Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/July 2019

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 30 July 2019 [1].

Kal Ho Naa Ho

[edit]
Nominator(s):  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 15:06, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Kal Ho Naa Ho, a 2003 Indian Hindi film starring Jaya Bachchan, Shah Rukh Khan, Saif Ali Khan and Preity Zinta. The film is known for its story, screenplay, dialogues, performances and music. I've opened up the second FAC for this article to get it to FA (Last time I was unable to do so due to the demise of a close relation of mine). A special note of thanks to Bollyjeff for reviewing the GAN. Constructive comments to improve the article are most welcome.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 15:06, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Veera Narayana

[edit]
  • Support — I have read the article for two days and have no notable complaints about anything around. I find this worthy enough to become a FA and support its promotion. Regards, Veera Narayana 10:04, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much, Veera Narayana. Your thoughts and comments are greatly appreciated.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 14:16, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Yashthepunisher

[edit]
Thank you very much, Yashthepunisher. Your thoughts and comments are greatly appreciated.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 15:33, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment use lakhs and crores for Rupees. No Indian knows what Rs. 280 million is. Non Indians have the dollar amount anyway.—indopug (talk) 12:54, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The MOS:COMMONALITY guideline states, "ten million is preferable to one crore". Bollyjeff | talk 21:52, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Jim

[edit]

Looks pretty comprehensive, although I'm no expert Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:11, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not a big deal, but I tend to agree that crores and lakhs seem more natural in an Indian-culture article
@Jimfbleak and Indopug: Bollyjeff has commented about this (Per WP:COMMONALITY, we can use 1 crore as 10 million and also I've linked the INR sign at the beginning of its usage and I haven't linked it again and again to avoid WP:OVERLINK).  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 07:34, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's the order in the cast lists? Order in the credits? Order of appearance? Perhaps clarify this
Jimfbleak, the order in the opening credits is per star billing (And is shown as such in the opening credits). The order in the closing credits is as shown in the film's ending.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 07:34, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • and the cast and crew were without food and water at one point— For five minutes? 5 hours? 5 days? As it stands, it's prety meaningless
Done. Removed.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 07:34, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "with a dash of humor, and thankfully by not degrading its social connection."—Why is an Indian writer for an Indian publication using US spelling?
Done. Changed.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 07:34, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support, no more queries Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:32, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much, Jimfbleak. Your thoughts and comments are greatly appreciated.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 10:36, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Aoba47

[edit]

I support this nomination; my comments were addressed during the peer review. If you have the time, I would greatly appreciate any feedback on my current FAC. I understand if you would prefer not to though. Either way, good luck with this FAC and have a great rest of your weekend. Aoba47 (talk) 03:42, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, Aoba47. Your thoughts and comments are greatly appreciated.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 15:19, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Damian Vo

[edit]
Thank you very much, Damian Vo. Your thoughts and comments are greatly appreciated.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 05:08, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator notes

[edit]

I see an image review in the last nomination, but has this had a source review that I'm not seeing? If not, please request one at WT:FAC. --Laser brain (talk) 23:29, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Laser brain: Done as suggested.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 09:34, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]
  • Not sure why all the publishers are italicized here, which is normally done in case of newspapers or magazines.
Perhaps because the website field by default italicises the text (it's the technical team who should decide whether or not it should do so). And Template:Cite web strongly discourages using the publisher field for websites. --Kailash29792 (talk) 03:42, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • It should be MTV India not MTV (India) in source 15.
  • The Hindu needs wiki-linking in source 25.
  • Source 44 – this is the only one with the parent company of the publisher mentioned. I would suggest removing Press Trust of India.
  • Source 61 – OK another one (Indo-Asian News Service).
  • Source 84 and 85 – Hmm, more of them.
  • No problem with the reliability although I'm not exactly thrilled about BuzzFeed and Film Companion. FrB.TG (talk) 19:42, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know about BuzzFeed, but Film Companion definitely passes WP:RS. It was founded by Anupama Chopra, and even one of India's greatest film critics writes for it. --Kailash29792 (talk) 03:42, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for addressing some of the comments, Kailash29792. FrB.TG, BuzzFeed is a pretty reliable website founded by Kenneth Lerer and Jonah Peretti, both of whom also co-founded The Huffington Post, another reliable source. Also, the Northeast blackout of 2003 is addressed in the BuzzFeed source used (Ref no 14) while the two other sources (Ref nos 17 and 35) only say there was "a blackout" but did not specify which blackout. Also, reference 14 addresses that the film's title was inspired by a song from Saif Ali Khan's (who is also in this film) 1997 film, Hameshaa. Also, the only other BuzzFeed source used here in the film (ref no 6) shows Delnaaz's character name written in full as "Jaspreet 'Sweetu' Kapoor". I tried to find other sources for it but most of them only call her by her character's nickname, Sweetu (Jaspreet Kapoor is her actual name).  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 07:36, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Alright. FrB.TG (talk) 14:07, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for conducting the source review, FrB.TG. Your thoughts and comments are greatly appreciated.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 14:26, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 29 July 2019 [2].

Braunschweig-class battleship

[edit]
Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 12:49, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Another class of German battleships, most of these were out of front-line service by World War I, but one, Hessen, was at the Battle of Jutland in 1916 (Hessen also remained in service until 1960 or so, having served under 4 flags). The article passed a MILHIST A-class review in April 2019, so it should be in pretty good shape. Thanks to all who take the time to review it. Parsecboy (talk) 12:49, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5

[edit]
  • outbreak of World War I in July 1914 prevented I do not think we need a "1914" here.
    • Removed
  • After the war, the five Braunschweig's were Shouldn't it be "Braunschweigs" instead of "Braunschweig's"?
    • Yeah, I don't know where that came from
  • Link both tonnes and long tons in both the infobox nor the body.
    • Done
  • Link full load in the body and the infobox.
    • Good catch
  • Link knots in the body and the infobox.
    • Done
  • Link PS in the body.
    • It is, but it's not abbreviated the first time - I suppose since "PS" isn't an obvious abbreviation for "metric horsepower", it's probably best to just not abbreviate it
  • Optional The ships' main armament was increased remove "the ships" with "their".
    • Works for me
  • at a muzzle velocity of 820 meters per second (2,700 ft/s) Link both m/s and ft/s here.
    • Done
  • for a maximum range of 16,900 metres (18,500 yd), while the British metres.
    • Fixed
  • lower range of 14,500 metres (15,900 yd) Same as above.
    • Fixed
  • for a maximum range of 9,090 metres (9,940 yd) Same as above.
    • Fixed
  • Our Kaiser here is overlinked.
    • Fixed
  • making visits to Spain, the Canary Islands, and the Azores Maybe mainland Spain? Because the Canary Islands are part of Spain too. And add Portugal after the Azores.
    • Done
  • Lothringen was to be reduced to reserve in July 1914 and Preussen I think we do not need a second 1914 in this paragraph.
    • Removed
  • Link Denmark, Norway, Spain and Serbia with the Kingdom of Serbia's article.
    • Linked Serbia, but the equivalent for Spain is Restoration (Spain), which seems a little WP:EGGy to me, and Norway and Denmark are both currently the same countries, which the MoS advises against linking
  • into a training ship, and on 20 August 1917 Remove 1917 here.
    • Done
  • Link Kiel in the body.
    • Done
  • Link Soviet Union in the body.
    • Done

Par two Just to be sure I will have another look in the article.

  • In addition, the 17 cm guns Remove "In addition" and replace with "Also".
    • Done
  • were propelled by three shaft triple-expansion steam engines Missing hyphen between "three shaft".
    • Fixed
  • Germany had limited access to high quality coal Same as above needs a hyphen between high quality.
    • Done
  • introduced, in order to increase the burn rate Maybe remove "in order" here? It sounds better.
    • Done
  • apparent that the mine clearing had taken too long Needs a hyphen between mine clearing.
    • Done
  • replaced as flagship by the battleship You mean "as a flagship"?
    • No, there's no article needed there (and "a" would be the wrong one in any event)
  • in poor condition and in dire need Don't think that the second "in" is not necenssarry?
    • No, "in poor condition and dire need" wouldn't work, IMO
  • Preussen, Lothringen, and Hessen continued on as guard ships in the Baltic Maybe remove "on" here.
    • Done

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 17:37, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again, CPA Parsecboy (talk) 13:03, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not a god or a dictator to not listen to my fellow editors like you BB who have opinions especially in my non-English native ears. It looks great here. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 15:58, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM

[edit]

I reviewed this at Milhist ACR, and went through it with a fine-tooth comb then. I have a few comments:

  • "Previous designs had carried the 24 cm guns in the superstructure" in what, multiple gun turrets or casemates?
  • in general, the decision of the design staff about the set-up of the secondary battery needs better explanation at this point. Was the smaller battery on the main deck in casemates or turrets? How was it to be laid out? I realise this is explained later, but given it is being discussed here, it needs to be better explained.
    • See if how I've reworked it sounds good for you
  • repetition "as many countries' navies" and "many navies"
    • Fixed
  • "increasing the thickness of the armor protecting the secondary battery" this is the same question about the set-up of the secondary battery. Casemates?
    • Clarified
  • given PS and ihp are indistinguishable at this level, perhaps force or add kW as a conversion in the infobox?
    • Done
  • "12 in (30 cm) guns" it seems weird to use the reverse conversion just for these foreign guns
    • Good point
  • depress down is unnecessary, depress will do
    • Fixed
  • 1820 shells→1,820 shells
    • Fixed
  • go through and check all metres are meters
    • Fixed per CPA's comment above
  • any info available about the performance and range of the torpedoes?
  • casemated guns had gunshields?
    • Yeah, they rotated with the gun in the casemate
  • you could put the conning tower armour in the infobox
    • Good idea
  • "but they saw no action"→"but it saw no action" as we are talking about the squadron here
    • Good catch

More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 12:27, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • add a location for Philbin?
    • Good catch, added
  • do Koop & Schmolke and Weir not add anything?
    • I haven't read Koop & Schmolke - it's not widely available, but I suspect it would be useful for those who can get a copy. Weir provides context on the building programs, government-industry relations, Imperial German politics, and such, that doesn't really belong in the article but might be of interest, so I figured it would be worth including in the further reading section.

That's all I have. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:32, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Great job, supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:35, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Sources review

[edit]
  • No spotchecks carried out
  • Formats
  • ISBNs should be in a single uniform format (see Dodson 2014)
  • Fixed
  • Citations 18 and 23 refer to "Hildebrand, Röhr & Steinmetz Vol. 2", but in the references this is listed as Vol 3.
  • Good catch
  • Quality and reliability: The sources appear to be comprehensive, and to meet the required quality criteria.

Brianboulton (talk) 13:07, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Sturmvogel

[edit]
  • Why are the main guns the only ones in the infobox to get a designation?
    • Good question
  • Several roundings for the conversions require fixing.
  • increased from four 24 cm (9.4 in) guns in previous designs, compared with the 30.5 cm guns used on many foreign ships. redundant
    • Removed
  • Hyphenate Marine type boilers
    • Done
  • Link cylindrical boilers to Scotch marine boilers
    • Done
  • Link funnel, metric horsepower, sec
    • The first two already are - what's "sec"?
  • What's unstable steering?
  • There are a fair number of redundant conversions
  • I'd suggest moving the bit about hydraulically operated turrets to two sentences previous, right in front of the turret designations.
    • How about where I put it?
  • The main battery had a total of 340 shells, Awkward, suggest something like "the ships carried a total of 340 shells, 85 per gun"
    • Works for me
  • 140 mm (5.5 in) forward and aft "fore and aft"?
    • Sure
  • extended from the fore to aft main battery turrets awkward Perhaps "extended between the fore and aft main-gun turrets"?
    • Done
  • Down to service history, more later.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:17, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link the headers in the table and guard ship
    • Done
  • Schmidt decided to withdraw his forces when it became apparent that the mine-clearing had taken too long, and there was not sufficient daylight left for the minelayer Deutschland to lay a minefield of its own. It's unclear here what the situation is. The Germans wanted to clear the Russian minefields so they could lay one of their own?
    • Yeah, they wanted to clear the Irben Strait (the western entrance to the gulf) and mine the path through Moon Sound (the northern entrance) - have clarified this
  • When these ships were disarmed weren't their guns reused by the Army?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:04, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 29 July 2019 [3].

William McSherry

[edit]
Nominator(s): Ergo Sum 03:35, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is a short but comprehensive article about William McSherry, a Jesuit who was president of Georgetown University and is remembered for having arranged the 1838 Jesuit slave sale. Thomas F. Mulledy was akin to his partner-in-crime for this sale, and that article was recently promoted to FA; it is something of a companion article. McSherry later became the leader of the Jesuits in the United States. Ergo Sum 03:35, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]

Sources review

[edit]
  • No spotchecks carried out
  • Links to sources are all working
  • Formats: a couple of italicisation issues: "City of Charles Town, West Virginia" (ref 3) and "Georgetown Slavery Archive" (ref 36) are publishers, not websites, and should not be in italic form
  • Quality and reliability: the sources appear well chosen, and to meet the required criteria for quality and reliability.

Brianboulton (talk) 11:58, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the source review. Ergo Sum 13:46, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from The Rambling Man

[edit]
  • Support I reviewed this at GAN and considered at the time that it was beyond that quality already. I'm satisfied it meets all the FAC criteria. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 09:31, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator notes

[edit]

I've added this to the Urgents list but, having been open nearly a month, it will be archived soon if it does not attract additional attention. --Laser brain (talk) 10:55, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Cas Liber

[edit]

Taking a look now...

  • It is a little jarring in the Early life section how one sentence we're talking about how Anne married Richard and the next is William following his brothers to college. However I can't see a way of reorganising the section as is. Is there any other biographical info? Given his age I thought I'd ask. If none this is not a deal-breaker....
  • He arrived at Georgetown on December 22, 1828 - do we know in what condition? i.e. you've mentioned the voyage was treacherous, which leaves me curious.....
    • Again, I can't seem to find any additional detail. The voyage was, indeed, treacherous, so one can assume that it was tiring and nerve-racking, but those would be assumptions. Ergo Sum 19:10, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 1839, McSherry was permitted to resign the presidency due to his [significantly deteriorated] health. - why not just "poor" or "worsening"?

Other than that, a nice read and on track to FA-hood methinks Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:06, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ok all good now (on comprehensiveness and prose) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:09, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Ceoil

[edit]

Will take a look this weekend. Ceoil (talk) 09:35, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • and was introduced to Richard in the United States, where they married on July 31, 1791: Since you don't say met, can use the word "arranged"
  • he rediscovered in the Jesuit archives the Relatio Itineris by Andrew White - was this a personal rediscovey of known text or did he unearth a previously lost archive - ie say "found the previously lost/forgoten"
  • "brought to light" is colloquial
  • there are a few long sentences that would have more narrative or dramatic impact if split up & expanded upon;
  • Eventually, he left for the United States from the port of Livorno on a treacherous voyage that lated 171 days, and caused some in the United States to fear that the three Jesuits aboard had perished. - here the detail of "from the port of Livorno" as acquardly placed, bogs the reader down and takes from the excitement potential of the latter parts of these claims. Would tighten.
These are nitpicks that I trust Ergo to address; have read through and edited otherwise. Support. Ceoil (talk) 20:20, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • As one of the first Americans to complete the traditional Jesuit course of training - should this just be "first American trained as a Jesuit"? Otherwise, yep, all points met. Ceoil (talk) 06:16, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • The two are actually different in an important way. There were Americans who had been admitted as Jesuits without undergoing the full training that their Continental counterparts did. McSherry was one of the first to complete the full course. Ergo Sum 14:22, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 29 July 2019 [4].

Littlemore Priory scandals

[edit]
Nominator(s): ——SerialNumber54129 19:02, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A pathological prioress, negligent nuns, a blundering bishop and unchaste chaplains; it rather says it all about Littlemore Priory that the only character that comes out the story looking even mildly positive was—in a career first and last—Cardinal Wolsey. Many thanks for looking in, please to comment. Cheers, ——SerialNumber54129 19:02, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Tim riley

[edit]
  • Lead
    • "the image of the Catholic Church in England" – there wasn't any other church in England in Wolsey's day surely?
    • "Pension" – a blue link really needed for this everyday word?
  • Atwater investigates, 1517
    • "intending for her daughter to make a good marriage" – the "for" seems unneeded here.
    • "rooves" – I boggled at this, but I find the OED admits it. All the same, "roofs" is the usual form.
    • "They also as protested their decrepit clothing" – should "as protested" be "protested about" or some such? Makes no sense as it is.
    • "the nuns lacked basic needs" – I don't think they lacked the needs: they probably lacked the necessities
    • "Wells to be distributed among Wells's relatives" – the duplication of the name could be avoided with a pronoun
    • " priory's silver plate" – you link to tableware. Is that right? Would the plate not have been for ecclesiastical purposes?
    • "Spear agrees with – on the irresponsibility of the prioress" – should there be a name or pronoun where the en-dash is? And if this Spear is the same person mentioned in the second para of the section she was plural then rather than singular, as here.
    • "Spear suggested" – past tense, as opposed to present elsewhere
  • Aftermath
    • What is "a humanism Cardinal College"?
    • "and for the building of which, therefore" – either the "and" or the "therefore" isn't wanted, I think.
    • "a pension of £6 £13 4d" – a year?
    • "It illustrates, she suggests ..." – the conclusion attributed to Power seems odd. If I correctly interpret the sentence it would be more accurate as "...that although the decadent institutions...", with the "but" later in the sentence omitted.
  • Notes
    • 2. – bishop' instructions – "bishop's instructions"?
    • 6. – omissions – I think you probably mean "emissions"

That’s all from me. Tim riley talk 17:50, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much Tim riley; I've addressed your points and thank you for them—mostly silly mistakes, apologies for putting you through them, I end up re-reading the thing so often I don't see wood for trees I think—but can I ask you to clarify your point#14 ("it illustrates, she suggests", etc)? I can't quite get the gist of what you're asking. More apologies if I'm missing the bleeding obvious! ~~
It's a matter of clarity. I think the sentence gets lost midway: "...but it clearly had" – what is it? There isn't a singular noun to which it could plausibly refer. Now I look again I think just deleting the "it" would do the trick, and restore both syntax and clarity. All the same, I think it would be clearer still if you turned it round: It illustrates, she suggests, that although Thomas Cromwell exaggerated the case there was clearly some basis in recent history for the allegations of decadent institutions and scurrilous behaviour that he used as justification for the wholesale dissolution of the monasteries of 1536–39. But I certainly don't press the point if you disagree. Tim riley talk 21:11, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you mean Tim, apologies for density. That wording's good enough for me, so I've 1/2"ed it. I'd welcome you checking that everything's to your satisfaction, of course. Cheers, ——SerialNumber54129 18:16, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to support now. Tim riley talk 14:18, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by caeciliusinhorto

[edit]
  • Do we know why Horde initially visited the priory?
    • Not really, but E. Power does hint at a sort of reason, which we ca draw out from; and I've done so.
  • "rooves" is, if not incorrect, then definitely an unusual spelling: I would use "roofs" simply because it is so much more familiar!
    • Absolutely. See Tim r. above; great minds think alike. I don't know what possessed me.
  • "Spear agrees with – on the irresponsibility of the prioress": from context, I guess Spear is agreeing with Logan?
    • Acrtually with Power, but my prose was poor enough to not make that crystal clear; hopefully now clarified.
  • "were apostatised as a result": apostatised is wikilinked towards the end of the article; the wikilink should be up here (and you might consider glossing it in text too)
    • Moved; can you suggest a gloss?
  • "Wells complained that even though it is two years since Juliana Wynter had had a baby". Tense problems: "even though it had been". And I would write "had given birth" in order to avoid "had had".
    • Check.
  • "his new humanism Cardinal College": "humanist"?
    • Corrected.
  • "and for the building of which, therefore, he needed funds": at least one of "and" or "therefore" is superfluous here; you might even cut both.
    • Both gone (one already gone due to T.r. again!)
  • "suppress several decayed monasteries": "decayed" implies to me that the physical structure of the monasteries was the problem; I assume that in fact Wolsey was concerned with moral decline?
    • You're dead right, and I'm not invested particularly in its use; bit it is the word used frequently in the sources for this particular application.
  • "its lands were given over new college": "over to the new college"?
    • D'oh.
  • "his efforts mirror and predate the attempted reforms": strange phrasing.
    • How about the miuch tighter "...Atwater's efforts in this direction anticipated..."?
  • Note 2 confuses me: "the rubric to the Littlemore visitation contains none of the references to modesty or shamefastness which usually appear when sexual transgression is at issue" appears to be used to support that there was anxiety about lesbian sex at Littlemore!?
    • Indeed! It is actually saying two things—"yes but no" kind of thing"—to make a single point, so I've clarified that Atwater might have thought there was funny business going on, but a historian thinks otherwise.

Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 19:13, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Definite improvements! A few more comments on a second read through:

  • "Other essential outbuildings": we weren't really talking about "essential outbuildings" previously, unless we are considering the priory an outbuilding! "Some essential outbuildings"?
  • "with no companion other than a young child from a nearby village": the "with a young child bit" is striking – are we to infer that it was her daughter?
  • "even at the elevation": I think that elevation (liturgy) is the target you are looking for?

(Re. images: there's probably room for an image of Wolsey in §Aftermath? As I know from my current effort at FAC, not all articles are naturally bountiful in images!) Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 19:31, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers Caeciliusinhorto, appreciate the suggestions. Went with just "Essential outbuildings were..." most succinct? And of course, you're right about the elevation of the host (rather than "500 ft above sea-level"!). Bloody good idea about Wolsey, and as a bonus, that one of Sampson Strong's shows the college in the background which increases relevancy further.
Interesting point about the child, and that might be the implication, although the chronology is hazy. *WP:MEGA-OR alert* She told the bishop that her daughter had died a few years earlier so no, not her—although a great idea—but taking it a step further, could we surmise that she was suffering from a form of empty nest syndrome? Her daughter had died, and she was living through someone else's from the village? Completely hypothetical; but a sad possibility nevertheless, I think. What say you? Unfortunately [/WP:OR] there's nothing in any source that discusses her child. ——SerialNumber54129 10:59, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
An excellent image of Wolsey! Now there's a man who wasn't following the Benedictine prohibition on eating meat! (Or, indeed, as I recall, the priestly requirement for celibacy!)
About the child: if the sources don't discuss it, they don't discuss it. Now, if you were writing a scholarly article on the scandals I would be suggesting that you dig into that, because it is interesting. Was she lying about the death of her daughter? Was she trying to overcome the grief from her daughter's death? Was there some other reason the nuns were concerned about it? As you say, though, there's nowhere to go at present without tearing up WP:OR...
Sources used generally look reliable: there are a few pretty dated sources, especially King, Arrowsmith, and VCH, but these seem to be generally used to support relatively uncontroversial facts, and sometimes in articles like this you do need to go back to older sources. I did raise my eyebrows slightly at Flora Fraser (and the claim she is being used to support looks like a time to cite the primary source if I ever saw one!) but no serious concerns about the sources from my point of view.
I don't have enough knowledge of the scholarship to properly judge comprehensiveness, but there's nothing obviously missing from this layman's point of view. I haven't checked the image licensing thoroughly but the painting is obviously out of copyright and the photograph is CC licensed, so looks fine to me.
Overall, I'm willing to support promotion. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 13:16, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much, Caeciliusinhorto some very nuanced points indeed! You're probably right about Fraser, and I'll see if I can dig it out of the Visitations. Cheers! ——SerialNumber54129 20:21, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
Thakns for that Nikkimaria, much appreciated as ever. ——SerialNumber54129 20:21, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

Spotchecks not done

  • Is the pull quote in Background from the same source later given as Atwater? The titles are similar but not identical. Suggest footnoting the quote
    • Oddly, no, they're separate works.
      • Okay. Suggest adding a footnote to whatever the quoted work is. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:08, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • Having said that, on digging out the footnote per your suggestion, te reason they're so similar is because they're in the same series of records. So I've added the footnote and an entry to the biblio.
  • FN45 should use pages not page
    • Done.
  • The BBC ref is backwards - author is BBC staff, work is BBC News
    • Done.
  • Bowker 2004: don't use proxied URLs, either for the archive or the original. For ODNB refs you could really just use DOI, or the original URL if desired
    • Well I got rid of the proxy (didn't I?)!
      • No - the archive link goes to a proxy login page. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:08, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • As I wouldhave found had I actually clicked on the link after pasting it. But I didn't change the archived page! Now done. No More Proxying.
  • Is there a reason Cook is not bulleted?
    • My dumbassery?
  • Cheney: can you verify the title? That ISBN seems to correspond with a book on English history, not British
    • Absolutely correct.
  • Elton: that ISBN appears to be a different edition. Same with Gilchrist and Thomson
    • Done.
  • Everett title should use endash. Same with Smith and Thomson
  • Done.
  • Check alphabetization of Bibliography
    • Caught MacCulloch and Marshall.
  • Kerr: don't overspecify publication dates for books
    • Done.
  • Think you've switched the ISBNs for the two Logan works?
    • Done.
  • Spear appears to be part of a series
    • Added.
  • Worldcat lists an actual author for both VCH works
    • Ah! See below.
  • The Williams source should likely be cited as a report rather than as a journal article. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:41, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I changed it a bit, but yes I think that's the right template. – Joe (talk) 12:13, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many thanks Nikkimaria, for your eagle eye there. I've made all the adjustments, I think, excepting the VCH: all things being equal, I'd prefer to keep it simply VCH for consistency. You see, there are literally hundreds of volumes, with nearly as many authors / editors. Much easier for the readers search this way, and it's pretty consistently the academic treatment too. Cheers, ——SerialNumber54129 12:01, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: Basically, I was v slow in etting your drift. Apologies! How do the refs look now? (See above for details as to what I've done.)
Better, thanks. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:50, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SchroCat

[edit]

Support Nice article. Just a couple of queries tho:

Atwater investigates, 1517
  • On 17 June 1517[14]: Now, refs are supposed to cover all the information that goes before. Here we have a citation supporting a date but nothing else. I'd move these to the end of the sentence.
Visit of the bishop
  • "On 2 September 1518,[35]" Same as above
Aftermath
  • a pension of "£6 £13 4d" seems odd.

