #Plot at least inconsistently refers to the Joker as "the Joker" or just "Joker". I would advise using the former uniformly.
  • Why is the Gotham City Police Department linked in #Cast but not #Plot?
  • They wanted to explore the theme of escalation and the idea Batman's extraordinary efforts to combat common crimes would lead to an opposing escalation by criminals [...] I recommend "the idea that Batman's extraordinary efforts" here.
  • Nolan said the title refers to Dent as equally as Batman. [...] Nolan found writing the Joker [...] did not influence the main narrative but Nolan believed [..] Which Nolan? The last brother named was Johnathon.
  • #Box office twice says that The Dark Knight was "the highest-grossing film of 2008".
  • [...] praise with the caveat his death made the role [...] Recommend "caveat that his death made the role [...]".
  • Once Dent experiences a significant traumatic experience [...] Suggest revision to eliminate the second "experience" here.
  • The citation templates in References [81] and [331] should have a |ref=none applied to them; they are throwing errors for not being directly referenced. Likewise the items in #Further reading.
Hi Vami_IV, thanks for reviewing. I've done all of these. The "highest-grossing film of 2008" is meant to relate to in the U.S. and then worldwide, so I've clarified that. I was a bit confused on how to deal with both Nolans so I tried just referring to Christopher as Nolan and Jonathan only ever as Jonathan. I've switched it to Christopher when he is named in the same section, but is that the appropriate way to deal with it? It's not a situation I've come across before. Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 22:58, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Refer to WP:SAMESURNAME: "To distinguish between people with the same surname in the same article or page, use given names or complete names to refer to each of the people upon first mention. For subsequent uses, refer to them by their given names for clarity and brevity." –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 23:01, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I forgot about the Gotham City Police department link, I didn't put it in the plot because there didn't seem to be a natural place to name drop it, and I didn't want to hide the link under "police". Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 23:04, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SNUGGUMS

[edit]
Resolved

You know what I've noticed? Nobody panics when things go "according to plan", and it looks like one of those plans is making this the best it can be, so count me in! From a glance, one thing that stuck out to me like is how it feels repetitive to use images of Heath Ledger in consecutive sections, but of course I'll at some point take the time to look deeper. Expect more comments within a week. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 22:35, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK now here we go!

  • The use of "several" from "several posthumous awards" is an understatement.
  • To not even list Ledger's BAFTA or Golden Globe in the lead is a glaring omission among his accolades. Solely listing his Academy Award not only feels incomplete but sadly perpetuates a systemic bias I've noticed among Wikipedia articles where mentions of Oscars often get prioritized above all other awards. Let's not make this feel so Oscar-centric.
  • Starting all except one sentence from the plot section's second paragraph with "the" is overly monotonous. A way to reduce this problem would be not having that word attached to every instance of "Joker"; just having that upon his first mention is enough.
  • Under the "Development" subsection of "Production", the use of "realizing" from "realizing the Joker in Begins's grounded, realistic style" reads awkwardly. Maybe go with "using", "utilizing", or "implementing" instead.
  • Beginning almost every sentence from the second paragraph of "Writing" with "Goyer" feels repetitive.
  • Don't insert POV descriptions like "iconic" as you did with "the threat of iconic villains" or "tragic hero" (the latter implies something is inherently sad and that's not a stance we should be writing out).
  • Rather than "significant" for "significant character development", I'd recommend you use "major" or perhaps "drastic".
  • Literally each sentence from the last paragraph of "Writing" starts with "the", and that's overkill.
  • From "Casting", the use of "a high- and low-pitch" feels like it's missing a "pitch" after the "high" part.
  • A slight correction I'd like to make is that Aaron Eckhart was focusing most on RFK Jr. among the Kennedys, not that guy's namesake father.
  • More neutrality issues with "tragedy" from "serving as a further tragedy to fuel Wayne's character".
  • For the first sentence of "Pre-production", you've misused a semi-colon following "parts of Yorkshire", and I'd elaborate on what the "several cities in the U.S" were.
  • You can probably guess what's wrong with the fourth paragraph of "Filming in Chicago"
  • There's something weird with File:The Dark Knight - Why So Serious.ogg where it's shown as being 31 seconds long on this page and one part of the audio file itself (exceeding the maximum length of 30 seconds that WP:SAMPLE permits) while another says 30 in total. Not sure what the true duration is here, but I don't see how it benefits the page per the 8th criterion of WP:NFCC.