That's it from me. - SchroCat (talk) 09:33, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Cheers SchroCat, much appreciated as ever. Just the fyi, the cites were where they were because they literally were only referencing the dates, nothing else...but they looked bizarre I admit. In any case, I shifted them along a tad. Also sorted your LSD  :) ——SerialNumber54129 12:01, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from John M Wolfson

[edit]

I have taken the liberty of adding salient inflation figures and other minor changes, and overall I think this is a well-written and informative article. Nice job! – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 23:38, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@John M Wolfson: Apologies indeed for the belated reply! Thanks for those figures, I'm not particularly au fait with the templates. One thing though—not a criticism, I've just never seen it done before—is that you've now got notes within notes, if you know what I mean; note #21 now contains notes 18, 19 and 20  :) like a snake eating its tail; was that intentional? I appreciate your support here in any case! ——SerialNumber54129 15:31, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've done notes within notes before myself, and that is intentional. No worries if you want to change it. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 17:59, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, it reminds me of Castrovalva somewhat  :) thanks again for looking in! ——SerialNumber54129 19:15, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 29 July 2019 [5].

Thomas White (Australian politician)

[edit]
Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk) 14:03, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tommy White had a remarkable career. He was one of the first military pilots trained in Australia and saw action in World War I in the Mesopotamian campaign, during which he was captured but escaped three years later. He married the daughter of Australia's second Prime Minister, became a Federal parliamentarian, resigned on the eve of World War II, and served in the RAAF before getting his second bite of the political cherry as Minister for Air in Bob Menzies' Liberal government. Tks to those who took part in the article's MilHist A-Class Review last year, and in advance to all who comment here. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:03, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Tim riley

[edit]

Casting an eye over the recent additions to the list of FA candidates I spotted "Thomas White (Australian politician)" and thought "Hmm, I wonder who that's by?" I was not wrong, I see, and this contribution is well up to the Rose standard. A few points on the prose, none of which affect my support:

  • First World War section – given the heading, it might be smoother to make "the First World War" in the opening line just "the war". I don't press the point.
    • I guess I prefer to write paragraphs that can be read without the heading...
  • "at St John's Church of England in Toorak" – I quite see that it was a C of E church, but I don't think it quite works to elide "St John's Church of England church". Loyal son of the C of E though I am, I'd be inclined to make this just "at St John's Church, Toorak". But again, I don't press the point.
    • I tend to agree with you but the source renders it this way and I think we'd need to explain it was C of E somewhere...
  • "but lost to the sitting Labor member, James Fenton, by just over 9,000 votes" – it could be helpful to readers unfamiliar with the Australian electoral system of the time to say whether a 9,000 majority was a landslide, a narrow squeak or something in between.
    • The sources don't editorialise on the result so I think all I could offer is to recast it with the totals for White and his opponent, i.e. 19,000 to 28,000, and let the reader work it out.
  • "Denied pre-selection as a Nationalist" – I struggle with this. Is it that the party declined to adopt him as a candidate (as we would say in Britain)?
    • Interesting, I thought pre-selection and de-selection were British terms -- your suggestion is probably more universal anyway though, so no prob.
  • "personal animosity for Menzies" – the nittiest of picks, but I think one has an animosity against, rather than for, someone. Perfectly prepared to be told I'm wrong so far as AusEng is concerned.

Nothing there of any great moment. Happy to support this enjoyably readable article about an interesting person. Seems to me to meet all the FA criteria. – Tim riley talk

Thanks as always for your comments and support, Tim. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:41, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm entirely content with the replies above. Nothing else to add. Tim riley talk 12:12, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport from PM

[edit]

This article is in fine shape. I reviewed at Milhist ACR back in April last year, and could find precious little to quibble about then. I have a few comments:

  • Pre-WWI, AFAIK the part-time Army was the Citizen Forces, not the CMF, although anything prior to the 1903 Defence Act is a bit iffy in terms of terminology, as I think the colonial laws still prevailed
  • the NAA file citations would benefit from a page number, eg fn 4
  • when Basra is first mentioned, there is some assumed knowledge about where that is
  • following on from my comments at ACR, in respect to his election results, could they be rendered in percentage terms of the votes cast instead of raw vote numbers, as we don't know the sizes of the electorates, and don't know if 12,000 votes (for example) was a lot or a little?
    • If I may refer my honorable friend to the reply I made to Mr Riley earlier... rather than percentages, newspaper reports at this time seem to focus on the victor's majority, as well as the bare figures for each candidate, so I'd be happy to substitute the latter for what we have now and let the reader work out the decisiveness of the wins.
  • for Victorian Society for Crippled Children and Adults link Yooralla
  • his ADB entry states several things that would bear a mention, including his maiden speech about the AWM, his support of censorship, his support for the New Guard, his almost-resignation over conscription, that he was a dedicated protectionist, this should be mentioned, I think, as it was strong thread in early 20th century Australian politics. Also his identification with ex-serviceman's causes.
    • Okay, will have a look...
      • I guess I was a bit leery of repeating everything in the ADB entry... I've now mentioned the AWM speech, and protectionism. I'm not sure we need his support of censorship when he ran the relevant department; more unusual when your personal views run counter to your departmental responsibilities, i.e. re. protectionism. I already have his active support for conscription in 1938 in there -- I tried finding any mention of him considering resignation over it the previous year in Trove and the Lyons bio but found nothing. Re. ex-servicemen's causes, I think again it's how to put it without just repeating the ABD -- his support of Legacy is in the article. Likewise the New Guard -- not opposed to including it per se but where is a bit of a challenge given the way the ADB entry expresses it, and it seems curious to me that the only other mention of this I could find in Google (let alone Trove) is a study that uses the ADB as its sole source... Happy to discuss all this of course. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:16, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • It is my view that where a biographical book hasn't been written on someone, the ADB entry should be the basis for our article, because it is a distillation by someone who has done research and is familiar with the subject. Therefore everything in the ADB entry should be reflected in our article, esp at FA. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:40, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • I tend to agree and the ADB entry is clearly the basis of the WP article, but the ADB doesn't follow quite the same formula as WP, including as it often does somewhat throwaway points in a summing up of the subject, which is where the New Guard is mentioned. I was interested in other sources of White and the New Guard not to verify the ADB, but to get context. Anyway I've done with it as best I think I can. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:35, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • the first para of Second World War and later parliamentary career could do with a chronological approach to his postings, as we learn of three positions, then get details of each one. I would suggest mentioning each in turn, along with the details of each one.
  • perhaps say when he returned to Australia from the UKHC job, as his death in Melbourne is rather sudden

That's all I have. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:24, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tks PM! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:12, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Okay PM, I think I've done everything I can without getting some feedback on a couple of points -- over to you. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:16, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Did White suffer any criticism for sending No. 77 Squadron to Korea with the P-51? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:40, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Or the selection of the Meteor to replace it? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:44, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not that I'm aware of -- Menzies is the pollie most closely associated with the Korean deployment. As for the Meteor, there was little alternative given the Americans weren't prepared to part with any Sabres at that time. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:35, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I wasn't up to speed on that aspect. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:27, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again PM, pls see above re. ADB info and election margins. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:32, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. Supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:01, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Appreciate your time -- tks PM. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:10, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]

Sources review

[edit]
  • No spotchecks carried out
  • All external links to sources are working per the checker tool
  • No format issues
  • Sources appear to meet all the required criteria for quality and reliability

Brianboulton (talk) 12:59, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Belated thanks, Brian. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:32, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Gog the Mild

[edit]

I'll take a look at this. Give me a little while. Gog the Mild (talk) 00:27, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • "when he deployed to the Middle East" To me this reads a little oddly - 'when he was deployed to the Middle East'?
  • "when he was elected Member for Balaclava in Victoria" For non-Australians perhaps mention a member of what?
    • Well I could say "Member of Parliament for Balaclava" but I did mention his "parliamentary career" earlier in the sentence -- your thoughts?
I note from the main article that elected member for Balaclava (were there Australians at Balaclava?) means that he was elected to the Senate. A little research suggests that he could also have begun his parliamentary career by being elected to the House of Representatives. (I am open to correction on this.) If in Australian politics at the time there was little functional difference then it is fine as it was; otherwise it may, at your discretion, be worth flagging in the lead which. (If 'twere me I would be tempted to make the lead 'when he was elected to the Australian Senate as a member for Balaclava', but I certainly don't insist.) This is mentioned purely for your consideration.
House of Reps actually -- I've made explicit in the lead. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:01, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He joined the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) during the Second World War" "joined ... during" reads oddly. Does one not either join at a specific point in time (not during), or for the duration of something?
    • Hmm, I still think it reads okay. I didn't particularly want to say a year alone because I want to make it clear to the uninitiated that it was during wartime, but mentioning a year as well as the fact it was during the war seems a bit much.
That reads much better to me.
  • "the Half Flight assisted the Indian Army" Not sure about this - but are you sure about the upper case H and F?
    • I'll double-check some of the sources for how they treat it. It's true that "flight" would always be lower case but a half flight is pretty well unique in Australian military aviation so might warrant being rendered as a proper name...
I had't realised that a/the half flight was so unique. If it was then, obviously, it is fine capitalised and apologies for my error.
  • "80 mph (129 km/h)" Optional: the spurious accuracy of the conversion jars a little. Suggest |sigfig=2.
  • "As well as reconnaissance and bombing, White carried out several operations behind enemy lines." I honestly don't understand what this means. I assume that the "reconnaissance and bombing" were behind enemy lines, so what were the other "several operations"? Would it be possible to be more specific?
    • I was trying to distinguish between his purely aerial missions (recce and bombing) and his ground missions (landing behind lines to conduct sabotage) -- will see about tweaking.
  • "despite being fired upon by the tribesmen" "upon"? 'on'? (And again later.)
  • "He was imprisoned initially in Mosul" Optional: 'He was initially imprisoned in Mosul'?
I would not try to argue that the earlier version was incorrect, hence the "optional", but to me the later one flows better; ie is more "engaging and ... professional". But entirely up to you and feel free to change back if you wish.
Happy to leave. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:01, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "to discuss the growing numbers of Jewish emigrants seeking to leave Germany and occupied territories" Had Germany occupied any territories by July 1938?
Whoops. How embarrassing.
  • "as a flight lieutenant (temporary squadron leader)" Does this mean that his substantive rank was flight lieutenant and that he was an acting squadron leader? If so, why not simply say so? If not, what does it mean?
    • "Temporary" and "acting" ranks are two different things (the former is usually longer-lasting than the latter) -- I could pipe it to Military_rank#Types_of_rank if that helps.
No. Feel free to leave as it is. A suggestion (only): maybe 'as a flight lieutenant (and temporary squadron leader)'; or (better IMO) 'as a flight lieutenant and temporary squadron leader'.
Tks, I might leave as is then; it's in other articles and I believe reflects the way sources often render it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:01, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "by this time the school was training over 900 pupils" I feel that this either needs a time period (eg 'was training over 900 pupils per year') or specifying that it is a running total (eg 'had trained over 900 pupils')
    • Will double-check the source.
      • The school had over 900 students in September 1941 when White left -- could I perhaps express this by simply saying either "at this time the school was training over 900 pupils" or "by this time the school had over 900 pupils"? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:00, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Either would clarify nicely, although personally I like the former.
Done. Ian Rose (talk) 03:01, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "procedures for commissioning and promotion of Australian airmen" Either 'commissioning and promoting Australian airmen' or 'the commissioning and promotion of Australian airmen'.
  • "Royal Commission" → 'royal commission'.
  • "Following the Liberal Party victory". "the" → 'a'.
    • Mmm, I think 'the' is appropriate because we've just mentioned the Federal election in the previous sentence...
OK.

I have not carried out a source review, but I note that Guests of the Unspeakable lacks a publication location. (Crows Nest, N.S.W.)

Just as good a quality article as I thought it was going to be. Just the picky points above for your consideration. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:39, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for taking a look Gog. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:23, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Gog, I've either actioned everything or requested follow-up from you. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:01, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
All outstanding points commented on in turn. I think. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:12, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's everything now -- let me know. cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:01, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A fine article. Happy to support. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:02, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for helping make it a better article, Gog. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:22, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cas Liber

[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 Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 28 July 2019 [6].

Style (Taylor Swift song)

[edit]
Nominator(s): HĐ (talk) 08:34, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a song by Taylor Swift, which is hilariously titled "Style" (an ode to her ex Harry Styles?). The previous FAC gained two supports, no oppose, and detailed media and source reviews, but failed to pass the line. Hope it will attract more interest this time :), HĐ (talk) 08:34, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If possible I would love to have this article reviewed by one of the coordinators; could @Ian Rose: kindly take a look at it, given that you may have had some time examining the article in the previous FAC? Thank you so much, HĐ (talk) 02:41, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Aoba47

[edit]
  • I am uncertain on how Sargent's quote ("familiar tropes of Western romance") is used in the article. The sentence says that Sargent connects these tropes with the lyrics of this particular song, and I do not see that. Here is the sentence in full from the source (Dating back to her earliest records, Taylor Swift’s songs have navigated the familiar tropes of Western romance: Romeo and Juliet, cheerleader versus geek, the shy girl who falls for the rebellious boy, Prince Charming and his white horse.). Sargent seems completely focused on Swift's previous releases in this sentence, and I feel that the connection being drawn to this song is not accurate.
  • Sargent follows up that ""Style" is perhaps one last look at the version of Swift who sees herself in broadly drawn characters", which, I assume, implies that this song is the only song in which Swift appears to long for fairytale-like relationships with beautiful boys on the "shapeshifting" 1989. He does follow up "But "Style" also seems like a distilled look at a future version of Taylor Swift", in terms of musical direction.
  • I do not think "white people" needs to be in quotes.
  • I don't include quotation marks in the Composition section because readers can already understand they're just interpretations. In the reception section, however, I put them in quotes because if there are no quotation marks, that the song talks about beauty standards of white people can be misunderstood as a fact, which is not
  • There is some criticism of the song in the body of the article, but the lead only mentions the positive reviews. The reception of the song as a whole was definitely positive, but I think it may be helpful to add a small bit in the lead to address some of the criticisms.
  • I think publications like Pitchfork, Consequence of Sound, and PopMatters should be in italics. They are presented that way in their respective Wikipedia articles. I would look through the article to double-check this as it is something easy to miss.
  • Done; although I am reluctant to italicize non-print publications. But as long as the consensus is to italicize, I'm okay with it
  • For this sentence (In the video English actor Dominic Sherwood plays Swift's love interest), I believe there should be a comma between "video" and "English".
  • Oof a glitch. Done
  • I would add the year that Billionaire Ransom was released. I would also add the year for Mulholland Drive.
  • Done
  • Why is the title for Reference 15 in all italics? I am assuming that it is a formatting error.
  • The title format is autogenerated by {{Cite AV media}}. I tried to look for {{Cite AV}} but it is a redirect to the former template. Will figure out some way to fix this.

Great work with the article. I also commented on the previous FAC, and I hope there is more activity with this go-around. It would be cool to have this featured on the front page on the day that her next album is released. If you have the time, I would greatly appreciate any comments for my current FAC. Either way, have a great rest of your day and/or night! Aoba47 (talk) 20:50, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for the input, they're very helpful as always. Will try to spear some time looking through your FAC if time permits :) HĐ (talk) 11:46, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for addressing everything. I appreciate the clarifications on certain points and apologies for certain parts where I was confused. Do not feel obligated to look at my FAC as I understand that we all have limited time. I still greatly enjoyed reading through the article, and hopefully more people will review it this time around. Aoba47 (talk) 15:36, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

[edit]

I did a comprehensive sources review during the previous FAC, and the various issues I raised were resolved. There are no other issues I wish to raise in this current FAC. Concerning the italicization of the title in ref 15, mentioned above, this is a function of the "cite AV" template used. The title could easily be de-italicized, if it matters. Brianboulton (talk) 21:30, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Media review

[edit]

Commencing shortly. Kees08 (Talk) 01:13, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My previous review still stands, so the media review is complete. Kees08 (Talk) 01:15, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Ojorojo

[edit]

Updated as per Template:Infobox song#Parameters (easier than listing here, change as needed). The biggest difference is the addition of |studio=. Much like "Records" in |label=, "Studio" should be dropped for space considerations and since the parameter already includes it. Also, the use of "small" in infoboxes is discouraged, because it may cause WP:ACCESS problems (see MOS:SMALLTEXT). —Ojorojo (talk) 13:45, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing that out. I see you have adjusted the infobox; any more concern regarding the prose or format? HĐ (talk) 15:38, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have little experience with FAs, so I usually confine my comments to the infoboxes. Good luck! —Ojorojo (talk) 17:43, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Kees08

[edit]

Committing to reviewing this so it does not get archived again; will review sometime this weekend probably. Kees08 (Talk) 18:01, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Was it only released to radio in the US and Italy? We should say whatever secondary RS's say, I think, unless there is a standard for music articles.
  • There are Billboard sources reporting the release and confirming that it was a single; I don't see any source outside the US (except for the Italy radio source) indicate the single release. For music articles, though, when a song is sent to radio it is qualified as a single (per WikiProject Songs guideline) HĐ (talk) 02:39, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • These sentences in different sections are pretty similar, are both needed? Kornhaber and Consequence of Sound's Sasha Geffen remarked that the "classic" beauty in the lyrics mostly applies to white people. and Consequence of Sound's Sasha Geffen lauded the song's musical styles, but criticized its theme of conventional beauty standards of "white people" as a cliché that blemishes Swift's "girl-next-door likability" on the album.
  • The former serves as an interpretation of the lyrics, while the latter provides a more critical viewpoint of that interpretation. By that saying I think they're both needed. HĐ (talk)

I think that is all I have; the article is well-written. Kees08 (Talk) 01:14, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing the article, I really appreciate that, HĐ (talk) 02:39, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Ian

[edit]

Recusing from coord duties to review following requests from the nominator... Having read and copyedited up to and including Music and lyrics, I don't see major issues at this stage. The prose seems reasonable, the quotes are attributed, the tone is neutral -- just one query:

  • serviced the song to US radio stations -- have to admit I'm not familiar with "serviced" in this context, can we just say "released the song", or even "made the song available"?

I'll leave it there for now, I mainly just wanted to get a feel for the article's quality and so far it's positive. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:47, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for taking time reviewing this! HĐ (talk) 02:39, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Ian Rose: Have you had a second chance to go through this yet? Kees08 (Talk) 06:34, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, but I don't want promotion held up on my account if it's deemed otherwise ready. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:47, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ian Rose: There has been further input into this review and thus far all have been positive. Any progress to promote/archive this FAC soon? HĐ (talk) 02:37, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I recused from coord duties to review so one of the other @FAC coordinators: will judge that. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:59, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@HĐ: I'll take a look today. --Laser brain (talk) 11:14, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Tomica

[edit]
  • Support. After comprehensively reading the article I can most certainly give my green light for the bronze star. It's obvious that a lot of work has been put into it; the prose flows great, the references look tidy, and the infobox as well. My only comment/question (that doesn't affect my support of course) is about this particular sentence in the 'Music video' section, " By the time they worked on the video, Sherwood had finished the film Take Down, which was later renamed Billionaire Ransom (released in 2016)." Honestly, it's very random and not really connect to the rest of the information. Also, in my honest opinion, that movie is not really known, so I don't see a reason why it should be there. I would personally remove it. But, maybe there is another explanation of it that I am not aware of right no. Anyways, amazing job! — Tom(T2ME) 15:47, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it adds up a bit of info on Sherwood's acting career, given that he's not really well known. I don't think it hurts the flow, but I'll see what others say about that. Thanks so much for the support and comment! HĐ (talk) 04:26, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator notes

[edit]

On skimming this to determine readiness for promotion, I'm concerned that the first passage I checked, "Swift, Payami, Martin, and Shellback wrote the song's lyrics", is contradicted by the Medium article in which Ljungfelt indicates that Swift and Martin wrote the lyrics for the song. Can you explain the disparity? Additional source spot-checks will probably be needed before I can consider promotion. I'm also concerned that this article continues a theme I've seen across many song articles here that published sheet music is cited for a generic set of musical "factoids" like key, tempo, and song structure. This has always struck me as WP:OR. The tempo of the song is listed on the sheet music, but who determined the key and song structure? I realize those things are evident to a musician interpreting the sheet music, interpreting a primary source is something we can't do here as editors. --Laser brain (talk) 11:59, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Laser brain: Hi, thanks for the review. The liner notes of the CD (which I'm having with me at hand) indicate that the songwriters are the four mentioned people. Lyrics may not be the only part the songwriters took care of, so I reworded it to "... are credited as the song's writers". Regarding the information taken from the music sheet, it never struck me that it was OR, so I'm considering removing the bit. Thanks for reviewing the article, HĐ (talk) 14:13, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Laser brain: Update I removed the whole bit taken from the music sheet. The analysis of the refrain is taken from the Vox video, which is not OR unlike the Musicnotes.com source. HĐ (talk) 07:54, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'd just like to point out that the tempo, key and "structure" (i.e., "intro", "verse 1", "bridge", "chorus", "verse 2", etc.) of a particular song are all clearly identified on its sheet music. The tempo can be seen at the top left corner of the first page, while the key and structure can also be found at the top left corner of the first staff/stave of each particular section. These are all clearly defined by professional musicologists prior to publication, and WP:TRANSCRIPTION of such material to a Wikipedia article is not OR in the slightest. Homeostasis07 (talk) 23:00, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Now that this has come to mind, the Musicnotes.com source did exactly what is described at WP:TRANSCRIPTION. While the absense of such information does not profoundly affect the content, I regret not having carefully investigated WP's policy on NOR. Either way, I want to hear from the coord if reverting back to the Musicnotes.com version plausible and not detrimental to the article's readiness for FA. HĐ (talk) 03:38, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, I didn't notice the meta section tabbed below the sheet music image until it was pointed out. I'm not necessarily convinced of the accuracy of that section and whether it's completed by an expert or pulled from the sheet music by some automated process, but it seems to be a non-issue here. If an argument ever erupted about the key/tempo/style of a song, it might require further investigation, but that conversation is more appropriate for other venues. --Laser brain (talk) 11:43, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Does the article need any further work for promotion? HĐ (talk) 03:18, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I haven't checked back in lately. Did you end up re-adding the material? --Laser brain (talk) 12:25, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I did; the rest of the article stays the same, HĐ (talk) 13:43, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 25 July 2019 [7].

Siege of Calais (1346–1347)

[edit]
Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk) 12:03, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

After his great victory at the Battle of Crécy in 1346, English king Edward III laid siege to Calais. The French king Philip VI had lost too many men and too much prestige at Crécy to be able to relieve the town and Edward succeeded in cutting it off from seaborne supply. After eleven months the town fell, and was subsequently held by the English for 211 years. This is the penultimate article in my 1345-47 series and I hope that reviewers will pick up its flaws and infelicities as thoroughly as they did with its fellow articles. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:03, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM

[edit]

Great to see this here. This article is in great shape. A few minor comments from me:

  • "at the conclusion of the Crécy campaign"
Done.
  • suggest "On 25 June, Jean de Vienne"
As usual with us I disagree re the necessity of post-date commas, but done anyway.
  • suggest "Since June, Philip had been calling on the Scots to fulfil their obligation under the terms of the Auld Alliance and invade England"
Done.
  • link abbot
Done.
  • is there any indication of what the English did to stop the French supply ships? Burning arrows? Obstacles in the water?
That's me taking stuff for granted. I have expanded "In late April the English established a fortification on the end of the spit of sand to the north of Calais, which enabled them to command the entrance to the harbour and prevent any further supplies reaching the garrison."
  • suggest " Edward repopulated the town with English settlers" Do we know where in England they were from?
A definition is "Someone who settles in a new location, especially one who takes up residence in a previously uninhabited place; a colonist" I didn't use "settler" because, to me, it rang oddly in respect of the "especially ... " bit; but now included.
From where: Not that I am aware of. Edward offered land grants and free houses to settlers, so I imagine that they came from all over, especially as a high proportion *OR alert* were probably ex-soldiers.
  • all external links are good, no duplicate links.

That's all I have. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:22, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for the review Peacemaker67, and especially for its promptness. Your points above all addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:42, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. A pleasure as always. Supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:40, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Support Comments from Tim riley

[edit]

The article is well up to the standards of this continuing series, but I boggle a bit at the absence of mention of the story of the Burghers of Calais, Queen Philippa's intervention and all that. The tale comes from Froissart, after all, and is surely the second best known thing about Calais after Bloody Mary's heart. You mention the Rodin statue, I grant you, but oughtn't the story to be recounted here, if only to be discounted if untrue? I don't press the point, but I feel I must mention it.

I think we could do with an additional line about Joan of Navarre and why it mattered to King Philip that she came to terms with Lancaster.

As to my usual minor obsessions about drafting points – "significant" used when nothing is being signified, "over" rather than "more than" – you've heard them before. I wonder about "Several French nobles sounded out the idea of switching their allegiance..." – doesn't one sound people out about ideas rather than the other way round? That's all from me. – Tim riley talk 06:02, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Tim riley:

  • Both uses of "significant" removed.
  • Three cases of "over" replaced with 'more than'.
  • Both of the above added to my 'phrases to watch for' list.
  • "sounded... " Good point. Reworded.
On the whole I dislike popular culture sections, but I could add one with something like: "Twenty years after the event, the chronicler Froissart, who was employed by Philippa of Hainault, queen consort of Edward III, fabricated a tale by which Philippa, who was not in fact present, was responsible for having the lives of some of Calais' citizen spared at the end of the siege. This account was not considered to be other than allegorical at the time and scholarly opinion has always been that the event never took place."
But I suspect that a reader may wonder why I am telling them fairy stories as part of a serious article. If there is consensus that it should go in then, of course, I shall bow to it.
Gog the Mild (talk) 10:48, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Point taken. I heartily agree about "popular culture" (i.e. trivia) sections. I thought perhaps you might add a sentence to the Rodin section just sketching the Froissart tale, with a health warning about its dubiety, but I'm not seeking to press the point. I'd still welcome a word or two explaining how Joan of Navarre's pact affected King Philip. Tim riley talk 11:22, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
User:Tim riley]
Philippa: thank you. I have added the bare bones of the tale anyway.
Joan: apparently Philip had done nothing in response by the time of her death three years later. I have tweaked this slightly (I didn't want to get too off topic). What do you think?
Gog the Mild (talk) 18:36, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Both your additions are absolutely the sort of thing I hoped for. I now understand why Joan's pact mattered to Philip, and I think mention of the legend invented by Froissart strikes the perfect note. Happy to support now. Tim riley talk 20:39, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
Nikkimaria Because I can't copy edit. Thanks. Fixed. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:48, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FunkMonk

[edit]
  • A while since I reviewed one of your articles, as they often get the sufficient supports/reviews before I even notice they have been nominated. Seems I'm luckier this time, will have a look soon. FunkMonk (talk) 22:13, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The resulting work, The Burghers of Calais, was completed in 1889." Why not show it n the article? Seems it would fit under memorial (there is some space before the notes below).
It seemed peripheral to me, but added.
  • There seems to be a duplink in "sacked" and "booty", both linking to looting. You can highlight duplinks with this script:[8]
This is deliberate. "sacked" and "booty" are both words which a reader IMO may reasonably wish to check the meaning of, and while both link to the same Wikipedia article they are sufficiently different that I don't consider that explaining one would automatically give a reader an understanding of the other. Hence the duplink, which are not banned as such by the MoS.
  • The infobox image seems somewhat random. Is there no image showing some relevant building, location or such?
Good point. I have been unable to find an alternative image which I consider acceptable. The only one which gets close is Tour du Guet, but for me, not close enough. If you really don't like the generic image, which would be an entirely reasonable point of view, I will replace it with a location map.
Not a big deal, but you could consider the map if others bring it up. FunkMonk (talk) 20:16, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi FunkMonk. Lucky for both of us that you got in in time for this one. Your three points addressed. Is there more to come? Gog the Mild (talk) 18:36, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, these points were just before I started reading the text, will come back soon. FunkMonk (talk) 20:15, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The English "achieved complete strategic surprise" Quote according to who?
Rodger, p 103. To which the sentence is cited three words later. I wanted to avoid having the same cite twice in such a short space, or do you think that I should?
Usually I'd think such direct quotes should be attributed in-text, but since you don't do it elsewhere, it might break with the style. So I'm wondering why it needs to be a quote, and not just paraphrased? FunkMonk (talk) 22:10, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. Quote marks removed.
  • "campaigning in the south west" Against who?
The English. Should I specify?
It was unclear to me that they were also fighting there, maybe I missed something? If not, could be good to clarify. FunkMonk (talk) 22:10, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Expanded to clarify.
  • Link chevauchée in intro?
Whoops. Done.

SchroCat

[edit]
  • Support - Echoing FunkMonk: there really is nothing to complain about with this. The only suggestion I'd have is for the two footnotes to have the same referencing format as the rest of the article, rather than showing them en clair. - SchroCat (talk) 08:16, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Your wish is my command, oh mighty SchroCat Gog the Mild (talk) 09:52, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator notes

[edit]

I think we'll just need a source review to wrap this up, unless SchroCat can sign off on that (as referencing was mentioned above). If not, please request one at WT:FAC. --Laser brain (talk) 23:37, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No probs: I'll pick it up today. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 06:27, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Source review
  • Formatting is all good;
  • The sources used are reliable, comprehensive and of the standard I would expect for an FA
  • Spot checks done on a handful of sources. The information cited is supported by the sources used; no evidence of close paraphrasing.
  • Pass - SchroCat (talk) 10:07, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@FAC coordinators: Hi guys. In the light of the above, is it ok if my next nom sticks its head above the parapet? Gog the Mild (talk) 12:24, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sure thing! --Laser brain (talk) 12:58, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 25 July 2019 [9].

Mercury Seven

[edit]
Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:19, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the Mercury Seven astronauts, who were selected in 1959. As late as 1998, they were the most famous astronauts, but they have been eclipsed in recent years by Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin. Still, they include the first American in in space, the first in orbit, the first to fly Mercury, Gemini and Apollo missions, and the first to hit a golf ball on the Moon. One even flew on the space shuttle, nearly forty years after being selected as an astronaut. This article was previously nominated as a Featured List, but was not promoted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:19, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I have only trivialities to mention, and none that stop a support at this point:

That's it! Easy to read, and very informative and entertaining. A fantastic article! Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:34, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. The article is an unusual one. It was intended as a list, but there was a lot to say about them as a group. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:29, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

[edit]
  • No spotchecks carried out
  • Links to sources are all working, per the external links checker tool
  • Formats:
  • Carpenter & Stoever 2003: publisher location missing
  • O'Leary 1971: publisher and location missing
  • Quality and reliability: The sources appear comprehensive, and of the standards of quality and reliability required by the FA criteria.

Brianboulton (talk) 18:39, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Kees08

[edit]

Adding this so I do not forget to review. Kees08 (Talk) 07:28, 18 June 2019 (UTC) The U.S. Astronaut Hall of Fame's inaugural class was the Mercury Seven. I suppose they had an advantage, since the hall of fame was created by the Mercury 7 Foundation. Would be good if we could add whatever we can find on the Mercury 7 foundation, and add in information on the U.S. Astronaut Hall of Fame (the first class, has a lot of Mercury 7 memorabilia, etc). I just added a couple citations to Grissom's article in case you want to copy/paste them in here. Kees08 (Talk) 07:20, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It might be a precursor to the Astronaut Scholarship Foundation, I am not sure. Kees08 (Talk) 07:35, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is. Added a bit about it. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:17, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change manned to crewed per GNL policy (when appropriate, obviously)
    I don't mind "crewed" for Gemini and Apollo (although it sounds a bit crude) but it seems silly when applied to Mercury where there was just one person. Fiddled with the wording to avoid this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:08, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any way to avoid consecutive 'which's? MISS encountered technical challenges, which caused funding difficulties, which in turn created conflicts with the two agencies that should have been supporting it, NACA and the Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA).
    Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:08, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which came first, the term cosmonaut or astronaut? And is there any reason to insert information into the article about the cosmonaut term?
    Can't think of any reason, but both were considered when NASA decided on the name astronaut. In the Soviet Union, adopting the American "astronaut" was considered, but in the end they decided to go with "cosmonaut". The latter makes more sense really. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:08, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Three-person? A three-man panel
    It was three men. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:08, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewed down to selection process. Still could use something on the US Astronaut Hall of Fame I think. Thanks for the great additions about the foundation. Kees08 (Talk) 07:02, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Maybe change service records of graduates of test pilot schools to service records of test pilot school graduates
    Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:08, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • You could link Marine Corps earlier
    Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:08, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wasn't the whole selection process secret or top secret? I thought they had to check into a hotel under a pseudonym. Might be misremembering, not sure it is worth inclusion regardless.
    You're remembering the Next Nine, who checked into the Rice Hotel as "Max Peck". Nobody read my articles.
  • Regarding their welcome, were no Army candidates in that first group?
    None. My guess is that they did not have the required jet experience. In retrospect, experience with rotor aircraft would have been advantageous flying the lunar module. But to my knowledge, no Army test pilot has ever been chosen as an astronaut. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:08, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't think this should be capitalized: to the Space Program
    Decapitated. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:08, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think US spelling is emphasized emphasised
    Corrected.
Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:08, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Coffeeandcrumbs

[edit]

I am going to try hard to find fault where there is likely almost none. These are mostly nitpicking.

  • "USAF agreed to transfer responsibility" is unnecessarily verbose and seems strange (as if they could refuse). Unless you meant "decided", I would change the sentence to "NASA was established on October 1, 1958, and the USAF transferred responsibility for MISS to the new agency." (This also gets around the PROSELINE.) Unless there is some back story I am missing, the USAF obeying orders from the president is not notable as agreeing.
    There's a lot of back story here, mostly not relevant to this article. For a start, in the United States, the President doesn't have that sort of authority. A lot of negotiation was involved. If you're interested, I recommend Rosholt, Robert L. (1969). An Administrative History of NASA, 1958-1963 (PDF). NASA Historical Series. Washington, D.C.: NASA. OCLC 643260325. SP-4101. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:44, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think "Glenn and Carpenter did not meet all of their schools' degree requirements" should be followed by a colon or semicolon, follow by a sentence or two, instead of the including the completion of Glenn's senior year which broke my reading.
    Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:44, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and second bachelor's degree" to "and a second bachelor's degree
    Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:44, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "on the eve". Slayton's article says "two months prior to the launch of [ Mercury-Atlas 7 ]". I think the latter is better.
    Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:44, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Slayton's photo seems out of place. Can a portrait from the same period be located? No worries if not.
    There should have been one in the series with the others, but it isn't on Commons. Maybe Kees08 can locate one. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:44, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Found a photo. How does it look? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:04, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I did a quick restoration and removed the autograph: File:Deke Slayton (c. 1960).jpg. Tell me if you hate the colors. I can try again
    The one that is being used now is ID # S64-31709, which means it is from 1964. Other options: 1959 (hmm all I am finding now is that one). Kees08 (Talk) 04:01, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The idea is to match the others. Otherwise we'd go with the one in the space suit. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:42, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would crop the photo captioned "The four surviving Mercury 7..."
  • Ref #96 — Says "p. 165" but the chapter link in Warren-Findley (1998) points to page 166 in the source. Remove #Chapt7-5 from the URL. If you want both pages, you can also remove #Chapt7-5 and change to "pp. 165-66".
    Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:44, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref #94 — Source is actually on p. 2 of the "Tempo" section if there is any way to indicate that in your own citation style.
    I don't think we can. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:44, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref #93 — Change "National Aeronautics and Space Administration" to "NASA" consistent with other refs and consider adding |website=The 40th Anniversary of the Mercury Seven as seen here, which is the title of the former website (book?). For Shepard, the author's name, Tara Gray, is missing.
    Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:44, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref #92 — "About ASF ASF". Only 1 ASF in the title. Also please archive; this source will not stay the same forever.
    Internet Archive hasn't archived it. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:44, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref #3 — "p." not "pp."
    Well spotted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:44, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Carpenter et al. (2010) — Remove "Originally published " to be consistent with style at Cunningham (2009). Or vice versa.
    Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:44, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Compton (1998) — Add |location=Washington, D.C. for consistency
    Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:44, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Logsdon & Launius (2008) — Same as Compton — also Eppley (1963) if you like
    Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:44, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not seeing Alt text for File:Mercury Seven astronauts with aircraft.jpg, File:Mercury Seven.jpg, File:LC 14 Memorial Sign 2.jpg, File:LC-14 Mercury 7 (cropped).jpg, and "The four surviving Mercury 7... " photo mentioned above
    Not required for FAC, but I'll see what I can do...

--- Coffeeandcrumbs 23:47, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review. Much appreciated. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:44, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator notes

[edit]

I've added this to the Urgents list in hopes of attracting some additional attention. If not, unfortunately it will need to be archived soon for lack of review. --Laser brain (talk) 11:23, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Randy Kryn

[edit]

I added a See also for the two Mercury program chimpanzees, and updated one fact, but besides that I could find little to criticize in this already fine and important article. With the improvements that have been discussed and worked on in this nomination, featuring this one during the recent and ongoing focus on historical space missions seems appropriate. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:06, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by JennyOz

[edit]

Thanks, JennyOz (talk) 15:15, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
'Fraid not. It needs to meet the MoS. Just the group photo, (And the two with no alt text.) Gog the Mild (talk) 15:54, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
How does it not meet the MOS? Adding that it is color or not would not help a visually impaired user understand the function of the photograph. Describing how the astronauts look (if that is what you are suggesting) is not what alt text is for. Kees08 (Talk) 17:28, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. Stick "|alt=a color photograph of four formally dressed elderly men" in and IMO its MoS compliant. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:35, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Are we talking about the same thing? I am referring to the images in the table. Kees08 (Talk) 17:53, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The images in the table are acceptable with "portrait", although, as I said above, barely; I would have preferred 'Color photograph of John Doe', etc; but, for clarity, I do not feel that this is a requirement for FAC. The alt text for the final group photo needs tweaking; and the two images without alt text need it adding; the first of these you could simply add "|alt=refer to caption", as the existing caption text is explanatory. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:18, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild (talk) 12:40, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • There is no consensus that Featured Articles require alt text. See Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Alt text. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:14, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    An FA needs to be fully MoS compliant. The MoS states, under MOS:ACCIM: "Images that are not purely decorative should include an alt attribute that acts as a substitute for the image for blind readers, search-spiders, and other non-visual users. If additional alt text is added, it should be succinct or refer the reader to the caption or adjacent text. See WP:ALT for more information." Gog the Mild (talk) 22:31, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I am aware of what it says, and I am aware of what the consensus is regarding its interpretation, which is that featured articles only need comply with the specified items, and not the full MoS, and that the requirement for alt text was discussed at length, and that there was no consensus for its inclusion. If you want to restore the alt text requirement, you need to start another RfC. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:42, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Gog the Mild: FYI, this is the most recent discussion I could find on the topic as it relates to FAC. It doesn't seem like there's any appetite to require alt text in Featured articles. I won't even attempt to summarize all the various positions people have on the issue, but suffice it to say there is healthy disagreement on whether alt text is always desirable, along with the normal meta discussion about how much of the MoS is open to interpretation. In short, no one should have been demanding it in any of your nominations. --Laser brain (talk) 23:23, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 24 July 2019 [10].

2018 World Snooker Championship

[edit]
Nominator(s): Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:50, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the World Snooker Championship event in 2018. Joker Mark Williams won the event, fifteen years since his last world title, in a season after possibly retiring from the game. An alround memorable tournament, and crazy story.

The previous nomination had issues regarding MOS:FLAG, which should now be suitible, regardless of thoughts on the matter. Let me know if there are issues on the article. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:50, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging previous FAC commentors: @The Rambling Man, CitroenLover, Pawnkingthree, Tvx1, SMcCandlish, and Giants2008: - I appreciate any comments you might have. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 07:55, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Don't have any issue with the page now due to the FLAG issue being resolved as far as I can see. --CitroenLover (talk) 20:37, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Same here. It was unfortunate that the earlier discussion got derailed by someone who wouldn't listen; I think at least four of us were raising the same flags-related concern.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:09, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
SMcCandlish - can I get a clear support as per above on this? Thanks for your time looking at this one. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:51, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Same for CitroenLover. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:53, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My previous comment counts as support for this, not really sure what else you need? --CitroenLover (talk) 19:29, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Generally in an FAC, you would have a response in bold to confirm. What your thoughts are, just makes it easier for the closing user. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:36, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments and support from Gerda

[edit]

I am curious, new to the topic, and the article. I didn't participate in round 1 and will look with fresh eyes. Comments as I read:

Lead

  • I suggest to first say what this tournament is, and then speak about the sponsor and the ALT name. It's prominent enough in the infobox ;)
Moved later in lede
  • "had been held"? - "was held"?
Fixed
  • "second world title in 2003 and prior to the beginning of the season" - this seems to need at least a comma, better untangling in 2 sentences.
Not really my strongsuit... Is this an oxford comma situation? No idea, I think I've changed this correctly.
No idea about comma rulez, but when I read "world title in 2003 and prior", and connect the "prior" to 2003, something needs to be done ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:09, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • In general, this lead is focused on the winner, and I wonder if there might be more aspects worthy of summary.
I'd love there to have been some sort of reception to critique, but there's not much to source.

Overview

  • This might be called "Background", no?
Other FAs, such as the Boat race ones use Overview
  • "The sport originated by players from the United Kingdom, and later players from Europe and the Commonwealth." - "originate" and "later" seem a contradiction, - perhaps new verb for the "later"?
We are talking quite a long time before it being played much out of the UK. Any ideas on a word?
  • "Southeast Asia, such as in China, Thailand and Hong Kong" - reads as if explaining Southeast Asia, while I guess it should be where it is predominantly played?
I didn't want to use specifically in those locations. But maybe specifically is the correct word?
  • The name of Hendrie comes as a surprise, perhaps mention first why? (... most successful)
Reworded.
  • why "previous year" instead of plain 2017?
Done.

Format

  • link "seeded"?
done
  • may be my math: wasn't Selby one of the 16?
He was. However, the tournament doesn't always work this way. If the defending champion isn't in the top 16, they still qualify for the event as the top seed, and the next 15 players (1-15 in the world rankings) qualify as 2-16. As Selby was already #1, it's irrelevant, and thus why it's stated that way.

Participants

  • I may be the only one, and know about linking only once after the lead, but would like to have links to all players here, even if linked before. It's awkward to have to look above if curious here.
I know, but I don't make the rules. I feel like adding the extra links would go against consensus.
  • the last line about youngest and oldest made me curious to know lowest and highest age of those who qualified ;)
It's in the paragraph above this. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:11, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

More to come. Interesting, thank you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:37, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, thanks for your comments! I'll respond above. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:04, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for explanations and changes, all resolved to here. More later which may be tomorrow. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:22, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

One more general: it is welcome that every image comes with an ALT text, describing what it shows in short to someone who can't see it. I also recommend to repeat links in image captions, - some readers will look there first.

Prize fund

  • "prize money for this year", - call me boring but I'd prefer "prize money for 2018"
Sure. Makes more sense to me
  • conversion?
Convert into what? WP:CURRENCY reads "Conversions of less-familiar currencies may be provided in terms of more familiar currencies – such as the US dollar, euro or pound sterling." No need if already in pound.

Qualifying

  • Can we avoid two sentences in a row beginning "There were"?
Reworded

Century breaks

  • What does that mean at all? Link for us ignorants?
It is linked in the prose above, but I could see why it's confusing. Century breaks are scoring 100+ in one go, basically. I've linked.

Coverage

  • As you mentioned: surprising that there wasn't more coverage.
Yeah. Would be great. The info from the few pundits there are are covered in the tournament summary, sadly. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 07:57, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps some could be here also, where someone coming from the TOC might go. --GA

Excellent tables! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:18, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again. ALT texts for images? One more: Is 2018 World Snooker Championship a name? Then it should head the infobox. Or is it 2018 world snooker championship? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:51, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Updated. Missed that one. Each image already has alttext, but I've linked players. In terms of reception, all anyone really says is "this person played well", "this person played badly", etc. Not really much on how the event as a whole went. Changed the infobox. It should totally say 2018. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:19, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support fine article. You may want to ask the former FAC participants if they could do the same, and clearly mark that, - make it easier for the coordinator. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:35, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Cas Liber

[edit]

I loved watching Pot Black as a kid - good to see a snooker article here. I am reading through now. I think the prose needs some massaging and will post some comments below:

Hi Casliber, first Pot Black was the business. I feel like a timed version would do very well in 2019, but alas. We'll have to live with the Snooker Shoot-Out instead. Second, thanks for your time and the review. I'll answer/fix/change as per below. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 07:42, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Generally at first mention of a person, it is good to introduce them with a couple of adjectives, generally nationality plus occupation. However this will get monotonous if everyone is "X professional", so have tried to mix it up a little e.g. "Welsh left-hander" etc.
    • The biggest issue is that (until 2019), there are no amateur players in the draw, so all players are professional. I like the nationality flair, but it's actually surprising how many top players are left handed (it's also a little contentious who is a left hander, and who is ambidextrous.) Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 07:42, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd rename the Overview section to Background - "Overview" means nothing here but a summary....which is what the lead is for, so it begs the question as to what it is, hence background is a more accurate fit really.
  • "The World Snooker Championship is an annual cue sport tournament and is the official world championship of the game of snooker." - but how does this fit in with the other 19 ranking events of the season? Does this trump all the others..or what? Would be good to explain briefly here. This would be alot more relevant than the 2nd, 3rd and 4th sentences of this section, which I think are too general and would remove
The other events are ranking tournaments. The World championship is the world championship. It's not a series (like say, motor sport), it's a series of events, where this tournament is the one that determines who the world champion is. It pretty much does trump everything else on the calendar. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 07:49, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eight former world champions participated in the main tournament at the Crucible - why are we adding "at the Crucible" here?
  • The draw for the opening round of the main tournament was on 19 April 2018, two days before the start of the competition - "was released"? "was announced"?
More it was "made". It was livestreamed. Will add "was conducted". Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 07:42, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • There were a total of sixteen first round matches, six of which ended with qualifiers defeating seeded players. - wordy, how about, "Of the sixteen first round matches, six ended with qualifiers defeating seeded players."