I'll finish this up later. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 17:03, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Kennedy Jr thing has to be a misquote either by the person taking the notes/writing the article or a mistake on Eckhart's part. I initially thought this but it's Senior who actually dealt with organized crime, the son just peddles vaccine conspiracies and has no links to fighting organized crime.
The use of "iconic", "tragedy", etc, I've only used that when its in the source so it's not a personal insert. Let me know if that makes a difference.
I think the music adds context since that particular track has a lot of discussion about it in that section, both in its construction and meaning.
Some responses, I've implemented the rest. Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 18:34, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Morning/Afternoon/Evening SNUGGUMS, just a friendly reminder. Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 23:07, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Unless you can rework the uses of "iconic" and tragedy/tragic in ways that clearly indicate they're the opinions of article authors/cast/crew per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV (maybe as part of quotes), I wouldn't recommend having them in text. While both RFK Sr. and his son of the same name became lawyers, the two have vastly different focuses, and reading more on the bits of crime in that linked article does make more sense for the former now that you point it out (especially with his tenure as Attorney General). Here's the rest of the page:
  • The entire "Context" subsection under "Release" feels like pointless filler. Mere speculation on earnings are nowhere near as important as the actual results, and its first paragraph is irrelevant with details on other movies that have nothing to do with this one.
  • For "Critical response", it would help to name the publications that reviewers are writing for. Don't presume all viewers know where each critic is/was employed.
  • "Accolades and awards" is a redundant title, and when mentioning "a major Academy award" there, do you mean the first comic book movie to win an acting category, Best Picture, Best Screenplay, or Best Director compared to things like visuals and audio?
  • It feels like a stretch to say "Batman's physical abuse" under "Terrorism and escalation" when the given source doesn't use anything along those lines to describe his Joker interrogation, even with an analysis there on what happens when Mr. Wayne is pushed to/past his personal limits.
  • From "Cultural influence", it doesn't at all feel neutral to say "proved the genre could produce films with a distinct vision, artistic merit, and social commentary", at least not without more explicit attribution.
  • How is it possible for this movie and its success to affect Iron Man launching the MCU when that had premiered first?
  • When listing the memes, I'm surprised you didn't include the "Everyone Loses Their Minds" one.
  • "Notes" are a separate entity from "References" and thus shouldn't be lumped under the same section as them.
  • I'm not sure how trustworthy "Wizard Universe", "Ain't It Cool News", MovieFone, "Dark Horizons", "Superhero Hype!", Thrillist, VG247, "High-Def Digest", "Jump Cut", "Film School Rejects", or Nerdist are
  • Far Out Magazine → Far Out
  • Remove the italics for CNN, Digital Spy, MTV, MTV News, VH1, "The Numbers", BBC, Reuters, WTOP-FM, Syfy, Box Office Mojo, "E! Online" (which should only read as E!), Metacritic, any title of award ceremonies, Rotten Tomatoes, American Society of Cinematographers, and "Stuff"
  • It fees useless to list things within "Further reading" unless you plan on implementing those as citations.