More later. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:11, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am not a fan of a controversies section at the bottom. I think these items are better threaded through the previous sections where they occur chronologically.

The rest otherwise reads pretty well - it also impresses as comprehensive, hence I am close to supporting....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:30, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Casliber - have you got any other comments for the article? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:08, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We need to look at my last query above about the controversies section....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:06, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have moved this into prose. Casliber Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:15, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, all good now, supporting Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:13, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator notes

[edit]

This has been open for well over a month with good commentary but minimal support for promotion. I added it to the Urgents list yesterday but it will be archived soon if it doesn't receive significant additional attention. --Laser brain (talk) 11:20, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see what I can do. There doesn't seem to be too much above opposing the nom; so I'll try and get some more eyes. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:25, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've promoted this but I wanted to add that I carried out some random source spot-checks before promotion. 5 of 5 passed verification and did not have any problems with close paraphrasing. --Laser brain (talk) 23:00, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
  • File:World Snooker Championship 2015 Logo.png – PD-textlogo looks to cover this one, despite the gradient
  • File:Sheffield Crucible theatre.png (CC-BY-SA) – Looks good
  • Player photos by Bill da Flute and DerHexer are licensed and used appropriately.
  • I feel like the ALT text could be more descriptive, especially for the player pictures. Describing their outfits, how they are holding their cue, etc. could help clear things up for readers using the appropriate software. SounderBruce 23:41, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for looking into this, SounderBruce - I'll take a look into the alt text. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:08, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have put some more info into the alttext SounderBruce. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:16, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Toa Nidhiki05

[edit]

I'm going to give this a look.

General
  • One immediate find is there are a number of duplicate links. I'd use the duplicate link tool to find and remove them.
I had to reinstall the script, as it didn't work, but all removed now.  Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 06:40, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Background
Anything else Toa Nidhiki05 Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 07:00, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
All these look good to me. Have some citation fixes below, after that I should be able to support. Toa Nidhiki05 00:36, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Citations

Toa Nidhiki05 12:35, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have ammended all of the above, Toa Nidhiki05 Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:48, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
All issues have been addressed so support. Excellent article! Toa Nidhiki05 17:45, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 24 July 2019 [11].

French battleship France

[edit]
Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:19, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

France was completed shortly before the beginning of World War I and ferried the President of France to Saint Petersburg for consultations with the Tsar during the July Crisis of 1914. She had a typical war for a French dreadnought, spending most of it swinging at her moorings in case the Austro-Hungarian fleet attempted to break out of the Adriatic. The ship was sent to the Black Sea in 1919 to support Allied intervention in the Russian Civil War, but her crew was tired of the fighting and mutinied. They succeeded in their goal of getting the French ships withdrawn, although most of the ringleaders were later court-martialed. France struck a rock in 1922 and quickly sank with minimal loss of life. The article just passed a MilHist A-class review. I'd like reviewers to look for any remnants of AmEnglish, unlinked or unexplained jargon and infelicitous prose.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:19, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM

[edit]

I just reviewed this at Milhist A-Class, and could find little to nitpick about then. I have a few minor points:

  • suggest "then under construction to be built as part of the 1906 Naval Programme"
  • you could add the casemate armour to the infobox
  • I'm not seeing a link to Courbet the ship, as distinct from the class?
  • suggest "and the light cruiser Coventry" to make it clearer that Coventry was also British
  • can anything be said like "she was the nth ship of her name"?

That's all I have. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:21, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking this over. See if my changes are satisfactory.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:57, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
All good, supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:50, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

[edit]
  • The bibliography includes Masson 2003, to which there are no citations. This looks like it should be in "Further reading".
  • Otherwise, all appears in good order. No issues concerning quality/reliability.

Brianboulton (talk) 13:55, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Suggest adding alt text

Support from Tim riley

[edit]

I commented at the A class review in the mistaken belief (old, Master Shallow!) that I was commenting on an FAC. Now the article really is at FAC I have no difficulty in reiterating my support. Tim riley talk 22:10, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Gog the Mild

[edit]

What a superb article. I can only find two pieces of utter trivia to comment on, but neither need action to elicit my support.

  • "the superiority of the all-big-gun battleship like HMS Dreadnought" Either "battleship" should be plural, or the sentence should be recast.
    • Yeah, I can see that, but I was trying to go for Dreadnought as the exemplar of her type.
  • "by meeting the mutineers' demands for leave by letting crewmen" Optional: "by meeting ... by letting"; second "by" to 'and'?

Gog the Mild (talk) 22:12, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ian Rose: This looks about ready to promote, can I nominate another article?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:07, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sturm, sorry for delayed response -- yes, go ahead. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:38, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Parsecboy

[edit]

I reviewed the article at the Milhist ACR and my nitpicks were addressed there. Nice work as usual. Parsecboy (talk) 13:29, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support by CPA-5

[edit]

As I can tell this looks a great article. In reviewed this one in the ACR, last month. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 14:48, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 24 July 2019 [12].

Hurricane Rosa (2018)

[edit]
Nominator(s): NoahTalk 02:53, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

After going back over Rosa during the past couple weeks and making a lot of corrections and clarifications, I have decided to renominate the article. NoahTalk 02:53, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]

All images appear to be adequately placed and licensed to me. I am not sure about the ALT text; IMO it should describe a bit what the image actually shows (e.g in the map image, that Rosa weakened quickly after its northeastward turn) per the first sentence of WP:ALT. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:33, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: For the map image, that would basically be the Met section all over again. In this case, I think the fact it simply says it is a map plotting the intensity according to the SSHWS is fine since the entire Met section is there to describe all the twists and turns, strengthening and weakening, etc. Are the other images fine? NoahTalk 13:54, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I am pretty certain that ALT text for such a map does not need to be as detailed as an actual "Met" section should be. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:57, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: But what I am trying to say is that I don't think it is necessary to regurgitate the same information in a simpler format when it is already presented in the Met section. The map can be understood by what is in the Met section. All the reader needs to know is that the map is plotted according to the Saffir-Simpson scale. The rest is in the Met section itself. This hasn't been an issue with past FACs (which were promoted). NoahTalk 13:59, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Incidentally, pings don't work unless you add them as part of a new line; editing it into an already existing post is useless. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:07, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Jason Rees

[edit]
  • Why are there references in the lead? It indicates to me that the article is teasing me and telling me information that isnt in the main part of the article.
    Moved to the met and adjusted the wording a bit to accommodate. NoahTalk 13:05, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please apply Template: NHC TCR url for the TCR URL, so that if the NHC decide to move the TCR URL's again we can correct them quickly and avoid dead links.
    Done. NoahTalk 13:05, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your publisher is the United States National Hurricane Center not NOAA, Same goes for NCEI and WPC.
    Removed any mention of NOAA from the references. NoahTalk 13:14, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hurricane Rosa originated from a vigorous tropical wave that departed from the west coast of Africa on September 6. This sentence is not cited and should be cited back to the TCR. Also how do you know that the wave was vigorous? NHC says nothing about it being from a vigorous tropical wave within Rosa's TCR.
    Hovmӧeller diagrams of conventional infrared satellite imagery showed a large and vigorous tropical wave moving off the west coast of Africa on 6 September, [...] Yes, it does. I don't think the sentence needs a citation now since I removed Helene. NoahTalk 13:05, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The wave spawned Hurricane Helene on September 7,[3] and then traveled across the tropical Atlantic with minimal convective activity.[4] - The source provided [3] (An NHC advisory) does not mention anything about a tropical wave spawning Helene. I would also remove the mention of Helene since we can only prove that it was only assoicated with the wave and not spawned by it. I also note that you say that the system only moved across the tropical Atlantic with minimal convective activity, however, the NHC doesnt say anything about convective activtiy but says little associated weather.
    Removed Helene and changed the wording to "minimal associated weather". NoahTalk 13:43, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • You need to tell the reader what happened between September 6 and 19? For example when did the system move into the EPAC.
    Added info. NoahTalk 13:43, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Jason Rees: That should be everything. NoahTalk 13:43, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from KN2731

[edit]

Lead:

  • deaths of one person – should be singular
  • The remnants also caused flash-flooding in Arizona, with several inches of rain falling in areas, which indirectly resulted in the deaths of two individuals – 1. change to flash floods, with the wikilink; 2. the sentence doesn't really flow well, the logical flow would be rain --> floods --> deaths. Also "several inches of rain falling in areas" sounds a little weird.
  • Flood damage from Rosa in the Southwestern United States totaled about US$50.5 million – from the impact section, 0.5 mil is from Baja California and exactly 50 mil is from the US? Please fix

MH:

  • Additionally, the depression was located in an environment [...] – relevance to storm? Maybe add in something like "which would favor intensification"
  • the system had a well defined center – add hyphen, should be "well-defined"
  • strong, well developed banding – add hyphen, should be "well-developed"
  • anticipating that an area of low pressure would form [...] Early on September 23, a broad area of low pressure formed – move the wikilink forward
  • On September 28, at 03:00 UTC, Rosa peaked – once the TCR comes out we can pretty much disregard all the operational stuff, so the peak should be at 06:00 UTC
  • I think when Jason Rees asked you to use the NHC TCR url template he meant for you to insert that in the url parameter, like <ref>{{cite report|...|url={{NHC TCR url|id=EP202018_Rosa}}...}}</ref>, not to replace the whole template.

Prep and impact:

  • State Unit of Civil Protection of Sonora [...] 19 municipalities in Sonora – move the wikilink forward since the agency isn't linked
  • swept away by flood waters – floodwaters should be one word
  • In Michoacán, it was reported that – reported by whom? A government agency? If the source doesn't mention, just remove "it was reported that" because it's unnecessary
  • 23 others from the Menegar's Dam community – there shouldn't be an apostrophe there?

A nice informative article besides the odd typo or choppy flow. Good work. ~ KN2731 {t · c} 14:36, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@KN2731: Everything should be addressed now. NoahTalk 16:22, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Moving to support ~ KN2731 {t · c} 02:56, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Hurricanehink

[edit]
  • Rosa originated from a broad area of low pressure that the National Hurricane Center began monitoring on September 22. - I'm sure the NHC was monitoring the system before the 22nd (considering the NHC tracked it to the west coast of Africa)
  • Make sure you mention SSHS when you mention "Category 4 hurricane"
  • 'The remnants dropped several inches of rain in areas, causing flash floods, which indirectly resulted in the deaths of two individuals. - a peak rainfall total would be nice
  • Make sure you indicate 2018 USD somewhere in the lead
  • the wave entered the Gulf of Tehuantepec with the formation of a surface circulation and an increase in convective organization occurring around the same time. - this either needs a comma or some restructuring
    Added a comma after "with". NoahTalk 21:40, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • a broad area of low pressure formed approximately 200 mi (320 km) south of Mexico. - Mexico is a big country.
    Is that better? NoahTalk 21:40, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • the NHC reported that a tropical depression had formed - since the TD had a designation, I suggest writing out "Tropical Depression X-E"
    Okay. NoahTalk 21:40, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Six hours later, the depression strengthened into a tropical storm and was assigned the name Rosa. - six hours later from what? The previous two sentences don't have any mention of exact time. Perhaps "Six hours after its formation"?
  • a solid mid-level ring and strong, well-developed banding - this is a bit jargon-y. Could you make it simpler?
  • On the morning of October 1, at 00:00 UTC, Rosa weakened into a tropical storm.[1] Shortly after, the system began travelling towards the northeast. - not to be picky (and yet that's what FAC's are for), but according to the track, the NE track happened while it was still a hurricane
  • "Twenty-four hours later, Rosa weakened into a tropical depression, with the NHC reporting that the remaining convection was displaced to the northeast of the system's center and that the circulation was becoming elongated." - could you rewrite this bit without saying what the NHC reported? The storm happened independently of whatever the NHC said, and since they're the source for the entire MH, you don't have to keep mentioning what they reported. The sentence would be a lot stronger if you said something like - "Rosa weakened into a tropical depression, after the remaining convection became displaced northeast of the increasingly elongated center". I don't know if that's too complicated, but I felt like you could trim some of the fat off that sentence.
  • At 11:00 UTC - what date?
  • 70 miles (115 km) - you rounded miles earlier, but not here
    Abbreviated. NoahTalk 21:40, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • In total, damage to roads in the city was about MX$10 million (US$530,000). - the "in total" is redundant
  • After Rosa's passage, the governor of Baja California, Francisco Vega de la Madrid, issued a State of Emergency for the cities of Ensenada and Mexicali.[25] On October 3, an emergency declaration was approved for Puerto Peñasco - why is the last sentence on its own? Couldn't you include it after Ensanada and Mexicali?
  • rainfall was causing flooding in Arizona and Southern California. In San Bernardino County - I'd add "in the latter state" when you mention San Bernardino, since you mentioned two states
  • On October 3, a 26-year-old woman was struck by a vehicle and killed just north of Cameron after portions of U.S. Route 89 washed out from flash flooding that had affected the area. - the writing is a bit wonky. Could you make this sentence a bit simpler?
  • So the US impact section goes from state to state. I suggest reordering. You start the one paragraph "At Menagers Dam near Sells" with no state reference. It seems like a lot of the effects were in Arizona, not so much elsewhere, so perhaps have a paragraph dedicated to Arizona impacts? On that note, I think the $50 million in damage should be mentioned a bit sooner, since it's pretty significant.

All in all, a pretty good article. Most of my notes were concerned with jargon, or sentence structure, so my comments should be easy to address. Good work @Hurricane Noah:! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:10, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Hurricanehink: How does that look? NoahTalk 21:40, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Looking much better. I happen to agree with User:Hylian Auree below about some of the sentences being a bit choppy. Could you go through the prose with a fresh set of eyes and make the sentences shorter in general. Find fluff and cut it! My last comment - for the Arizona section, I think the car crash deaths should be mentioned next to each other in prose. No need for the dates, but they're both the same sort of storm effect in the same state, that's all. Also, I think the dam should be its own paragraph. I know I said put the Arizona stuff together, but you do have seven sentences for that dam, which is enough for its own paragraph. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:57, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I split the paragraph and changed it to "Sells, Arizona" so the reader knows the new paragraph is still talking about Arizona. The main issue wasn't regarding fluff, but me starting sentences with a data and time creating the choppiness. I will look and see if there is fluff. NoahTalk 01:34, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If I can chime in here; I think Hink uses "fluff" to mean redundancy, which I did point out. I am happy to lend a fresh pair of eyes to the prose, though I will recuse myself from the voting process in that case. Auree ★★ 01:46, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Much appreciated work, you two! I'm glad to support the article now. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:04, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Hylian Auree

[edit]

Support on comprehensiveness, sourcing and style, with the disclaimer that I've considerably overhauled the readable prose in my copy-edits. A well-researched effort. I suggest finding at least one off-project editor to review the article for its accessibility and comprehensibility to the layman. Auree ★★ 23:33, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Going solely on criterion 1a ("well-written: its prose is engaging and of a professional standard"), I am leaning towards oppose. Since I have taken up the role of primary copy-editor, the prose has been changed considerably; therefore, I leave it to others to assess criterion 1a.

  • Parts of the article, particularly the first paragraph of the lead, are quite knotty, with stubby sentences that read like proseline (e.g. "Later that day, the depression strengthened into Tropical Storm Rosa. One day later, the system strengthened into a hurricane" does not make for an engaging read). I recognize this is difficult to amend for chronologically defined meteorological events, but starting or ending most sentences with "On x date, ..." dulls the writing in what is supposed to be the most engaging paragraph of the article.
  • I recommend significantly trimming this paragraph, keeping only a succinct account of the most fascinating meteorological data (formation, development, path, peak, and demise).
  • Can I just say – you've implemented all the above suggestions with brilliant execution and understanding. The opening paragraph was actually fun to read now. Auree ★★ 03:33, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further, there are several grammatical and stylistic glitches throughout the article (e.g. "The National Hurricane Center continued to track the disturbance for a few days as it moved westward and then west-northwestward, before developing into a tropical depression on September 25" - the current wording implies that the NHC, not the disturbance, was the one moving westward before developing into a tropical depression). I am willing to help on this front once the lead has been revamped.
  • Redundancy is also an issue. For example, "The remnants dropped up to 6.89 in (175 mm) of rain in areas." What does "up to" add here that isn't conveyed by omitting it; and "in areas" is meaningless without specifying which.
  • These are just examples, but about half of the article's sentences suffer from either one or more of the aforementioned gripes. The content looks to be in great shape, but the writing needs quite a bit of polishing to bolster the quality of presentation. Auree ★★ 06:34, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your work. Before I start my own edits, I would like to discuss the opening sentence. I think "strong tropical cyclone" is a broad categorization and slight understatement for a Category 4 hurricane. Then, "strong tropical cyclone that brought severe flooding"... tacitly implies that Rosa caused the flooding at its greatest strength, which is not true. Also, I question the use of "severe" here since $50 million in damage is not exceptional for the US. I would like more emphasis on its unusual location, rather than its strength, since it peaked out at sea. Suggest something like "Hurricane Rosa brought widespread flooding to northwestern Mexico and the Southwestern United States as the first tropical cyclone to make landfall in Baja California since Hurricane Nora of 1997." How does that sound? Auree ★★ 02:03, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That does sound better. I won't be able to make any edits until Sunday due to work, but I will have extensive time on both Sunday and Monday to fix some of these issues. NoahTalk 02:15, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Has been implemented. NoahTalk 19:01, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have implemented numerous changes throughout the entirety of the article. @Hurricanehink: and Hylian Auree, please let me know what you think. NoahTalk 20:07, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Your edits have been fruitful. I have given the meteorological history quite an overhaul to improve overall clarity and flow and reduce some technical and jargon-heavy constructions. Because of my narrow involvement here, I recuse myself from voting on 1a prose (but will vote on the rest of the criteria in due time). Auree ★★ 06:11, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have one more comment before I'm ready to support. Can we provide some more info, both for context in the lead paragraph and in the impact section, on how Rosa's impacts were relatively minor because of its weakening and dissipation around the time of landfall? The Tropical Cyclone Report has a bit on this in its first paragraph. Auree ★★ 20:07, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Hylian Auree: The storm and its remnants caused widespread flooding throughout northwestern Mexico, mainly in Sonora and Baja California, which led to one drowning and minor damage. The impact of Rosa in Mexico was relatively minor because the system had been significantly weakened by a combination of wind shear and cooler seas by the time it made landfall. That is the position of the statement in the lead. I made it the introduction to the Mexico impact as well. The next sentence is about rainfall totals. NoahTalk 21:28, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Rereading the article while working on the Report del Clima source, something struck me... was the deepening non-tropical low that absorbed Rosa's remnants the same one that steered much of its movement as a hurricane? If so, that would be important to mention in the MH. Auree ★★ 17:37, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Hylian Auree: Unfortunately, there is no way to know as the TCR doesn't mention it. I haven't seen any sourced saying it was. NoahTalk 18:07, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That is unfortunate, because the current wording implies that they were separate systems even though reasonable assumption would suggest they weren't. Nonetheless, without a source, this hinges on WP:OR and so the wording should remain the same. Auree ★★ 18:10, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Spotchecks of Spanish sources by Hylian Auree

[edit]
  • Ref 23: backs up the claim
  • Ref 24: a) checks out; b) supports the claim
  • Ref 26: no mention is made of "the anticipation of severe flooding" – all they did was dispatch patrol and emergency units in case conditions would warrant evacuations.
  • Ref 27: a) has the rainfall total but does not support "caused severe flooding in Baja California"; b) supports "5.39 in (137 mm) of rain fell" but caution is advised here with synthesis of two independent sources, since the conjunction "after" implies a causative link that cannot be proven by either of the sources.
  • Ref 29: supports the damage claims, but as per Ref 27 b) a more nuanced mention of the rainfall total is needed.
  • Ref 30: misrepresentation/misunderstanding of the source material. The article mentions 10 million in (commercial) losses in just the port of San Felipe, which were due to lost equipment/supplies and a five-day commercial shutdown. No mention of road damage is made.
    Let me know if that is better. NoahTalk 18:56, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 31: supports the claims. Further, a power outage is mentioned, which is content worthy.
  • Ref 32: a) supports flood and road claims (also mentions that 4 bridges were impassable), but states that the estimated rainfall "exceeded 100 mm" – avoid using "a total of" here and round up the inches instead; b) claim is backed up.
  • Changed to "at least"... my understanding is that rainfall "reached" 100 mm according to the source, but doesn't explicitly say it exceeded 100 mm. Idk why inches were even used here when it was a mm measurement. Switched it to 100 mm and set sigfigs to 1 per sigfig rules. NoahTalk 19:09, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 33: checks out
  • Ref 34: yep

That's all Spanish-language sources. A few instances of misstated/mistranslated source material, one of which is egregious, but easy to fix. During my spotchecks I noticed that some of the citation formatting is awry or inconsistent, so please review this as well. Auree ★★ 03:22, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I will re-do the ref fixes when I get home from work. I had to throw them out since I was edit conflicted multiple times. I saw several name issues and the archive date thing. Also, I do disagree with your one change as it made a statement vague. "Over the next days"... It needs something to specify the number. Was it a few days, several, or more? NoahTalk 19:22, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I changed that back so the reader doesn't have to wonder how many days the article is talking about before getting to the next line. All the reference inconsistencies should be removed now as well. @Hylian Auree: Let me know what you think about these items. NoahTalk 19:09, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The references look better, but need a bit more for FA. See my source formatting review below.

Source review (formatting) by Hylian Auree

[edit]

Though this seems like a long list, most of the issues below pertain to stylistic inconsistencies. However, some of these sources require more, appropriately formatted information on grounds of verification and accessibility.

  • Refs 2–4: "NHC Graphical Outlook Archive" is not the title of these works, but the name for the archive that contains them. The confusion is understandable, as no clear-cut title is immediately apparent from the web page, so reasonable assumption and some craftiness is needed here. The reports are titled "Tropical Weather Outlook", but lack any numbering; in such cases, we may supply additional information for ease of differentiation, such as time and date of issuance (applying proper WP punctuation and formatting). For ref 2, an example of a suitable title would be "Tropical Weather Outlook [11:00 AM PDT, Wed Sep 19, 2018]". Further, we may add "NHC Graphical Outlook Archive" in the series= parameter to indicate that these reports are serial and contained in an archive. Finally, there appears to be some inconsistency between the publish dates stated in the reports vs. those given in the references.
  • Refs 18 & 47: The Arizona Republic is the newspaper of this article – azcentral.com is their website. Cite news, listing the newspaper, is the preferred template here. While inclusion of websites is optional, omit it here for consistency with the other refs. Same thing with ref 47 - tucson.com is website, Arizona Daily Star is newspaper.
  • Ref 27: "Reporte del Clima en México" is a monthly serial publication of climate reports, with different chapters and editors, volumes and editions, etc. It's a difficult beast to tackle, so I will handle this one, but do check my diffs for future reference on such sources.
  • Ref 28: links to a different article than the one listed. Also, remove "| The Weather Channel" from title field, since that's the publisher.
  • Ref 30: remove location for consistency with other refs.
  • Refs 32, 43, 45: these are newspapers and should be reformatted for consistency with the other newspaper refs.
  • Refs 38–40 & 42: same concept as I explained above for refs 2–4. "Storm Events Database" is the database that contains the event reports. Title needs to be customized for inclusion of distinguishing info. I would use "location" and "begin date" (i.e. "Event: Flash Flood in San Bernardino, CA [2018-10-03, 16:29 PST-8]"), since those offer acceptable differentiation between these sometimes very similar events. Use the series parameter for the database name.

Auree ★★ 05:57, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 24 July 2019 [13].

The Unconquered (1940 play)

[edit]
Nominator(s): RL0919 (talk) 01:33, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the Broadway play The Unconquered. This tale of woe includes a leading lady trying to play a role half her age, an actor who took the saying "break a leg" a bit too literally, an author who had to get drunk to tolerate the dress rehearsal, and an embarrassing failure that led that author to permanently abandon writing for Broadway. Those are the real-life events, not the plot of the play! I hope this FAC is more successful than its subject. RL0919 (talk) 01:33, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SupportComments from Tim riley

[edit]

A clear, interesting and well constructed article. Only v. minor comments:

  • Info-box – "Melodrama" surprises me slightly. Does the author so describe the play?
I don't think she stated a genre. "Melodrama" is from the reviewers.
  • Structure – We have shockingly few stage works (other than operas) as FAs so far, and I see practice has varied as regards the order of the sections. Of the four I've looked at just now, two (like this one) have the plot first and then the background and the production history; the other two have the background and the production history before the detailed synopsis. The latter structure seems to me more logical, but I don't by any means press the point.
It varies even within the ones I've written, sometimes for specific reasons. In this case I don't think there is any significant impact to one order vs. the other, so I've swapped it per your suggestion.
  • Synopsis – If I remember correctly, we usually use subheaders to indicate in plot summaries which bits of the action are in each act. That would be helpful here, and would have the additional advantage of breaking the 600+ word section into more digestible chunks.
Looking at our current FAs about plays, only two (Hamlet and South Pacific) use act subheaders, and they both have surprisingly long (1300+ words) plot summaries. What most of the FAs do, which I haven't done here, is indicate in the text which parts of the plot fall in each act. I'd rather do that than add subheaders, if that's OK.
OK with me, certainly. I shan't wait for the small additions you suggest before adding my support. Tim riley talk 16:56, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Broadway cast – I don't see the point of making the table sortable, but if you are going to keep it so, I'm not sure it will really do to have the actors sorted by their first rather than their surnames.
Sorting is more interesting for plays that have multiple major productions, so I've taken the simple path here and removed the sort option.
A wise move, I think. Tim riley talk 16:56, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note b could do with a citation.
Added.

I hope these small points are helpful. Tim riley talk 07:07, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing! Replies added above, but basically all handled except one item as explained. --RL0919 (talk) 15:27, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
All fine with me. Happy to support promotion of this article, which seems to me to meet all the FA criteria. Evidently comprehensive, balanced, a good read, nicely illustrated, well and widely referenced. Good stuff. Tim riley talk 16:56, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your support! To finish off the discussion above, I've updated the plot summary to indicate where the acts start. --RL0919 (talk) 17:41, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from JM

[edit]
  • Anti-communist or Anti-Communist?
I went with the capitalization used in our article about the subject. Open to whatever you prefer though – to the extent the two could be distinguished in 1920s Russia, Rand was both, and either would have been trouble for her, so the biographical point being made would not be affected.
  • "Abbott, who had a long track record on Broadway, was not strongly impacted by the failure of The Unconquered." Does your source specifically say he wasn't impacted? This sounds like OR.
Mantle generalizes that Abbott didn't need to worry about having a few plays that fail because he had plenty of money from his hits, and The Unconquered in particular is mentioned as one he didn't have to worry about failing. Since the article was written after The Unconquered had already closed, the inference that he wasn't strongly impacted seems obvious enough not to be OR.

That's all I have to say! I only realised a few paragraphs in that I was the GA reviewer, though it looks like I didn't have much to say there, either. A very strong article. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:53, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing (again)! Replies added above. --RL0919 (talk) 20:52, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I really can't fault the images, sourcing, or writing. It'd be easy for a Rand article to have real POV issues, too, but this one feels unscrupulously "neutral". Coordinators: I was the GA reviewer. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:55, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support! Looking at the 'communist'/'Communist' question, I noticed that all but two instances were capitalized, so I went ahead and made it consistently capital. --RL0919 (talk) 01:32, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Aoba47

[edit]
  • This is a very small suggestion for this part (her family helped Rand emigrate to the United States in 1926). I am not sure if it would sound better to say “Rand’s family helped her emigrate…” to avoid having the “her” pronoun first in this subject position. It could be a stylistic choice though and it is not incorrect in the current wording, but it stood out to me while reading the article.
  • For this part (It drew on her experiences to depict life in the…), I think “she” would be a better word choice than “it” since Rand is the one drawing experience from her life and criticizing these ideologies. I understand the current wording, but I am not sure if it is giving this agency to the book over the author (if that makes any sense).
  • For this sentence (The Soviet government has executed his father and…) in the “Plot” section, I do not believe the “Soviet” wikilink is necessary. The “Soviet Union” was already wikilinked in the “History” section so it seems like a repeated link here.
  • I have a question about this part (…and expropriated his family's property…) from the “Plot” section, specifically the “expropriated” wikilink. The word “expropriated” is first used in the first sentence of the “History” section so I think it would be better to move the wikilink up to that part and unlink it here.
  • The same comment applies to the “bourgeois” wikilink in the “Plot” section. The word is reference in the “History” section so I think moving the wikilink up to that part and unlinking it here would be the best course of action.

This is a very fascinating read. I must admit that I know shockingly little about Rand. I have only read Anthem and the first few chapters of Atlas Shrugged. I am not a particularly good reviewer, but I hope that my comments have helped at least somewhat. Once my relatively minor comments are addressed, I will be more than happy to support this for promotion. You definitely inspire me to work on an article about a play in the future. Have a great weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 03:14, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing! I've implemented your suggested changes. Let me know if you spot anything else. --RL0919 (talk) 16:46, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

[edit]
  • No spotchecks carried out
  • All external links to sources are working. I believe that "Commonweal" (Hartung, 1940) may be wikilinked to Commonweal (magazine)
  • Formats appear to be uniform and consistent
  • Quality and reliability: No issues here that I can identify – the sources appear to meet the necessary criteria.

Brianboulton (talk) 14:12, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Guess I forgot to reply, so belated thanks for reviewing. I added the link you suggested. --RL0919 (talk) 17:31, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Cassianto

[edit]

I could see no issues with this at all. This was a pleasure to read and it fits the FA criteria perfectly. CassiantoTalk 07:52, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing and for your support! --RL0919 (talk) 17:31, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]

Image licenses and uses seem OK to me. ALT text looks so-so. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:46, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing! If you have any specific ideas for the alt text, feel free to suggest and/or edit them. --RL0919 (talk) 15:38, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 24 July 2019 [14].

Battle of Crécy

[edit]
Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk) 20:21, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The 14th-century battle in which Edward III, leading an Anglo-Welsh army across northern France, brought the much larger French army under Philip VI to battle. Famously the French suffered a humiliating defeat, largely due to the English use of longbows. A contemporary described the hand-to-hand combat which ensued as "murderous, without pity, cruel, and very horrible". I have done quite a bit of work on this over the last couple of months, and, I think, consulted most of the up to date sources. No doubt it is as usual riddled with flawed prose, MoS breaches and fails to be readily comprehensible; I would be grateful if you could point out the specifics of these. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:21, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
  • Suggest elaborating on the caption of the battle map to indicate what the various designs mean
Good idea. Done.
  • File:English_gun_used_at_Crecy.jpg: source link is dead. Same with File:Battle_of_Crécy,_26_August_1346.png
The first works fine for me. It is on Wayback Machine so there shouldn't be a problem. (I added the page number while I was checking.)
Link updated for the second.
  • File:Lazzaro_Tavarone-Balestrieri_genovesi.jpg should include the original date and author if known.
The "File information" names the fresco's artist. It gives the date as "16th or 17th century"; some basic research can't nail it down any further, but it seems good enough for our purposes. Is anything further needed?


Nikkimaria (talk) 16:55, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: Many thanks as always for looking these over. Your points addressed. Although a couple of things you flagged up as issues didn't seem to be issues to me, so I may well have the wrong end of the stick. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:44, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: I wonder if you feel that I have satisfactorily addressed your comments? Gog the Mild (talk) 23:33, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Good enough, thanks. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:42, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Tim riley

[edit]

Another splendid instalment in this continuing series. A few minor points on the prose – nothing of any great consequence:

  • Lead
    • "and by the time they received the French charges they had lost much of their impetus" – from the main text I gather that the second "they" means the French, but that is by no means clear here.
Tweaked. Any better.
Perfect, me judice Tim riley talk 20:43, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "for over two centuries" – I mention this with some diffidence, as there is no logical rule that I can see for the convention – some might say superstition – that this should be "more than two centuries". I adhere to the convention myself (Froissart and I were at school together, and my use of language may be rather old-fashioned) and I mention it here only for you to accept or reject as you think fit, here and at "over 100 French towns", "over 700 vessels", "Over 5,000 French soldiers", "over 500 men-at-arms", and "over 2,200 heraldic coats" later in the article.
Article is now Froissart-compliant.
  • Background
  • "Edward was not only morally obliged to succor his vassal" – we've been here before. Whether it was a succor punch or an all day succor you mean "succour".
Changed
  • Prelude
  • "Bethune" – no aigu?
Aigued.
  • "River Somme" – duplicate blue link.
Second mention unlinked.
  • Opposing forces
  • "The English army mainly comprised English and Welsh soldiers, along with some allied Breton and Flemish troops and a few German mercenaries." – You've told us more or less the same thing already.
Oops. Thank you. First iteration removed.
  • "These numbers have been described as unrealistic and exaggerated by historians" – I imagine the historians were doing the describing rather than the exaggerating, but that isn't what this says.
"exaggerated by unrealistic historians"? No? How about "as exaggerated and unrealistic by historians"?
That would do, but you might even change passive to active and say that historians describe the numbers and u and e. Just a thought. Tim riley talk 20:43, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have gone with "These numbers are described by historians as exaggerated and unrealistic"
  • "the major trading city of Genoa " – this is the third mention of Genoa. The description as a major trading centre might be better at the first mention.
Ah. Yes. Done.
  • "This made it difficult for the French to outflank them" – I'm not clear who the "them" is: the left/right flanks or the whole English army? Or perhaps that amounts to the same thing?
"them" refers to both, ie the two flanks referred to in the previous sentence. Would it be clearer if I semi-coloned the two sentences?
  • "Having decisively defeated a large French detachment two days before, morale was high." – Dangling participle. Morale didn't defeat the French.
Is my change sufficient to undangle it?
  • "the French van" – as you have linked terms that seem to me arguably common enough not to need linking (sacking, knights, mercenaries, chronicle) I think you might consider linking "van". I don't suppose many of your readers will find themselves with a mental picture of a Citroën, but even so...
Every one of those is a term which I have been specifically asked to link in previous reviews (of other articles). "Van" expanded to 'vanguard' and added to the list
  • "vanguard" – showing my ignorance, but is this different from the van? If so another blue link wouldn't hurt, if one can be found.
Slightly rephrased to avoid a possible misreading - thanks for making me look hard at this.
  • "...Philip, or because too many of the large number of French knights kept pressing forward and the battle commenced against Philip's wishes. Philip's ..." – rather a lot of Philips here. Perhaps make the second or third "his"?
The second swapped out. I think that it reads OK with the two remaining.
  • Battle
  • "their sacred battle banner, the oriflamme" – is "sacred" used in a figurative sense or was it somehow consecrated to sanctity by the church?
Good question. As in repeatedly described as sacred in several RSs. To pick one not used in the article, see pp 15-16 of this. Sounds religious to me. Why?
  • "No prisoners would be taken" – not even King Edward, if they got hold of him? Was this normal? Cf the statement at ref 123.
A contemporary: "it was not lawful for anyone, on penalty of death, to take any prisoners"; a modern historian: "The unfurling of the Oriflamme was taken by the English as a sign that a legal state of guerre mortelle (a war to the death) was in force; under such a state of war, it was legitimate to take no prisoners." No if's, no but's. At Poitiers, a decade later, one of three chroniclers who go into in detail recorded that the French king made a specific exemption for the Black Prince. (The other two state that no prisoners were to be taken.) There are, so far as I am aware no sources, contemporary or modern, that suggest any exceptions were ordered at Crecy.
I have added a "after the battle" to "the next day" to clarify any apparent contradiction.
  • "a range of about 80 metres (260 ft)." – metric before imperial here but t'other way round earlier.
I was going with the original sources, but as the odd one out is "approximately", I think that I can tweak it.
  • "had two horses killed from underneath him" – the "from" seems a bit odd.
It is a common way of describing this, and the phraseology of the (1998) source. But changed as you suggest.
  • "although it is unclear as to why – the "as to" strikes me as superfluous.
True. Removed.

That's my meagre haul of quibbles. I've found this article as enjoyable to review as its predecessors. Tim riley talk 14:02, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your usual close reading and insightful criticisms Tim. Your points all addressed. See what you think. I am pleased that you enjoyed it: hopefully you could smell the sweat of the horses; hear the twang of the bowstrings. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:37, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
First rate article. Meets all the FA criteria in my view. Very pleased to support. Tim riley talk 16:03, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5

[edit]

I guess I found my new target. <eagle eyes activated>

  • reached the Seine, 12 miles (20 km) south of Rouen This sentence says "12 miles" is 20 km. However, this sentence The army was tired from a 12-mile (19 km) march says that "12 miles" is 19 km.
Good spot. A stray sigfig left on. Corrected.
  • Speaking of which I think we can remove the second "19 km" here.
Done.
  • 10 years to master and could discharge up to ten arrows per minute well over 300 metres (980 ft) This sentence uses 300 metres as its primary units but we're still talking about medieval France and England. So, shouldn't English units be primary units? The sentence after this one uses also metric units as its primary units but the units are related to modern-day science so I guess it is okay.
Well now; if I switched primary units in consecutive sentences, wouldn't you be telling me that I am being inconsistent? And confusing the reader.
  • Well not really. I mean by WP:UNITS all articles related to the UK, U.S. or Liberia should have English units as primary units. I think sentences should also be included. Depending on which country we're talking about, well that was what Sturm or BB said to me in their ships' articles.
WP:UNITS says "In non-scientific articles relating to the United Kingdom, the primary units for most quantities are metric or other internationally used units, except that". I don't see that any of the exceptions apply (as, for example, they do for distances measured in miles) so my usage would seem to be correct[?]
They do. They think that metres are things that measure electricity usage. So I had thought that this permitted their use as a primary unit for UK related articles. However, checking the MoS I have discovered that this is not the case. Live and learn.
  • Hmm good question Gog, I went to London last summer and I saw in the city English units together with metric ones. I saw square feet, ounces, miles, mph and yards. Are these units still with used in the UK? I mean I went to a restaurant and the menu over there was is ounces in a store they used lbs and quarts? Hack my Google Maps even switched from kilometres to miles same with km/h and mph. The UK decided to use metric units in the 60s which after almost 60 years still the imperial units use. It was like in the US, if MoS says we should use metric units with some exceptions to the primary units over there then we should use them. But couldn't that make confusion to our British readers if they barely use metric units? Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 21:37, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@CPA-5: The situation is, typically for the Brits, confused. Partly it depends on your age and how educated and cosmopolitan you are. Some things are universally imperial: the ones in the MoS exceptions. (Except that there are exceptions - I won't bore you.) Pounds and ounces and kilos and milligrams are probably about equally used. Most people use feet and inches to indicate their own height, but mm to indicate small distances. Almost no one knows what a quart is. Things are, very slowly, moving towards metric. So we do what the MoS says, regardless of what we are used to, and you make sure that I get the right conversions in, so everyone has an idea of what is being communicated. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:52, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My guess is that about a third of the UK population use yards and feet and are shaky on metres; a third use metres and cm and are shaky on yards; and a third treat them as roughly interchangeable. (And just don't ask what Brexit might do to all of this!) Gog the Mild (talk) 22:11, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well I can wait until Halloween to see the results what Brexit might do. I do have passions except if "someone" tries to extend the Brexit once again. ;) Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 22:24, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • iron and approximately 4 metres (13 ft) long Same as above.
I don't get this one. 4 metres is 13 feet, to the nearest foot; I only use it once; and am consistent in my use of primary units. Could you elaborate for my simple brain? Thanks.
  • that on their own they outnumbered the English army.[63][61] Suggest switching the citations in numerical order.
Done.
  • as were their reserves supplies of ammunition.[102][103][93] Same as above.
Done.
  • whether they inflicted significant casualties.[108][101] Same as above.
Done.
  • casualties were very low.[139][76][140] Same as above.
Done.
  • The battle was reported to the English Parliament This is odd to me. I could remember the day you said to me "I don't think that "parliament" is a proper noun, even in this context. I have checked two modern sources and they both have "English parliament", with a lower case p. So I propose leaving it." in the AR of Siege of Berwick (1333) after I asked you to capitalise "Parliament". May I ask you why is the parliament here capitalised?
Would you accept that there is no requirement to be consistent between articles? No? I thought not. My mistake. Thanks for picking it up. Corrected.

Part two

  • The Battle of Crécy (26 August 1346), also spelled Cressy, took You mean spelt?
Changed.
  • large force of French mercenary crossbowmen were routed by Shouldn't it be "large force of French mercenary crossbowmen was routed by"?
It should. Thank you EE.
  • devastating some of the richest land in France You mean lands?
No, I don't. But I am happy to change it if you prefer.
  • A Medieval image of Puilip IV seated In alt in the File:Phil6france.jpg image little typo of Philip.
Fixed.
  • Paris consisted of some 8,000 men-at-arm You mean men-at-arms?
I do.
  • During the morning of the battle Comma after battle here.
I do not normally follow the comma after time periods convention. (Largely American in my experience.) But done anyway.
  • sloping hillside, broken by copses and Typo of corpses.
No. Copse: A small wood, especially one cultivated for coppicing.
  • cavalry, and set up several primitive gunpower weapons You mean gunpowder?
I quite like "gunpower", but yes, I did.
  • with more than 500 men-at-arms was marching You mean were?
No. It was the Count of Savoy who was marching.
  • no prisoners be taken; outnumbered as You mean are?
No, that wouldn't make sense. I could change it to 'no prisoners were to be taken', but I don't want to. "no prisoners be taken" is a perfectly acceptable usage, eg see the over 4,300 exact matches on Google.
  • now mounted, routed and pursued for miles Remove for here.
Why? Both are correct, both mean much the same thing, but to my eye removing "here" makes the phrasing clumsier and less readily comprehensible.

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 12:23, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Eagle Eyes, appreciated. Points all addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:03, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks CPA-5. Addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:52, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ooo! Some very good points. Thanks CPA-5. All addressed. (Not all agreed with.) Gog the Mild (talk) 16:07, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@CPA-5: I wonder if you have come to a view as to whether you wish to support, oppose, or stand neutral on this nomination? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:47, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well I wonder, do you know me enough Gog? You'd probably know my answer. All my comments are addressed with positive or negative results. Only my British primary measurement comments weren't addressed and got a lot of counter-comments in a discussion we have. But I do not reckon we shan't have a sequel to our discussion here. I understand the situation where the Britons lie, they're changing really slow to metric units. Which means for now metres are part of their society. I do not have any comments anymore so I'll give you a solid support Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 20:48, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Jens Lallensack

[edit]
  • I would link "Flemish" in the lead/body, maybe "Breton" also. "Welsh" are linked, after all, so not linking the others seems inconsequent.
Flemish links to the modern language. The only Wikilink on 14th century Flanders is County of Flanders which I had linked Flanders to a few words later. I have linked Flemish to County of Flanders at first mention in the main article, and Bretons to Duchy of Brittany on similar reasoning.
I thought about a link to Flemish people. But its not really important. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 05:29, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Meanwhile, Derby led a whirlwind – I know of course who Derby is, but only from your other excellent articles. You should still link and introduce him here, though.
Apologies. The GAN reviewer wanting a couple of paragraphs and I forgot that those remaining weren't self contained. Rereading, I am not sure that he needs a lot of introduction, being very "off-stage", so I have given his title and linked him. Sufficient, do you think?
  • Philip again sent orders to Duke John of Normandy insisting that he abandon the siege of Aiguillon – not sure about the use of "again" here. It implies that he had send these orders before already, but this was not mentioned in the text, although it sounds as it would refer to such an earlier statement.
Ditto. Expanded to, I hope, make sense.
  • Philip reached the River Somme a day's march ahead of Edward – Here I miss some important information: Where is this French army coming from? Was it all freshly assembled in Rouen (as previously mentioned) or was this the army of the Duke John of Normandy (but now commanded by Philip?), or both?
Again, removed at request of the GAN reviewer and inadequately tidied up by me. I have now inserted a fair bit on the non-battle of Paris. See if you think that it is unnecessary detail considering what the subject of the article is.
Thank you Jens. This is an important battle in English historiography and I wanted to give it the works. You have picked up some significant weaknesses - thank you. Could you see what you think of my fixes. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:50, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Thanks for the additions; I think that they are not too detailed but really help to get the necessary background. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 05:29, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Praemonitus

[edit]

Support: It's enjoyable read and appears to be of FA quality. I found nothing to complain about. Nicely done. Praemonitus (talk) 21:18, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Praemonitus. Thank you for the support and the kind comment. I appreciate both. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:50, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

[edit]
  • No spotchecks carried out
  • Links: all links to sources are working
  • Formats
  • Ref 48 requires pp.
  • Ref 63 page range should be standardised to 268–269
  • Ref 67 requires pp.
  • Ref 127 requires pp.
  • Fowler should precede Froissart in alphabetical list of sources
  • Likewise, Magier et al should precede Mallett
  • Bennett 1994: standardise location to "Woodbridge, Suffolk". Likewise Kelly 1998
  • Rogers 2000: convert "Woodbridge UK" to "Woodbridge, Suffolk"
Those were all pretty sloppy of me. Apologies. Now corrected.
  • What is the status of the listed "primary sources"? They do not appear to be cited – are they part of "Further reading"?
These are the contemporary and near-contemporary sources which form the basis of most of the modern scholarship on the subject. Such lists are common in scholarly works. I realise that this is not a Wikipedia requirement, but I inherited them and it seemed helpful to leave them in. They are not "Further reading" as such, and mixing them in with the modern works there would in my opinion confuse rather than aid a reader. If pushed I will delete them, but that would be a shame.
  • Quality and reliability: The sources appear to be comprehensive and authoritative, and to meet the required criteria for quality and reliability.

Brianboulton (talk) 18:14, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Brianboulton: Thank you for taking the time to look at this. Apologies for the sloppiness of some of the formatting. All of your points addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:44, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Brianboulton: I wonder if you feel that I have satisfactorily addressed your comments? Gog the Mild (talk) 23:34, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy to accept the treatment adopted. Brianboulton (talk) 11:28, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Query to coordinators

[edit]

@FAC coordinators: I assume that we are at the tending the wounded and counting the prisoners stage. If I am correct in this, I wonder if I might have permission to nominate my next one? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:13, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gog, sorry I didn't get to this sooner -- pls feel free to stat a new nom. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:07, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 24 July 2019 [15].