That concludes my review. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 02:51, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I have seen these comments, I've just had a really bad illness the last few days which aside from the throat pain is making it hard to look at bright lights/monitors, so I am here, but bear with me, hopefully it'll be gone in a few more days. Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 21:33, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Best wishes for a speedy recovery! Your well-being definitely takes precedence over editing articles. One last thing I forgot to mention before: the sentence "rejection of a comic-book style in favor of a genre film that features comic-book characters" from the lead is rather confusing and I have no idea what it's supposed to mean. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 23:55, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The entire "Context" subsection under "Release" feels like pointless filler. Mere speculation on earnings are nowhere near as important as the actual results, and its first paragraph is irrelevant with details on other movies that have nothing to do with this one.
  • So I don't consider it pointless filler, the predictions are used to contrast with the results, in this case The Dark Knight vastly exceeded expectations. It provides context around the environment the film was being released in such as what it was released against and what the business trends were and things that were expected to work against it such as a depressed nation, and it provides a natural means of linking to other films released that year.Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 16:25, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • For "Critical response", it would help to name the publications that reviewers are writing for. Don't presume all viewers know where each critic is/was employed.
  • "Accolades and awards" is a redundant title, and when mentioning "a major Academy award" there, do you mean the first comic book movie to win an acting category, Best Picture, Best Screenplay, or Best Director compared to things like visuals and audio?
  • It feels like a stretch to say "Batman's physical abuse" under "Terrorism and escalation" when the given source doesn't use anything along those lines to describe his Joker interrogation, even with an analysis there on what happens when Mr. Wayne is pushed to/past his personal limits.
  • From "Cultural influence", it doesn't at all feel neutral to say "proved the genre could produce films with a distinct vision, artistic merit, and social commentary", at least not without more explicit attribution.
  • How is it possible for this movie and its success to affect Iron Man launching the MCU when that had premiered first?
  • "Notes" are a separate entity from "References" and thus shouldn't be lumped under the same section as them.
  • I'm not sure how trustworthy "Wizard Universe", "Ain't It Cool News", MovieFone, "Dark Horizons", "Superhero Hype!", Thrillist, VG247, "High-Def Digest", "Jump Cut", "Film School Rejects", or Nerdist are
  • Wizard Universe is now defunct but it was a published magazine with a focus on comics, games, and films and was owned by Wizard Universe, there is no indication it is untrustworthy or unreliable. Per discussions below with Mike, Ain't it Cool News has been removed apart from the source from Harry Knowles listing his best films of the year as it is personal opinion, MovieFone has been replaced, Dark Horizons has been replaced, Superhero Hype is plenty reliable but I've replaced it, Thrillist is a major online publication owned by a big conglomerate in Vox Media and the author of the article used is a permanent Staff Writer who has also written for Esquire.com, XXL, CMJ, Spin.com, and other publications, VG247 is a very respected gaming site founded by pro gaming journalist Patrick Garratt in collab with Eurogamer and it's been nominated several times for awards for its coverag, Hi-Def Digest is owned by Internet Brands so it is part of a big company. It's a speciality site with a focus on home media so it is only sourcing relevant content and its author, M. Enois Duarte, is a permanent staff member, Jump Cut (journal) is a long standing professional journal in the same vein as the ones I would normally be expected to use for themes/analysis sections. It has been in print and digital. For its use in the article, I believe it is reliable, Per Mike_Christie, we've established FSR is fine, depending on the author, some are independently notable others just contributors. In this case, one reference is by Neil Miller which is a top films of the year. Given it's just sourcing his opinion, I don't think it's controversial and Miller is the site's founder, so he is a permanent contributor not paid freelancer. His frustrations one day in 2015 were also deemed worth noting by IndieWire. The second is by Alison Lorring, and as she is not on the permanent staff and I can't identify her independently, so I've removed this one, Nerdist again is a major website, it's got notable people at the helm such as Chris Hardwick, its product appears on BBC America, one of its founders went on to be a President at Lionsgate, it's a reliable source and there is no implication of unreliability. The article used in this case was written by a Staff Writer.Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 16:25, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove the italics for CNN, Digital Spy, MTV, MTV News, VH1, "The Numbers", BBC, Reuters, WTOP-FM, Syfy, Box Office Mojo, "E! Online" (which should only read as E!), Metacritic, any title of award ceremonies, Rotten Tomatoes, American Society of Cinematographers, and "Stuff"
  • It fees useless to list things within "Further reading" unless you plan on implementing those as citations.
  • As a last resort, you could use the link I gave for "Everyone Loses Their Minds" (which appears to be one of the more frequently used memes given how prominent the hospital scene with Joker corrupting Dent is). Still not sure what "rejection of a comic-book style in favor of a genre film that features comic-book characters" is supposed to mean, but assuming "tragedy" from "his chaos ultimately leads to tragedy and injustice" refers to death, just use that term instead. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 17:47, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The use of "crime film that features comic-book characters" definitely improved things, and I now support the nomination! SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 22:54, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria

[edit]

Image review

  • File:The_Dark_Knight_(2008_film)_ARG_Example.jpeg needs a more expansive FUR, particularly purpose of use
  • File:Graffiti_in_Shoreditch,_London_-_Syd,_Why_so_serious%3F_(13785515385).jpg: what's the copyright status of the artwork pictured? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:33, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done Nikkimaria Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 21:03, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

Footnote numbers refer to this version.

  • FNs 19 & 313 appear to have something in the template that's throwing off the formatting -- everything is in italics after the website name.
  • You're inconsistent about publisher locations for the book citations -- Byrne and O'Neil do not have a location parameter, but Nolan & Goyer, Duncan Jesser, and Schneider do.
  • Optional: you could add chapter page numbers for Schneider and Nolan & Goyer.
  • You give the publisher parameter for FN 208, but all the other web citations use website= instead.
  • No website/work parameter for FN 369.

That's it for formatting; will look at reliability next. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:49, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What makes the following reliable sources?

Will check links next. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:45, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Links:

  • Suggest flagging the LA Times links as subscription required.
  • Some footnotes are flagged as live but appear to be dead: 43, 54, 58, 59, 63, 64, 82, 115, 126, 148, 153, 158, 162, 164, 203, 230, 237, 239, 252, 253, 256, 294, 311, 320, 415. Fixing these isn't required for FAC since you have archive links in each case, but it would be a good thing to do.
  • The title for FN 67 should be "Eckhardt gets Two-Faced".
  • There's something strange going on with FN 123. The archive link is working, so setting the link status to dead might be all that's needed, but the main link seems to redirect to the NY Times.
  • Compare FN 240 with its archive link; the archive link works, but the text is different.
  • FN 273 goes to the wrong page; the archive link is correct.
  • FN 284's archive link is to the wrong page.
  • The archive links for FN 285 and 386 don't work.
    386 is fixed but 285 (now 282) still has an archive link that doesn't work. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:51, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Compare FNs 388, 389, and 393 -- I think these are the same page, archived at different times.
  • The archive link for FN 401 goes to the wrong page.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:01, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I have seen these comments, I've just had a really bad illness the last few days which aside from the throat pain is making it hard to look at bright lights/monitors, so I am here, but bear with me, hopefully it'll be gone in a few more days. Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 21:33, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to hear that -- hope you feel better soon. I'll finish up the link checking tonight or tomorrow but no hurry. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:31, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Finished checking the links; take your time and get better. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:13, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A couple of outstanding points above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:06, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've done all your's Mike, just a few of Snuggums to go. Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 21:36, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The formatting/links issues are all addressed now; there's still the aintitcool.com source left -- I think you were going to replace it with movieweb.com? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:26, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Mike, the only AICN ref is the personal ranking of Harry Knowles, I thought you mentioned that one would be fine as he is individually notable and it's his own ranking of 2008 films? Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 19:27, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, my misunderstanding of what was left. Source review is a pass. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:19, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what an OCLC is, I've added the DOI? I did search for OCLC and then searched that site but got no results for the author or article name. Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 19:36, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See [54] and OCLC#Identifiers and linked data.


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_2023&oldid=1136075052"