Parinda

[edit]
Nominator(s): Yashthepunisher (talk) 05:49, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My first tryst with a featured article. It is a comprehensive and well written account of one of the most important and significant Indian film. Constructive feedback's are welcomed. Thank you. Yashthepunisher (talk) 05:49, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Kailash

[edit]

None really. I support this since my comments were addressed in the PR. --Kailash29792 (talk) 06:35, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the support Kailash. Cheers! Yashthepunisher (talk) 08:33, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Aoba47

[edit]
Addressed comments
  • I would revise this part (is aware of Anna's illegal activities) as “illegal activities” is already used in the same paragraph and it can be somewhat repetitive.
  • I do not think the replacement word "works" used for the revision (is aware of Anna's works and tries to arrest him) makes sense in this context. I would just use "work" as I do not believe the plural does not work in this context.
  • For this part (Knowing this, Kishan books Karan a flight to Delhi to avoid involving him in this situation), I do not believe “Knowing this” is necessary as it is clear from the rest of the sentence and the overall context why Kishan is doing this.
  • I am uncertain about this sentence (Knowing this, Kishan books Karan a flight to Delhi to avoid involving him in this situation, but the flight is delayed and Anna's henchmen shoot Prakash, who dies in Karan's arms.). I am assuming that Kishan purchases an earlier flight for Karan so he would arrive before Anna's planned attack, but the delay causes Karan and Prakash to meet at their original time and Prakash is killed according to Anna's plan. I do not think this is fully transparent in the sentence since it is not clear in this part (books Karan a flight to Delhi to avoid) that it is an earlier flight. I think adding "an earlier flight" would clarify this point.
  • I have a few revision suggestions for this sentence (Through Iqbal, a former messenger of Anna, Karan knows that Anna is a criminal who burnt his wife and since then he is afraid of fire. Karan also discovers Anna is Prakash's murderer and that Kishan works for him.). First, it should be “a former messenger for Anna” rather than “of Anna”. I am also wondering if this revision would make the information read clearer to a reader: (Karan learns from Iqbal, a former messenger for Anna, that Anna is a criminal who orchestrated Prakash’s murder and Kishan’s boss. He is also told that Anna had burnt his wife and developed a fear of fire.). I had changed the “is Prakash's murderer” part as it is technically not true according to the plot summary provided. Anna set up the murder, but his henchmen do the deed.
  • It is not clear why this sentence (Kishan finds out about Anna's rivalry with Musa, another gangster.) is important to the plot since Musa does not appear to figure into the plot until the third paragraph. Why was it important for Kishan to discover this rivalry at this point in the film? Could the introduction to Musa be pushed down to the third paragraph instead?
  • For this part (Karan tells Paro that Anna and his brother killed Prakash and he was unaware about it), I would remove the “and he was unaware about it” part as I do not see the use for it.
  • Is there any more information on this sentence (They slowly fall in love with each other.)? This part should be kept short and concise, but there is very little information on what Paro actually does in the film and how this relationship really forms. Do we see them fall in love while doing any particular activities? The current sentence just seems vague.
Both are actually childhood friends and their love story is never the main focus of the film. They are just shown falling in love after 2-3 meets. However, I have mentioned the 'childhood' bit in the second para. Yashthepunisher (talk) 12:33, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • For this part (Few days later, Abdul, one), I would change it to “A few days later,”
  • I would change this part (one of Anna's shooter) to a (a shooter for Anna) instead.
  • For this part (is caught by the police along with some other criminals), I would just say “other criminals”. I do not believe “some” is needed here.
  • For this sentence (Kishan warns Karan that if he does not go quite, he will die.), I am not sure what “if he does not go quite” means.
  • For the revision (if he does not go quiet), it should be "quietly" not "quiet".
  • The following sentence (He is treated by a nurse.) is rather short and disrupts the flow of the paragraph. I would try to integrate the information more seamlessly.
  • With my above comment, I was not suggesting the complete removal of the sentence. Without that sentence, the part about the nurse here (the nurse treating Kishan will murder him) comes up unexpectedly. I was just curious if there was a way to better present the information.
  • I am a little confused by this sentence (When Karan is called at the police headquarter to recognise the criminal's, Abdul whispers in his ear that if he testifies, the nurse treating his brother will murder him.), specifically the “whispers” word choice. How would Abdul, who apparently is still in police custody, get so close to a civilian like Karan to whisper this threat in his ear? The summary does not describe the police as corrupt or incompetent so this seems like a rather weird jump.
This is actually what happens in the film. You can have a look here at 4:00 min. It's without subtitles, but you will understand the situation. Yashthepunisher (talk) 12:33, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • For this part (Next day, Anna orders Karan), I believe it should be “The next day” instead of “Next day”.
  • I have two comments for this part (his another shooter to escort him). The phrase “his another” is not grammatically correct, and “another” does not make sense in this context since Anna has not previously ordered a shooter to escort Karan anywhere.
  • I have a question for this sentence (Rama Reddy, a close aide of Anna, is kidnapped and taken to Mussa, who offers him work.). Do we know who kidnapped Rama?
  • For this part (Karan and Paro get married and decide to leave the city and settle somewhere else), could the prose be more specific about “somewhere else”?
They just say 'let's settle somewhere else'. Yashthepunisher (talk) 12:33, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • In this sentence (Anna goes out to kill Musa, believing Musa is responsible for the death of his men, but Musa tells Anna it was Karan all along.), Musa is repeated three times which is less than ideal. It could be revised to something like (Anna believes Musa is responsible for his men’s death and plans to kill him; however, Musa informs Anna that Karan had been manipulating him the entire time.)
  • I am confused by this sentence (Karan and Paro spending their wedding night on a boat when Anna arrives and shoots them both to death.). A previous sentence says that these two characters marries, left the city, and settled “somewhere else”, but according to this sentence, they were killed on their wedding night so it does not seem like they had the opportunity to settle anywhere.
They have plans to leave the city 'after' the marriage. Anna kills them the very night they get married. Yashthepunisher (talk) 12:33, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • From the information I read in the “Production” section, I am assuming this sentence (Kishan then burns Anna in fire in revenge for his brother's death.) means Kishan set the boat on fire and killed Anna that way rather than setting just Anna on fire. If that is the case, then I would specify that as the current sentence could literally read that Kishan just set Anna on fire and nothing else.
Anna kills them on the boat and leaves. Kishan sees the bodies and goes to his house to kill him. I have tweaked this bit.
  • Something about the phrase "burns Anna in fire" sounds odd to me. The verb "burns" typically means to put something on fire so the "in fire" part seems unnecessary.

There is a lot of great work in this article, but I have concerns about the prose quality in the “Plot” section. Aoba47 (talk) 23:57, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments Aoba47. The article has genuinely improved because of you. I will soon ask some editor to copyedit the plot section. Yashthepunisher (talk) 12:33, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have done a rather copy-edit to try and help with the flow of the "Plot" section. Feel free to revert any or all of my edits as you are more familiar with the film. I was just trying to help it read a little better, but I have a lot to learn myself. I will be turning my focus to the rest of the article later in the week. If I have not put up new comments by Friday, feel free to ping me here or leave me a note on my talk page as a reminder. Again, I hope this helps. Aoba47 (talk) 23:26, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • For this part (Vidhu Vinod Chopra as the corpse), I wonder if it would be better to say "a corpse" instead of "the corpse". "The" implies there is either only one corpse in the movie or it holds some sort of significance to the story. Since neither appear to be true (as it seems more like a cameo), then I think "a corpse" would be better. If the movie's credits use "the corpse" however then keep it as it currently is.
  • I would clarify the "He" in this sentence (He was then offered the role of Anna, the kurta-pajama wearing gangster of the film.) as "Patekar" since multiple names appear in the previous sentence.
  • Is this part (the kurta-pajama wearing gangster of the film) really necessary? A reader would already know who Anna is from the plot summary and I do not see the importance of the character wearing kurta-pajama. It just seemed somewhat random and out-of-place to me.
  • For this part (In 1985, director Vidhu Vinod Chopra made the suspense thriller), I would wikilink the director's name. He is already wikilinked in the cast section, but since the actors are wikilinked in both the cast and production sections, then the director should be as well for consistency.
  • For this sentence (Scenes were shot in natural lighting with light coming through the windows or candles, in an indoor scene), I do not believe a comma is needed after "candles".
  • For this part (materials, like a piece of white cloth, or tracing paper in front of the light to make it softer and more natural), I would move the comma after "cloth" to after "paper".
  • Apologies for the silly question, but what is the film's climax? You mention twice in the production section that the film's climax was shot at the Gateway of India, but I genuinely do not know what the climax is.
Karan and Paro are making love inside a boat in the Arabian sea, near the Gateway of India. That is when, Anna arrives and shoots them to death. Yashthepunisher (talk) 05:29, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • That would need to be clarified in the prose, and that could lead to confusion from the reader. For instance, when I was reading the article, I had no idea what you mean by the "climax" until you pointed it out to me know. Also, I think the image placement still needs to be addressed. I found it a little confusing to have the image placed next to a paragraph that is talking about a completel different location and part of the film. Aoba47 (talk) 17:13, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would move the Gateway of India image down to the paragraph where the place is discussed as it feels somewhat out of place in its current placement.
  • I would wikilink "shoestring budget".
  • For this part (and book 100 Bollywood Films by Rachel Dwyer), I believe it should be "the book".
  • Firstpost is wikilinked multiple times when it should not be. Items should only be wikilinked on their first use.
  • For this part (and Martin Scorsese's crime drama Mean Streets (1973),), I would use "crime film" instead. Something about "crime drama" makes me think of a television show rather than a film so I would avoid ambiguity.

Thank you for your patience. Once my comments are addressed, I will be more than happy to support this for promotion. I hope you have a wonderful rest of your week. Aoba47 (talk) 21:59, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47 Your queries have been resolved. Yashthepunisher (talk) 05:29, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you. There are still three points that need to be addressed (the climax, the Gateway of India image placement, and the Firstpost italicization. Once these three points are addressed, I will support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 17:13, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

8Thank yo for addressing everything! I support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 19:18, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Veera Narayana

[edit]

Support — Not much to talk about. Majority of my concerns were done at the PR itself. I've made some minor changes in the plot. This is worth enough to be a FA IMO. Hence, i support the article's promotion. Veera Narayana 09:18, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for the support Veera Narayana. Yashthepunisher (talk) 13:17, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

[edit]
  • Spotchecks: A number carried out, identifying a few issues:
  • Ref 19: Article says "The singer Shaan made his playback singing debut by singing one line for 'Kitni Hai Pyari Pyari'" Source says two lines. On the other hand, the source in ref 20 says one line, so who knows? Too trivial to worry about.
  • Ref 25: Article says "In a 2010 interview, film critic and Chopra's wife Anupama Chopra said, "there was so much buzz about Parinda before the release of the film": Source says "there was so much buzz about Parinda that I wanted to feature him". Quotes should exactly replicate what's in the source.
  • Ref 38: Article says "British director Danny Boyle cited Parinda as one of the films that helped him understand Mumbai for his Academy Award-winning film Slumdog Millionaire (2008)". This information does not appear in the source, although Parinda is mentioned in general terms.
  • Ref 52: Article says "The city in the film is shattered into "dark, morbid spaces with all the characters framed within a light and shadow zone".". I was unable to locate this quotation in the source.
  • Verifiability:
  • Ref 26: Not sure what is being cited here
  • Links:
  • Ref 11: if you're going to cite YouTube you need a link. See also 41
*I have used the AV media template that's doesn't require a link. Should I add it? Yashthepunisher (talk) 13:10, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Otherwise, all links to sources are working, per the checker tool
  • Formats
  • Ref 24 et al: ISBNs should be formatted uniformly. At present some are hyphenated, other not.
  • "Further reading": this is not a list of optional further reading, it's a list of your book sources which, with one exception, you have fully itemised in your references. The exception is ref 5, Mehta. This should be brought into line with the others, and then eliminate the "further reading" list.
  • Otherwise, formats OK
  • Quality and reliability
  • Ref 39: How do you access the source article? And what makes this a high quality reliable source?
  • Generally, the sources appear to be comprehensive, though I have no knowledge of some of the websites used. In the absence of comment from other reviwers, I am prepared to accept that they meet the required criteria for quality and reliability.

Brianboulton (talk) 16:39, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the support Mr. Smart LION Yashthepunisher (talk) 05:00, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the support Ssven2. Yashthepunisher (talk) 10:47, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the support Jimfbleak, I have wikilinked it. Yashthepunisher (talk) 11:54, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dharmadhyaksha

[edit]
  • You may use "all_lyrics" parameter in Template:Track listing or delete individual entries of all lyrics. Prose covers it already that they were written by Hallauri.
  • If Shaan has sung "Kitni Hai Pyari Pyari", his name should be included in the table too against the song entry.
  • Prose mentions there are two versions of "Kitni Hai Pyari Pyari", but table lists only one.
  • Adding second version of "Kitni Hai Pyari Pyari" will make total 5 songs. Prose says they were 4.
  • "Tum Se Milke" is based on Leo Sayer's 1977 single "When I Need You". What does "based on" mean? Lyrics? Music?
  • "Parinda received the NFA for Nana Patekar". Or should it be "Patekar received NFA for Parinda"?
  • Is the Best Film nominee the director or the production house? Our article Filmfare Award for Best Film lists Vinod Chopra Productions.
Dharmadhyaksha Thank you for the comments. Yashthepunisher (talk) 14:37, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 24 July 2019 [16].

Louisiana Purchase Sesquicentennial half dollar

[edit]
Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 23:03, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about... a coin that never was, one of seven commemoratives to be vetoed by presidents. This one is interesting not only for a distant relationship to the Kennedy assassination through Clay Shaw, but because it was pushed by Eric P. Newman, long lived and giving numismatist and author who left money to help preserve numismatic knowledge at a time when coin collecting is not as popular as it once was.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:03, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support – I can manage precisely one quibble: I think, but am not quite sure enough to change it myself, that in "Ryan mentioned a observance" the "a" should be "an". Happy to support. Clear, pithy, as well illustrated as I imagine is possible, and well and widely referenced. Tim riley talk 14:13, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review and support.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:14, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review: All three images are appropriately licensed and captioned. Moisejp (talk) 02:31, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:14, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

[edit]
  • No spotchecks carried out
  • All external links to sources are working per the checker tool
  • No format issues
  • Accessibility: Ref 22 – can you advise how this page can be accessed? The link goes to a search page; how to proceed from there?
  • Otherwise the sources appear to meet the all required criteria for ·quality and reliability

Brianboulton (talk) 10:35, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that. I am investigating why the links don't work on @22.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:14, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the delay. I"ve gone another route on that link. Hopefully this will work. That should be everything. Thank you for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:41, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support – I see no problems with this at all. It is excellently written, well-illustrated, and comprehensively sourced. CassiantoTalk 08:00, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review and support.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:41, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 24 July 2019 [17].

HMS Ramillies (07)

[edit]
Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk) & Parsecboy (talk) 02:18, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ramillies was completed after the Battle of Jutland and only played a minor role in World War I. She supported Allied intervention in the Russian Civil War and during the Greco-Turkish War from 1919–1922. After the Italians joined the war in 1940, she escorted convoys to Malta and supported the raid on Taranto that crippled the Italian battlefleet. Ramillies was transferred to the Indian Ocean a few months before the Japanese joined the war. During the invasion of Madagascar in 1942 she was torpedoed by a Japanese midget submarine. In 1944 the ship bombarded German positions during the landings in Normandy and in the South of France. She was placed in reserve in early 1945 and scrapped in 1945. The article just passed a MilHist A-class review and Parsecboy and I believe that it meets the FA-class criteria. We'd like reviewers to look for any bits of AmEnglish that might be found as well as any unlinked or unexplained jargon.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:18, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport from PM

[edit]

This article is in great shape. I reviewed it at GAN then re-read it at Milhist ACR and couldn't see anything to quibble about. I have a few minor points:

  • in the lead, suggest "They ships were developments"
  • also in the lead, suggest "She also saw limited involvement in the Black Sea in 1920 during the Franco-British intervention in the Russian Civil War." as the current formulation makes it seem the Russian Civil War was in the Black Sea in 1920
  • suggest "rescinded the decision forto use coal"
  • suggest turning lk=on to link kW when first converted
  • the upper range of the conning tower armour differs between the body and infobox?
  • suggest "In addition the aft torpedo tubes on both sides were removed"
  • could you say that she was the nth British ship to be named Ramillies? I think this sort of detail is appealing and shows continuity.
  • link dry dock
  • suggest splitting the change of captains and inserting the second one for Smith into the narrative at the appropriate point
  • do we know when they were attached to the Med Fleet?
  • link ship commissioning for decommissioned at first mention
  • suggest "en route that lasted"
  • suggest "The unit was established in December, with the squadron attached to Force F"→"The squadron was established in December and was attached to Force F"
  • perhaps mention that Addu Atoll is in the Maldives?
  • perhaps mention that Mombasa is in Kenya?
  • "providing heavy fire support to the forces"
  • "three German torpedo boats" but then they are described as destroyers. I know they were treated as interchangeable by the Germans, but consistency would be better here
  • suggest "her bombardment ability no longer necessaryrequired"

That's all I have. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:39, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your very helpful and thorough review. See if my changes are satisfactory.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:43, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
All done. Supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:10, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Sources review

[edit]
  • No spotchecks carried out
  • All links to sources are working
  • Formats: Ref 52 requires pp. not p.
  • Quality and reliability: No issues

Brianboulton (talk) 13:12, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch, thanks, Brian.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:45, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5

[edit]
  • The two battleships opened fire at around 5:30 on the morning of the invasion, 6 June By MOS:TIME "5:30" should be "05:30".
    • Fixed
  • sisters were transferred to the Mediterranean Fleet in August 1927 Remove 1927 here.
    • Done
  • a fleet review for the king at Portland Was this really the King here? If so please replace "king" with the capitalised "King".
    • Done
  • Following its conclusion, she was sent to Alexandria by way of Gibraltar Maybe add Egypte here?
    • Good idea
  • she was transferred to Aden, Yemen, as part of the search This is a little bit debatable here. Maybe remove Yemen with the Aden Protectorate because Yemen had only the northern part of modern-day Yemen at that time.
  • visited the ship on 16 August in Hvalfjörður, Iceland Link Iceland here with the Kingdom of Iceland's article.
    • Done
  • the artist chose to crown the sculpture with a 6-metre (19 ft 8 in) model of Ramillies Metric units as primary units here? Maybe switch the units here?
    • Good catch
  • they shelled the heavy coastal guns on the Mandrier peninsula Please capitalise peninsula here.
    • Done

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 19:04, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks as always! Parsecboy (talk) 19:32, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt

[edit]
  • "She also saw limited involvement during the Franco-British intervention in the Black Sea in 1920 in the Russian Civil War. " this seems a bit awkward, with all the clauses.
  • Reworded a bit, let me know if that works for you
  • "A torpedo-control director with a 15-foot rangefinder" Does this require conversion to metric? Ditto "The main conning tower had 11 inches of armour on the sides with a 3-inch roof. The torpedo director in the rear superstructure had 6 inches of armour protecting it. After the Battle of Jutland, 1 inch"
  • The rangefinder is already converted in that section, as are the figures in the armour section - generally the rule we follow is to convert a figure only on the first occasion (though I might make an exception if the article is long and the figures are fairly widely separated)
  • "crushing tubes" Does this require further explanation?
  • Good point - I've added a note
  • "Since the dry docks in Dalmuir were not long enough to accommodate Ramillies, she had to be towed to the Cammell Laird shipyard in Liverpool. The ship was not seaworthy, however, so temporary repairs were effected in Dalmuir before she could be towed to Liverpool." This seems a bit out of chronological order.
  • Tweaked a bit
  • "Ramillies and three of her sisters were again sent to the Mediterranean Fleet in September 1922 during a crisis in Smyrna that culminated in the Great Fire of Smyrna as the Greco-Turkish War came to its conclusion." I would change "a crisis" to "the crisis".
  • Done
  • Good idea
  • "She was the first battleship to visit the country and Baillie-Grohman was presented with a Māori piupiu (a warrior's skirt made from rolled flax) by the head of the Ngāti Poneke, following a tradition established by the battlecruiser New Zealand shortly before the beginning of the First World War intended to ward harm from the ship's company provided that the piupiu was worn while the ship was in danger." This sentence seems to wander a bit.
  • Split the sentence and reworded a bit
  • "The German ship never entered the Indian Ocean" The Graf Spee?
  • Yes - clarified
  • "On 15 August, Ramillies shelled the Italian port of Bardia and Fort Capuzzo outside Sollum along with the battleships Malaya and Warspite and the heavy cruiser Kent." This could be read to say she shelled other ships. Suggest changing "along with" to "alongside".
  • Sounds good to me
  • "returned to Addu Atoll, in the Maldives, to refuel. While refuelling his ships, " I would change "while refuelling" to "while there" to avoid the repetition.
  • Done
  • "The explosion tore a large hole in the hull and caused extensive flooding, though damage control teams quickly contained the flooding and prompt counter-flooding prevented her from listing badly." A flood of flooding! I would change "contained the flooding" to "contained it".
  • Works for me
  • "Although engaged by both Ramillies and Warspite as well as the cruisers, the German vessels were able to escape after launching fifteen torpedoes. Forced to launch their torpedoes at long range, two torpedoes passed between Warspite and Ramillies,[68]" At least one "torpedoes" could be removed.
  • Cut the first clause of the second sentence.
That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:10, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Wehwalt. Parsecboy (talk) 12:42, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Wehwalt:--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:52, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support all looks good.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:24, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 19 July 2019 [18].

Frank Matcham

[edit]
Nominator(s): CassiantoTalk 15:14, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The English architect Frank Matcham was the UK's most famous theatre designer during the late-Victorian/early Edwardian period, and was responsible for the design of nearly 200 theatres up and down the country. Sadly, the 1960s turned a lot of his theatres into rubble and dust and now only a handful survive, mostly in London. Next year will be the 100th anniversary of his death, so I've decided to bring his article up to scratch to pay homage to his architectural genius. It's received an excellent peer review and I'm now opening it up here for future FA consideration. CassiantoTalk 15:14, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Iridescent

[edit]

Sources and images not checked; this is the version reviewed.

Support from Gerda

[edit]

Per the peer review. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:59, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from SchroCat

[edit]

I had my say in the peer review and it's been strengthened since then, from what I can see. Nice work, and great to see you back at FAC. I hope the trolls don't cause another break. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:20, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments and the support. I hope so to, but all the time people go on about infoboxes (little do they know of our conversation a few weeks ago about this very subject and my siding towards putting an infobox here. Oh well!) only time will tell. CassiantoTalk 13:52, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Tim riley

[edit]

Very happy to support now. This article meets the FA criteria in my view, and is an important addition to the online information about one of Britain's most loved architects. Mention Matcham to a theatre- or opera-goer and watch their faces light up. Thank you, Cass, for doing him justice, and in good time for his anniversary too! Tim riley talk 15:24, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from KJP1

[edit]

Cassianto - Apologies for the delay, days were busier than I'd hoped, although the punting brought back great memories. Very pleased to add my Support; a fine article on a significant architect, even if his output is a little gaudy for my refined palate! And good to seeing you editing again, although you've returned at a rather tempestuous time for the 'Pedia. KJP1 (talk) 19:10, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

KJP1, no problem at all. Thank you very much for such a great set of comments and all the help with Pevsner and the others. See you soon, best regards. CassiantoTalk 19:41, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review by Nikkimaria

[edit]
  • Suggest adding alt text
    • Alt text added to all images

Same with *File:Gaiety1.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:18, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks NM, I'll get onto these. There will be a few more, not yet on there. CassiantoTalk 18:32, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

[edit]
  • No spotchecks carried out
  • All links to sources are working
  • Formats:
  • Ref 4: Publisher details required
    • Blitzed, not needed.
  • Ref 29: I don't think there is a "University of Scotland"; the source is University of Glasgow
    • Switched. What was I thinking!
  • Ref 33: page reference required. Do we have any further details for this publication?
    • Checked on British Newspaper Archive, now added
  • Refs 58 and 60 appear to be identical
    • Not only were the refs identical, so was the bloody paragraph! Deleted.
  • Ref 71: hyphen in number range should be ndash
    • Done.
  • Ref 90: page reference required
    • Since added
  • Bibliography, Barron 2010: "Oxon" is not a place – WorldCat gives London & New York as publisher location
    • Changed
  • Earl 2008: For this ISBN, WorldCat gives publication year as 2005, and location as "Princes Risborough"
    • Changed both
  • Kilburn 2002: WorldCat gives year as 2004
    • Changed
  • ISBN mix-up: You have transposed the ISBNs for the Mercer-Walker and Wilmore books
    • Swapped over
  • Quality and reliability: Overall the sources meet the requirements for quality and reliability as per the FA criteria.

Brianboulton (talk) 16:27, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from RL0919

[edit]

RL0919, your comments have been addressed. Thank you so much for taking the time to give this review, and for your adjustments, all of which I agree with. I very much appreciate it. CassiantoTalk 08:19, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 19 July 2019 [19].

Masked booby

[edit]
Nominator(s): Aa77zz & Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:59, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about another sulid. I reckon it is as comprehensive and easy to read as I can make it. Lemme know what ta fix and I will fix pronto. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:59, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FunkMonk

[edit]
removed - apart from two that lead to different sections on another page - flight feather. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:41, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think a photo of a bird in flight should always be shown, for identification purposes. A selection here:[20]
Choice limited. I've added a low resolution picture of an adult. This is high res and clearly shows underwing but is a juvenile.
How about this[21] free one on Flickr? Maybe the flying image could be placed under description (it could be at upper left with the juveniles lower right), now it seems to clash with the tasmani photo under the taxobox. FunkMonk (talk) 19:45, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That looks good. I will look at getting it from flickr to commons tomorrow. Had a busy day and need to sleep added now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:52, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Likewise, though you do show an egg (in shadow and foreshortened perspective), this image might be a good addition to show the characteristics of the egg better:[22]
was trying to be economical with images, as there are alot with different aspects to show. agree this one is clearer, but is the article too image-heavy....will look tomorrow. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:52, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree articles shouldn't be galleries. But I always feel that if we have good images, we should always show the eggs as clear as possible, and the bird both as it looks on the ground and in flight (then Wikipedia can work as a visual field guide too). But I can also see that the current image with both a chick and an egg could serve to do this, though the egg is not very clear. There are no images in the last chunk of the article though, so I imagined the egg could be right aligned by sentence "Although two eggs are often laid" (or it could be placed where the current chick image is, which would then be moved down). FunkMonk (talk) 01:17, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I made a vertical gallery of sorts Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:52, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wonder why the tiny Tasman booby needs to be a separate article, unlike all the other subspecies? Could easily be covered fully here, it seems to only contain some info on its taxonomic history. It sseperation seems to simply be a remnant from back when the fossils were thought to belong to a distinct species, but there seems to be no justification for separation now.
I agree - I had intended to make this change. Tasman booby now a redirect. Aa77zz (talk) 07:33, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I agree with this too. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:08, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Show cladogram?
Not sure it adds terribly much, and we are at a premium of image-space with lots of useful images Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:32, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I won't push this issue further, but cladograms can usually create more room for images though, see for example Echo parakeet or Cuban macaw. FunkMonk (talk) 20:50, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ah ok, I was thinking of it in an image box, but your way is good when we have lots of images. So done now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:19, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A genetic study using both nuclear and mitochondrial DNA" Date, authors?
Year added. I avoid adding authors unless they are notable. Aa77zz (talk) 07:40, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The adult is almost wholly bright white with a dark face mask." and "The bare skin around the face, throat and lores is black". seems to describe the same feature in different ways, could it be consolidated?
Rejigged Aa77zz (talk) 07:33, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Backward-pointing serrations line the mandibles." I assume this refers to both the upper and lower jaws? Mandible only refers to the lower jaw, though.
It seems that ornithologists use mandible for both the maxilla and the mandible. The cited source has "upper and lower mandibles". The wiki article Beak#Mandibles also has "upper mandible". What do you suggest? Aa77zz (talk) 10:12, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If it's common jargon, it should be fine. FunkMonk (talk) 19:45, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The iris is yellow except for the subspecies S. d. tasmani where the iris is dark brown." Why not "it is" at second "the iris", instead of repetition?
Fixed. Aa77zz (talk) 07:21, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The image you use of the juvenile does not show the collar on the neck well, and is unsharp, how about one of these?[23][24]
Swapped image - much better Aa77zz (talk) 08:53, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • You don't show a breeding colony in the section, how about this?[25]
nice find. added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:04, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • How are the subspecies distinguished? Size only?
as far as I can tell yes, bar tasmani s iris colour. Will double check on this.
hbw claims the bare parts of the 4 ssp differ and gives descriptions: eg dactylatra has yellow-orange legs, personata has "drab olive to bluish grey (sometimes blackish)" legs.
Description of the ssp differences now added. Pitman & Jehl 1998 also tabulate the bare part colours in their Table 3 Aa77zz (talk) 09:56, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:04, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • You mention a synonym was based on a blue face, yet no blue faces are mentioned under description? Is it because there is variation, or because the same mask pattern can be described in both ways?
I believe that the latter is correct - the source, Marchant & Higgins (HANZAB), uses both black and blue-black. I've added blue-black to the article. Looking at photos on the internet the skin appears black rather than blue-black. Aa77zz (talk) 08:08, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • You give binomials for some animals mentioned in the latter part of the article, but not for related boobies in the beginning of the article. Could be consolidated.
Binomials added in the Taxonomy section and one removed later. Aa77zz (talk) 09:06, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "of the United States,, with single" Double comma.
Fixed Aa77zz (talk) 20:09, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "though the island fauna's regeneration after the removal of feral animals" Considering the preceding text (#with devegetation by feral animals creating open ground"), I'd assume you mean flora?
oops yes changed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:43, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "nests have been destroyed by green sea turtles" How and why?
looks like they just trash booby nests inadvertently as they pass through and dig their own nests. Clarified. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:17, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It may be that overfishing of tuna might adversely" Is the might needed when you already said it may be?
might deleted Aa77zz (talk) 08:40, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "negatively impacted on breeding on Christmas Island" Is the first on needed?
Removed Aa77zz (talk) 08:34, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Where usually 1500 pairs nested, zero young were observed" Wouldn't it be more straightforward to just say no young?
Changed Aa77zz (talk) 08:37, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The masked booby is a spectacular diver, plunging vertically or near-vertically from heights of anywhere from 12 to 100 m (40 to 330 ft)—but more commonly 15 to 35 m (50 to 115 ft)—above the water into the ocean at high speed, to depths of up to 3 m (9.8 ft)." Is this solely to feed? If it is, that could be explicitly stated, if not, it seems it would belong with the text directly under the behaviour header, which is about flight.
Yes it is solely to feed, which I thought was implied by its location under 'feeding'.clarified Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:07, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Fish, particularly flying fish... form the bulk of its diet," is followed by "various species of flying fish", which seems needlessly repetitive. You could make it less so by listing the flying fish species, or somehow consolidating the sentences otherwise.
listed species Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:34, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "that school near the surface" Only stated in the intro.
removed that Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:34, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The feeding section says "The masked booby is a spectacular diver", but the intro says "These birds are plunge divers and spectacular fishers" Could it be consolidated?
Yes/done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:11, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Masked boobies form monogamous relationships, many of which remain together over multiple breeding seasons." Not sure if a relationship can "remain together", is "together" needed here?
Sentence rejigged Aa77zz (talk) 08:50, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "he paces slowly with its neck and bill" Seems odd you go from "he" to "its" instead of "his". You also say his elsewhere.
Changed to his Aa77zz (talk) 09:06, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a bird flings their head vigorously" Its?
Changed Aa77zz (talk) 09:02, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "as the none is actually used in adorning" Redundant the?
Removed Aa77zz (talk) 07:36, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "At birth, the chicks are about" Are animals that hatch form eggs usually said to be born? Wouldn't something like "after hatching" or some such be more appropriate?
Fixed Aa77zz (talk) 08:23, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "24 years 9.9 months later" 24 years and?
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:18, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The longest distance travelled is 3,152 km (1,959 mi); a bird tagged at Raine Island in December 1981 was found picked up and released at Phillip Island in December 1986." Why is this under breeding? Seems it would fit better at the beginning of the behaviour section.
I had intended to make the section Breeding and lifespan to accommodate this, but forgot. However, the behaviour section is so stubby it can go there fine. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:18, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also about the above sentence, it would help convey the distance if you stated where these islands are located.
context added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:34, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dimensions of the egg?
Added Aa77zz (talk) 07:32, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
oops fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:59, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@FunkMonk: Thanks for your support and your thorough review. Aa77zz (talk) 08:04, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

[edit]
  • Verifiabilty:
  • Check link in ref 26. I am getting "Warning: Potential Security Risk Ahead"
removed url - doi gives access to article Aa77zz (talk) 20:31, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 51: unable to connect to this site
link-rot - it worked last week but is now dead. I'll try to find a replacement Aa77zz (talk) 20:31, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Replaced with a cite to a different source Aa77zz (talk) 21:13, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 57: This links to a search site; can you explain how I could use this site to verify the multiple information found in the second paragraph of the "Behaviour" section?
now linked to result of search Aa77zz (talk) 20:31, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 70: Link does not go to the stated page.
link gave wrong page when I first tried - but now works correctly. I'm puzzled. Aa77zz (talk) 20:39, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • General: some of the page ranges are very extensive, and create serious problems for verification, e.g. ref 2, 83–103; ref 16, 174–220; ref 25, 35–57; ref 46, 257–84; ref 51, 169–92; ref 61, 148–67; ref 66, 2–23.
ref 2 fixed, ref 16 is used 5 times - pages supporting the 5 statements are 174 (first), 186-186 (second), 194-197 (fourth and fifth), the third one I can't find but I didn't add that. Will look at the other one. Checking others and musing on how best to implement the pages identified. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:58, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've moved Ref 16 (Dorward 1962) to Sources and cited using sfn. (Cas - you added the third cite to ref 16 with this edit when you switched from HANZAB to Dorward. Both were correct - HANZAB cites Dorward (where the info is on p.179)) Aa77zz (talk) 10:20, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Formats : no issues
  • Quality and reliability: Overall, the sources appear to be comprehensive, and to meet the standards requitred by the FA criteria.

Brianboulton (talk) 16:05, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
  • ALT text missing for all images
alts all added now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:06, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • All images are appropriately licensed with links to sources where necessary
  • Some of the captions could use a bit of expanding for context, e.g. the infobox image (is it a male or female?), and the chick (where was it taken?)
captions expanded Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:06, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not too sure about the caption on the tasmani breeding pair; I think it would work better as a complete sentence (perhaps A breeding pair of subspecies tasmani and their chick, Norfolk Island). Note that Norfolk Island should probably be linked in the caption and the first instance in the body. SounderBruce 16:36, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
tweaked as suggested. thanks for review Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:06, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good, though I would like to see ALT text on the map (describing the general extent). SounderBruce 06:24, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt

[edit]
Here are some initial comments. I'm tired and when I'm tired I miss stuff so I'll finish the rest of it tomorrow.
  • "Nesting takes place in colonies, generally on islands and atolls far from mainland and close to deep water required for foraging." I might have put a "the" before "mainland" and before "deep", but it might be an ENGVAR thing.
yes to the first, but no to the second ("the deep water" sounds really weird to me...) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:59, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The French naturalist René-Primevère Lesson was a member of the crew on the French corvette La Coquille captained by Louis Isidore Duperrey on its voyage around the world undertaken between August 1822 and March 1825.[2] " I might cut one of the "French", possibly the first instance.
I removed the second, as we've been introducing names with their nationalities and callings consistently, and instead hoping the bluelink for the boat (and hte captain) will explain the voyage Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:59, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
done now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:59, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Hartlaub described this taxon in 1859 from Maydh Island off the coast of Somalia near Maydh." The latter part of the sentence seems a bit awkward.
Dammit, why couldn't they have been more creative with the naming....tried this, is that ok? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:49, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Meanwhile, large prehistoric specimens known from the former and Norfolk Island were classified as a separate species," If by "the former" you mean Lord Howe Island I would just say it.
tweaked now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:46, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • " as well waters off the coast of Spain.[43]" Should there be an "as" before "waters"? I started to add one then got concerned it might be ENGVAR.
not ENGVAR but mistake. fixed now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:46, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "was found picked up and released at Phillip Island (off Norfolk Island) in December 1986.[57]" Are both "found" and "picked up" needed?
no - tweaked now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:46, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "parasitizing" Is this correct or should it be "parasitizing"?
changed to brit spelling - though in Oz we do brit spelling + "ize" most of the time Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:19, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Other argasid ticks Ornithodoros capensis and the ixodid tick Amblyomma loculosum have also been recorded as parasites," I would think "ticks" should be "tick" (with the opening words adjusted to fit) but maybe not.
yes - I rejigged this bit a bit to make it flow smoother Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:54, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's pretty much it. I made some direct edits you might want to review. All else looks good.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:25, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
your changes are fine Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:19, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well done. Another one for the birds.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:35, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
thx! Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:43, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from JM

[edit]
  • "This species ranges across tropical oceans, except in the eastern Atlantic; in the eastern Pacific it is replaced by the Nazca booby (Sula granti) which was formerly regarded as a subspecies of masked booby." So it's absent in the eastern Pacific in addition to the eastern Atlantic?
tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:20, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could I recommend against the gendered term man-made?
I just removed both "natural and man-made" anyway Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:20, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you introduce Hartlaub? How about O'Brien and Davies? Holdaway? Steeves? Pitman? There's a little inconsistency in how you introduce new people!
done for all bar O'Brien and Davies, whose first names nor occupations can I find.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:41, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we need the bold on "Tasman booby"?
probably not - removed Aa77zz (talk) 19:44, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "now known as S. d. tasmani as it has priority over S. d. fullagari" Tricky; the it is perhaps unclear, here.
tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:41, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • It'd be helpful to identify the subspecies in the captions, perhaps?
added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:51, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The latter nests on steeper cliffs rather than flat ground" Steeper than what? Why not simply steep?
fixed Aa77zz (talk) 19:44, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Newport vagrant mention feels a little out-of-place, but that may be just me.
the segments are related to oceans, hence the Newport is after the Pacific range and the other American ones after the Atlantic Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:20, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Quite right; consider the comment retracted! Josh Milburn (talk) 16:22, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link for Cypselurus melanocerus?
fixed - now Atlantic flyingfish (Cheilopogon melanurus) Aa77zz (talk) 20:03, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps some pictures of prey species would add some visual interest?
added one. musing on layout... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:55, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Links for the tick species?
added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:51, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "On Clipperton Island, rats prey on the crab that eats vegetation, hence increased vegetation growth reduces the bare ground suitable for nesting sites." This has already been mentioned.
trimmed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:35, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suspect I know the answer, but: Any cultural significance? Have humans ever hunted them for any reason?
nothing's really come up so far on the former. You'd reckon they were eaten, and there is something in the paleoecology ones. Will have another look. I just stumbled over something else that should be added that I need to digest and add. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:33, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This strikes me as a very strong article, and I'm sure I will be supporting soon (though I've not looked at the images on sourcing in any detail). Please double-check my edits. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:24, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A few comments on images:

  • I'm struggling a little with the sourcing on the Starr images (lead and breeding sites images). This is probably my problem rather than yours, but could you double-check?
we've used alot of their images over the past decade. Will take a look. Their image use policy is linked from the image file page, and is comaptible with en.wiki guidelines. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:33, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
leaving it at more restrictive option as a safeguard, which was also specifically attached to that image on flickr Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:42, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Other than that, great. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:44, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

okay @J Milburn: you're happy to support then? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:03, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, happy to! Josh Milburn (talk) 06:20, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Josh Milburn (talk) 06:20, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

thx! Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:41, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 19 July 2019 [26].

Brothers Poem

[edit]
Nominator(s): Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 14:40, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a poem by the ancient Greek poet Sappho, discovered in 2014. It is the most recently-discovered of Sappho's poems, one of the best-preserved, and generated considerable excitement when it was first published both in academia and in the press. I got this article almost ready for nomination towards the end of 2017, but then spent 18 months mostly away from wikipedia; having returned and given it a final polish I believe it's ready to be put through the FAC wringer. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 14:40, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by Ceoil

  • you over use the word "poem".
  • The narrative direction is not well explained
  • I have high hopes for this page Ceoil (talk) 21:43, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ceoil: thanks for your comments (and edits!) You have me bang to rights on the overuse of(( "poem"; I have trimmed a few, but still count 38 instances of "poem" or "poems", plus 21 of "Brothers Poem", in the body text. Will have another run through and see what I can do about the problem...
    • In re. the narrative, does this edit help at all? I hope so! Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 17:31, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • as well as the language used - not very elegant (given the article is about a poem)
  • It is presented as speech - ditto; maybe first person narrative or something
  • criticises the addressee for repeating that Charaxos will return safely - I'd use a more dramatic word than "criticises" (google is your friend) - "repeating" maybe just "claiming", you could probably drop "safely"...and from where? So far we have no context. The word "safety" is repeated in the next sentence.
    • Re. "repeating": there has been some discussion of how exactly θρυλεω, the verb in question, ought to be translated; the fact that it is repetitive is a key part, however (it's a rare verb, but there are two poetic uses in Athenian drama: in Knights, Aristophanes uses it to describe someone who spends all night rehearsing their speech for a court case; in Euripides' Electra, Electra talks of every morning listing her grievances against her stepfather Aegisthus). The fact that the interlocutor has claimed that Charaxus will return is not, I think, the issue; it's that she keeps going on about it.
    • Re. where C. is returning from: we don't know. Possibly it was established earlier in the poem. Testimonia have him as a wine-trader and visiting Egypt, so he may be coming back from a trading voyage and/or Egypt, but those testimonies don't necessarily derive from the Brother's Poem, so that isn't certain. I have put a parenthetical note to that effect in the lead... Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 07:43, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • She then switches her focus. The "verse then switches focus" (not so sure how firmly you have established attribution by this stage).
  • Received rather than attracted academic and popular attention. Maybe be aware of flowery language from some types of sources. Ceoil (talk) 01:32, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm leaning support, but it still needs work. Ceoil (talk) 11:16, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The speaker chastises the addressee for repeating that Charaxos will return (possibly from a trading voyage, as later sources say that he was a wine-trader), instead maintaining that his safety is in the hands of the gods and offering to pray to Hera for his return. Huh? "repeating" who? But mostly, this makes no sense as written. Do you mean that only by praying to Hera, he has any chance of returning? Is this a fatalism thing? I see this is much better explained in the article body.
  • Instead the addressee should send her to pray to Hera for Charaxos' safe return - who is "her"? Ceoil (talk) 22:18, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'appear to have been either about the family and religious or cultic practices, or about passion and love.[49] The Brothers Poem is instead focused on her family - "about the family"..."is instead focused on her family". The first statement contradicts the second. Ceoil (talk) 00:26, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The most impressive was that containing the Brothers Poem, which survives on P. Sapph. Obbink,[1] a piece of a critical edition of Book - I don't understand this. The most impressive poem on the fragment "which survives on P. Sapph. Obbink" - survives? Who/what/when is P. Sapph. Obbink? Clf re "impressive", ie complete vs. its literary credentials. Ceoil (talk) 00:53, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • P.Sapph.Obbink is the papyrus fragment with the Brothers Poem on; the other papyri are known as P.GC. inv.105 frr.1-4. The point of this sentence is that the most impressive of the papyri is the piece with the Brothers Poem on – it isn't a comment on the poem itself. Tried to clarify. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 09:05, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The question of whether, and to what extent the speaker can be identified with Sappho' - the article doesnt really explain the "to what extent" part in this section, presenting the question as simply binary.
  • The classical historian Anton Bierl argues that Sappho's offer to pray to Hera is contrasted with a masculine ideology in which the pursuit of wealth is the solution to the family's problems, and therefore suggests a male relative of Sappho as the addressee Not well explained.
  • Lardinois sees the argument that Sappho's mother could have gone to pray to Hera for her son's safe return herself, and therefore it does not make sense for her to send Sappho to do so on her behalf, as the strongest against the thesis that the addressee is Sappho's mother, arguing on this basis for a male addressee. Drop 'safe', 'to do so' and 'on this basis'. Again all this, the cause and effect, is very unclear as written. Ceoil (talk) 01:03, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I object to The Daily Beast being used to cite this type of article, on any grounds. Its journalists cannot possibly have any expertise, and will have only summarized other sources. Surely we can find better secondary sources. Ceoil (talk) 01:30, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Human fortunes are changeable ("fair winds swiftly follow harsh gales"[2]): I know this is cited, but that makes it more worrisome - whose voice is this. Ceoil (talk) 19:14, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I cant support this. The more i look, the more fundamental problems I find. Needs a top to bottom c/e from an expert. Oppose Ceoil (talk) 19:18, 23 June 2019 (UTC) - Striking oppose as there has been a lot of work, and article is advancing nicely. Ceoil (talk) 04:49, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The article would greatly benefit from a separate section on attribution. Ceoil (talk) 03:37, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I would split out the paragraph which begins "When Obbink published the poem" into a separate sub-section, but unfortunately there really isn't much further to say – with the exception of this MA thesis (which per WP:SCHOLARSHIP would not normally be considered reliable), nobody seriously questions Sappho's authorship of the poem. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 12:14, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, I have split out a separate section on authorship. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 12:17, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you very much. Ceoil (talk) 01:34, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe rephrase "ancient biographical tradition"
  • "the best-preserved Sappho papyrus in existence." would paraphrase rather than leave in quotes
    Pff. Its hard to say anyother way.
    "The best preserved extant Sappho papyrus" - that way you avoid in existence, which is a bit History Channel. Ceoil (talk) 01:31, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    a bit History Channel ouch. Changed. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 18:42, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Am leaving this as it is for now: if I can come up with a good paraphrase I will consider it, but I have spent some time thinking about it and I haven't yet come up with a paraphrase as strong and concise as the original. Reworded the beginning of the sentence slightly to avoid the repetition of "papyrus". Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 12:14, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • the University of Mississippi...After the library at the university deaccessioned
  • Oxrhynchus Papyri Project - not sure this deserves triple capitalisation
  • A second piece of papyrus, Papyrus Oxyrhynchus 2289
  • When Obbink published the poem - is "published" the right word
    • Both the papyri and the poems contained on them are described as being "published" in the literature. e.g. A.E. Peponi, in Bierl & Lardinois 2016, talks of "the recently published Brothers Poem", Lidov 2016 says "when the poem was first published", and Lardinois 2016 says "twelve years ago two new poems were published". Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 12:14, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lots of improvement since I last read through. Ceoil (talk) 07:48, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now that we have a section on attribution, can we say Sappho rather than "the speaker"? I mean, it's about her brothers, or brothers in general. So at least, in a few instances, maybe switch from "the speaker" to "she".
    • The most recent paper on the song, by Peter O'Connell, scrupulously refers to "the speaker" throughout and avoids identifying her with Sappho. Though several scholars do identify the speaker with Sappho, the question is still not fully settled and though personally I would identify the two, I suspect that Wikipedia should not. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 18:42, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • that Larichos will grow into manhood - This seems a banal hope; ie that he will survive adolescence. Did she mean something more. Ceoil (talk) 02:17, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Articles about writing will of course come under especial scrutiny. I am happy with Caeciliusinhorto's prompt and good humored responses here, and as stated earlier, was very delighted to have seen this nominated in the first place; it seems to have been a brave but correct move. Support and more please Ceoil (talk) 09:56, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Ceoil: Thank you very much for your extremely thorough review! I am very grateful for all your feedback, and it's definitely a stronger article for your comments. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 20:49, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from JM

[edit]
  • "Charaxos to Larichos, who she hopes" Shouldn't that be whom?
  • "whether Charaxos and Larichos are the historical or fictional brothers of Sappho" This could be clearer, I think.
  • I'd like to hear more about the papyrus fragments. Do we have no idea of where Robinson got them from?
  • "though the Brothers Song was included in at least some Hellenistic editions of Sappho" Presumably now lost? Or have these been discovered in the last few years? I'm puzzled.
    • Ah, yes, this is puzzling to the lay (by which I mean "not me") reader... The papyrus we have was written in the Roman period, but it's a copy of the Alexandrian edition, which was compiled in the Hellenistic period. (My understanding of papyrology doesn't stretch to knowing why it is universally agreed that this is the case, but it certainly is, and if necessary I can cite several authorities on the point). I shall try to clarify in the article... Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 21:09, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know if this will be controversial, but would it not make sense to include the poem itself? Both in the Greek and in English? Or is the worry that the English translations will be in copyright?
  • The paragraph beginning "The first two surviving" is unreferenced.
  • "Most scholars agree that the addressee is some concerned friend or relative of Charaxos, many selecting Sappho's mother as the most likely option" Does your source identify that most and many scholars say these things?
    • It identifies some of the "many", who I have now added; it doesn't specifically identify the "most", though the only scholar to have seriously suggested anyone else that comes to mind is Anja Bettenworth, who suggests C's nurse. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 21:09, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per MOS:BADITALICS, you shouldn't italicise anything in Greek script.
  • The paragraph beginning "This is not universally agreed upon" takes it for granted that the speaker is Sappho; previously, this was an open question.
  • I didn't know the word testimonium, and a few dictionaries suggest that it's not a common word. Wiktionary doesn't even list it as an English word. Could I suggest using something more reader friendly?
  • "in fact Sappho's actual brothers" Do we need in fact and actual?
    • Cut "in fact" – does seem a little superfluous!
  • " The Brothers Poem seems to have been part of a series about Sappho's brothers,[49] though David Gribble disagrees with this conclusion." Then perhaps we should attribute the view that it seems to be part of a series to (a) particular author(s)?
  • "have dealt with Charaxos or Doricha" You are yet to introduce Doricha, so this is jarring.
  • "just as Sappho hopes in the third stanza of the Brothers Poem that Charaxos" Again, are you presupposing the identity of the speaker?
  • " most authors accept that the Brother's Poem is missing at least one stanza" Again, does your source specify most authors?
  • " or even, like the Gospel of Jesus' Wife, be a forgery" Are you missing some words here?
    • I am not, and I'm not even sure what is confusing here: can you elaborate?
      • I think it's the lack of a subject for that final be, but the tense switch also jars. "Other commentators expressed concern about the provenance of the papyrus, fearing that it had been illegally acquired on the black market, or even, like the Gospel of Jesus' Wife, be a forgery." How about "Other commentators expressed concern about the provenance of the papyrus, fearing that it had been illegally acquired on the black market, or even that, like the Gospel of Jesus' Wife, it was a forgery." Josh Milburn (talk) 06:21, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:P.Sapph.Obbink.jpg: I'm struggling with the PD claim here. Is the thought that the papyrus itself is not under copyright, so a scan of it can't be either? If so, you'll need a different PD tag, and probably a crop to just the papyrus.
  • Athenaeus isn't in the bibliography.
  • Ferrari is in the bibliography, but isn't cited.
  • A lot of items in the bibliography seem incomplete.

This is a really great article, and a really great topic for an FA. I hop this review goes well. And please double-check my edits! Josh Milburn (talk) 20:08, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review! Started to reply to your specific comments inline. Some of them are going to take a little more thinking about than others... Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 21:09, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@J Milburn: Thanks for your thorough review! I believe I have now dealt with all of your issues, with two exceptions:
  1. Regarding the commons tag for the P. Sapph. Obbink image, I am not sure what the best tag would be. Do you think that simply wrapping the current PD tag in c:Template:PD-Art is sufficient, or do you object to c:Template:PD-old-auto-1996 for some reason? If so, do you have a suggestion of a more appropriate tag?
    How about c:Template:PD-old-100-expired with c:Template-PD-scan?
  2. I haven't yet added an entry for Athenaeus to the bibliography. I have not referred to a particular edition of A, but there is a recent Loeb I could cite in the bibliography. Alternatively I could refer to Campbell's Loeb edition of Sappho & Alcaeus, which includes the line in Greek and English. Or I could add a biblio entry reading simply: "Athenaeus, Δειπνοσοφισταί [The Scholars at Dinner]", but that seems unhelpful: it doesn't add any new information onto that included in the footnote! Or I could simply cut the footnote entirely: the fact that he says such a thing is supported by the ref to Bär at the end of the sentence. Do you have any thoughts on which would be best? (I note that for my other references to the testimonia, I have not added a footnote at all: probably if it is worth doing it is worth doing consistently!)
    I agree with your point abut consistency. Perhaps removing it altogether would be best. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:19, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Do let me know if there's anything else you still are not happy with or think that I have missed. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 18:13, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok; first of all, sorry for the delay. I am very keen to support promotion. I can't access the Willis paper, but it's sufficiently obscure (and only loosely related to the central topic, I accept) that there's no reason to hold up the review until it has been read. There still seem to be a few places where the Sappho is uncritically referred to as the narrator, when, elsewhere in the article, this is presented as a controversial thesis. Here are the examples I noticed, but there may be others:

  • "Sappho hopes that Charaxos will return successfully from his trading voyage, and that Larichos will grow into manhood."
  • "The role of Sappho in the Brothers Poem has been compared to that of Penelope in the Odyssey; Sappho awaiting the return of her brother Charaxos just as Penelope (depicted here by Heva Coomans) waits for her husband Odysseus."

I think these need to be resolved; as it is contentious that Sappho herself is the speaker, we shouldn't present her as such in Wikipedia's neutral voice. Josh Milburn (talk) 13:52, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Two good spots, both now fixed. I have had another look through the article and can't see any other instances where we conflate Sappho/the speaker except when describing the views of specific scholars who do identify the two. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 14:40, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support. A great subject and a very well-put-together article. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:40, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]
  • Bär: You should probably use 'single quotes' for the quotes within quotes. Same for Gribble and Papadimitropoulos.
  • I would recommend including page ranges for chapters in edited collections, but it's probably not a problem if you don't.
  • Your date formatting is inconsistent.
  • Childers: Again, I recommend the use of single quotes; do you have a volume and issue number?
  • Could you take a look at Liberman? I had some trouble working out what it was that was being cited. The Obbink paper, too; I'm surprised by the italics!
  • If you don't have DOIs, perhaps links to online versions would help? Unless there are no online versions; an archived abstract, perhaps?
    • There are JSTOR versions for the two Obbink ZPE papers; and Childers appears to be available online. For Neri, it looks like the choice is between the abstract on the journal's website, or the paper on academia.edu. I've included the academia.edu version, as it conveniently gives the whole article, but I can't work out a way to archive that... Do say if you think the abstract would be a better target! Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 20:32, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neri: You should use the language= parameter.
  • Do you need to provide both access dates and archive dates? I'd recommend only the latter, but be consistent.
  • Most of your chapter/article names are in Title Case, but a few are in sentence case. Either's fine, but consistency would be good.

All sources appropriately scholarly; the ones that aren't scholarly are being used to show popular attention. No spotchecks done, not view on comprehensiveness. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:38, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support. My (minor) quibbles were attended to at the peer review, and it has been a pleasure to revisit the article after quite a gap. As far as a layman – this one, at any rate – can tell, it is comprehensive, and it is an excellent read, clear, balanced, and devoid of jargon. I have seen more lavishly illustrated articles, but the three pictures we have are all ad rem. Happy to support. Tim riley talk 20:16, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Tim! Your peer review was much appreciated, and your kind words there did a lot to persuade me that FAC might not be as terrifying as I had previously thought! Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 20:53, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by RL0919

[edit]

I reviewed this for GA back in 2016 and am glad to see it has made its way here. Setting this placeholder so I can comment this weekend, but from an initial scan it looks pretty good. --RL0919 (talk) 23:43, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here are my notes. A general theme is that it is important to realize that many will read articles like this with relatively limited background about the subject. The more people, places, and things that get mentioned without explanation, the more cognitive burden they accumulate: who/what is this? will I need to remember them later? etc. Wikilinks can help with this, but often a descriptive word or two can alleviate the problem even more easily, especially when there is no WP article to link.

  • "chastises the addressee for repeating": The word "repeating" by itself could mean "saying something over and over" or "repeating what someone else has said". Something like "repeatedly saying" would clear up the ambiguity. (Same for the similar phrasing in the body text.)
  • "According to James Romm": As Ceoil's initial reaction above indicates, an obvious question is who is James Romm, and upon seeing the linked source, the presumed answer will be "a journalist for the Daily Beast". There's no WP article to link, so something like "According to classics professor James Romm" would resolve the problem. (I haven't listed each instance where a named person has an immediate citation to their own writing, but assume readers will think this person must be a scholar or journalist according to the nature of the source. Where that isn't the case, as with Romm, a description would be helpful.)
    • I generally dislike the "classicist James Romm" approach because it leads to a lot of superfluous verbiage: obviously Obbink is a papyrologist if he is editing newly discovered papyri of Sappho! In the case of Romm I see the relevance, however: added a gloss. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 17:04, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "part of David Moore Robinson's collection": This time there is a link, but "part of archaeologist David Moore Robinson's collection" would explain sufficiently for the vast majority without needing to bother with a click.
    • Here is a case where I am not so convinced: it doesn't particularly matter that Robinson was a classical archaeologist, as we are not interested in his scholarship, only his collection. If people really care who he is there is the link. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 17:04, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and draws comparision to Lycambes and his daughters, from the poetry of Archilochus, and generally considered fictionalised": This wording is awkward because there doesn't seem to be verb leading to "and generally considered fictionalised". How about "and draws comparison to the poems of Archilochus about Lycambes and his daughters, who are generally considered fictionalised"?
  • "from the first book of the Alexandrian edition – i.e. those poems in Sapphic stanzas – ": A rare case where I think you may have over-explained. You already provided a note saying that the first book contains the poems in Sapphic stanzas, so it seems unnecessary to interrupt the sentence here to say it again. If needed you could link the same footnote a second time.
  • Sometimes you write "i.e.", other times you write out "that is" in English. This should be consistent. (My preference is for "that is" but consistency matters more.)

I went ahead and added several wikilinks and made some edits. Happy to explain them individually if you have concerns about any of my changes. --RL0919 (talk) 20:52, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm waiting to make sure the dust is settled on changes made in response to others before I do another full read-through, but I believe my previous issues have been addressed appropriately. One new issue I see: there is now a short citation to "West 2014" (currently ref 3) with no corresponding source under "Works cited". --RL0919 (talk) 00:27, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I thought I'd got all of the bibliographic changes correct! Now added. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 07:11, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the changes you've made in response to me and others have improved the article to the point that I am willing to support it for FA within my usual caveats about what I cover when I review. --RL0919 (talk) 23:19, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Haukur

[edit]
  • Great to see such detailed work on Sappho. And I love all the redlinks - so much still to be done! Licensing on the head image is an interesting question. Was the poem 'published' in the ancient world in the relevant sense for copyright law? If not, maybe 'PD-US-unpublished' is the more appropriate license? Haukur (talk) 10:40, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • US copyright law is very much not my area, so I am unsure. J Milburn advised on the current license – and therefore may have an opinion on the matter? I'm happy to go with whatever the consensus is that the correct tag is! (And on the redlinks: I suspect that every poem of Sappho's of which we have more than, say, 10 reasonably comprehensibe lines has enough scholarship to write at least a Good Article; I currently have Sappho 94 waiting on a GA review, and Fr.1 and Fr.31 waiting on me finding time to do them justice; one of these days I will write articles for frr. 5, 17, 96, 98, and the Kypris poem at least, plus I have plans for Poetry of Sappho and Reception of Sappho...) Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 18:00, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Reception of Sappho’s Brothers Poem in Rome" by Llewelyn Morgan is an interesting piece which attempts to tie the text to Horace. Could this be used? Haukur (talk) 10:48, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have read Morgan's piece (and have some notes on it lying about). I can't remember why I didn't add anything about it into the article – I will re-read it and see what can be used. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 18:00, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Having re-read Morgan, I think I haven't mentioned it at all because there just isn't that much there. He identifies some Horatian allusions to the poem, but he doesn't really do anything with that, and unlike with the Midnight poem or Sappho 31, there's no great tradition of poets riffing off of the Brothers Poem to tie it into. Beyond "Horace knew the poem, and alluded to it twice", there isn't really anything to say. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 20:06, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another plausible article, from 2018, is “Charaxus Arrived with a Full Ship!” The Poetics of Welcome in Sappho's Brothers Song and the Charaxus Song Cycle by Peter A. O'Connell. Haukur (talk) 11:03, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is new since I wrote the bulk of the article, and I haven't got immediate access to it: I'll see what I can do... Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 18:00, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hypothetically speaking, anyone who punched the DOI of the article into Sci-Hub would probably get access to a pdf file. Haukur (talk) 20:17, 26 June 2019 (UTC))[reply]
        • O'Connell's article is actually extremely interesting: thank you for pointing me to it. I think the most obvious takeaway from it to fit into the article is the discussion of how the BP fits into (or can be seen as fitting into) several different traditions within archaic Greek poetry; I add a little on that topic here. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 20:06, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 19 July 2019 [27].

Super Mario All-Stars

[edit]
Nominator(s): JOEBRO64 21:59, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Itsa me, a-Mario!" This is about a personal favorite of mine. Super Mario All-Stars is a video game compilation Nintendo released for the Super Nintendo Entertainment System in 1993. It's got the four classic Super Mario games released in the 1980s, which are known for helping shape the video game industry we know today. I grew up playing the Wii version, so I've got a big soft spot for it (even considering how bad the Wii version was...). Well-written, well-sourced, open for review. JOEBRO64 21:59, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Lee Vilenski

[edit]

Hi TheJoebro64, great article. Here's a few things I saw:

  • Is the Japanese footnote neccesary? I'm not sure on the policy on this, but just a check.
  • "They are faithful recreations that adapt the games' original premises" - not really neutral language for the lede.
    • I think this is neutral; it's discussing how the games are more or less identical to the NES originals. It's not in a hyperbolic or promotional context. JOEBRO64 19:20, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • " avoiding obstacles, and finding secrets" - Is secrets something that could be understood outside of a gaming article? Perhaps "secret areas".
    • Done, but I think "finding secrets" should be pretty easy for a video game neophyte to understand. Everyone and their mother knows what it means to find a secret. JOEBRO64 19:20, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are the dates neccesary? The articles are linked in prose.
  • Reviewers lauded Super Mario All-Stars as a must-have representing - Is "must-have" a term actually used in the reviews? Seems like it needs a [according to whom?] tag.
  • Critics also disagreed as to which game was best - Weird sentence, I'm sure prose goes into depth, but odd just to have this hanging in the lede like this. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:45, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Lee Vilenski: thank you for reviewing! I've responded above. JOEBRO64 19:20, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, looks like I forgot to come back and support. Good for promotion from me. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:27, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Abryn

[edit]

I quite like this article. I have a few sources that are not present (unless I missed them). - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 21:03, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Abyrn: thank you for these sources. I will implement them in the article later today. JOEBRO64 18:20, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Abryn: whoops JOEBRO64 18:21, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Abryn: been a bit since Friday haha. I've added the G4 and ONM reviews; I didn't add the History of Mario article since it didn't really have anything that's not in the article or the top 20 Wii games list since it's only about a sentence of commentary and I feel like anywhere I put it would break the flow of the section. JOEBRO64 22:22, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FunkMonk

[edit]
  • I only played the original NES versions, but interesting to read this nonetheless, will review soon. FunkMonk (talk) 01:27, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The image layout could be improved; to prevent the double image from clashing with the Development title below, it could be right aligned. Then, as is recommended by the MOS, the Miyamoto photo could be left aligned so that his head is turned towards the text rather than away from it.
Much better I think. FunkMonk (talk) 19:30, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nintendo Magazine System and Official Nintendo Magazine link to the same article, and are therefore duplinks.
  • Some of the footnotes need citations.
  • Does that Wii booklet mentioned have any usable additional info?
    • Sadly, no. The reviews are spot-on when they say that the one-sentence developer comments are vague and meaningless. There is a section on All-Stars, but all the comments are about The Lost Levels for whatever reason, and they're not really substantial. JOEBRO64 17:01, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@FunkMonk: thank you for taking a look! I've responded above. JOEBRO64 17:01, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I still see two instances of "an SNES". Looks good otherwise. FunkMonk (talk) 23:17, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@FunkMonk: I've fixed both of them. JOEBRO64 16:44, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "released at that point" Until that point?
  • "as Satoru Iwata said" Present him, as you do with other people mentioned.
  • "Nintendo Power held a" Explain this is a magazine.
  • I first found it puzzling that you didn't cover the initial release under the releases section, but then I saw it was called re-releases. I still wonder if it would be best to keep all the release info in one section? Release isn't really part of development anyway. Either that, or call the development section "development and release".
    • I've gone with the latter. I experimented putting the release information in the rereleases section, but chose not to because it looked a bit odd to have two short paragraphs in separate sections instead of a decent sized one in one, and the titling information seemed to come out of nowhere if they were split. JOEBRO64 22:54, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@FunkMonk: JOEBRO64 22:54, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by AmericanAir88

[edit]

Will add soon, but this is a very well written article. All citations, images, and links look great and I was a big fan of this game. AmericanAir88(talk) 17:58, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AmericanAir88(talk) 18:10, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@AmericanAir88, thank you for reviewing! Responded above JOEBRO64 22:54, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support AmericanAir88(talk) 21:00, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hijiri88

[edit]
  • Hi! Article seems pretty good overall, but I'm a little concerned that this Japanese game compilation is being presented from a specifically Anglo-American perspective, even at the expense of factual accuracy. For example, we take Nintendo Power at their word that the Japanese Super Mario Bros. 2 was an "innovation" of the game, while in Japan it was nothing new; conversely, the American Super Mario Bros. 2 had apparently been released ten months earlier in Japan as Super Mario Bros. USA, which I imagine, being released on a defunct system two years after the release of that system's successor, made it even more obscure than the Japanese Super Mario Bros. 2 -- a true FA-class article should probably include some discussion of the fact that while in the US it was almost all audiences' first look at the original Super Mario Bros. 2, in Japan it was probably most audiences' first look at the American Super Mario Bros. 2.
Also, Japanese Wikipedia says that a 2005 retrospective review in Famitsu gave the compilation 32/40; we can probably just copy that over and assume the offline, 14-year-old source they cite says what they say it does and just translate what they attribute to that, but I'm not sure one Japanese review would be enough. There's also an opinion it attributes to Family Computer Magazine but cites to Play Station Magazine (!?), so I'm not sure if we can use that without doing some digging. It would be one thing if it were an article on a piece of American media that had a notable following in Japan that none of en.wiki's readership was aware of or cared about, but with a Japanese property I really think at least some lip service should be paid to its reputation in its home country.
On a largely unrelated note, I'm not sure about the tone of some sections: Each game now includes the option to save progress reads like it was written at the time, when the original releases were "old" (or "then") and this compilation was "new" (or "now"). This one's not "make or break", but I'm curious why this decision was made -- we do generally write about these media in the present tense, but not as though they were new in contrast to their then-relatively-recent predecessors.
Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:44, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear, This one's not "make or break" was a slip. None of the above is "make or break" (i.e., "I oppose promotion of this article to FA status unless my demands are met"). It's just some things to think about, if other editors think it's important enough to latch onto, or want to amend the article to accommodate this. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:10, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Hijiri88: hey, thanks for taking a look. I see what you mean by the article being a bit Anglo-American centric. I've added clarification in places (e.g. background on The Lost Levels, clarification it was new for an American audience) and added the Famitsu review. I added a notable point from what I could make from an automated translation (wasn't Google, don't worry). As for the other reference provided in the Japanese article, Family Computer Magazine was a real publication that ran from 1985 to 1998 (the one in question must've been one of the final issues), but I don't see any actual commentary, just scores. Template:Video game reviews says we should only list publications in the review box if they're incorporated in prose, so since we don't have actual commentary I'm afraid it won't really add much to the article. For the American SMB2—it actually wasn't a new game to Japan. The American SMB2 is just a re-skin of the 1987 game Doki Doki Panic, and AFAIK it was pretty well-known even before it was rereleased as Super Mario USA. Legends of Localization has translations of Famitsu's reviews for both versions, and each reviewer acknowledged that it was the same game.
I'm currently scouting for more JP sources. I'll ping you if I dig up more. Also, I reworded the save line a bit—on the lookout for more instances where the wording could be improved. JOEBRO64 23:16, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by David Fuchs

[edit]

I will have other comments as I review the article more thoroughly. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 19:26, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Aoba47

[edit]
  • I would add ALT text to the infobox image to be consistent with the other images that have ALT text.
  • This is a rather nitpicky comment but for this part (poison mushroom power-ups, which can kill the player, are easier to distinguish), I do not think "power-ups" is necessary. I think "poison mushrooms" by itself would be enough, and I am uncertain if they count as a "power-up" since they harm the player more than anything.
  • For these two sentences (Critics said the games played just as they did on the NES and retained what made them great. EGM's reviewers were satisfied the various secrets were left intact.), there should be a space after the references to separate the sentences.

Other than these three rather nitpicky remarks, the article is in great shape. I would be more than happy to support this for promotion once my comments are addressed. I hope you are having a great week so far. Aoba47 (talk) 19:19, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47, done! Thank you for taking your time to review, and I also hope you are having a pleasant time. JOEBRO64 21:09, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 17 July 2019 [33].

Russian battleship Dvenadsat Apostolov

[edit]
Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:46, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dvenadsat Apostolov was one of the earliest Russian predreadnoughts built for the Black Sea Fleet. Completed in the early 1890s, her most notable action was participating in the unsuccessful attempt to recapture the mutinous battleship Potemkin in 1905. The ship was disarmed six years later and became a submarine depot ship in 1912. Immobile, she was controlled by whichever side captured Sevastopol after the Russian Revolution. Dvenadsat Apostolov stood in for Potemkin during the filming of The Battleship Potemkin in 1925 before she was scrapped. The article just passed a MilHist ACR and is in good shape. Regardless, I'd like reviewers to look for any remaining BritEng, unexplained or unlinked jargon and infelicitous prose.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:46, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport from PM

[edit]

This article is in great shape, and I really had to nitpick at Milhist ACR to find anything. A couple of minor things:

  • link displacement at first mention (in the Design section), rather than later
  • you could turn lk=on to link kW in the body and infobox

That's all I have. Great job on this. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:24, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would hope that all of my noms have such easy fixes! Thanks for your prompt review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 11:16, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:33, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass

[edit]

Gog the Mild (talk) 17:41, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. Then we may have a problem. The MoS, in MOS:ACCIM, states "Images that are not purely decorative should include an alt attribute that acts as a substitute for the image for blind readers, search-spiders, and other non-visual users." No ifs nor buts. I would, obviously, be happy to be pointed towards an escape hatch. I understand that there is disagreement as just what should be in the alt text and am prepared to give considerable latitude. But I don't see how I can sign the article off as meeting the MoS when it doesn't. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:27, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: This discussion might be informative. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:10, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: Very interesting. Bottom line, as I see it: the MoS says what it says; this article doesn't comply with it. My opinion and those of the editors contributing to the discussion are irrelevant to this. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:00, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The template for the infobox doesn't allow for alt text. I added one for the diagram.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:04, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's irritating, but I suppose can't be helped. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:23, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Gog the Mild

[edit]
  • "It also decided to move the forward turret back 7 feet 8 inches (2.3 m) because it thought that the ship might be bow-heavy, and revised the armament to four 12-inch (305 mm) guns" "revised" → 'revise'.
  • "All together these changes" "All together" → 'Altogether'.
  • "and could depress to −5° and could traverse 270°." "and could ... and could"?
  • Note 1: "All dates used in this article are New Style" Why the upper case N and S?
    • The template for displaying old and new style dates capitalizes the abbreviations for them, so I just perpetuated it.
Consistency is good, but the template is not used in this article, so why not go with the MoS and lower case them?
  • "but she was not fully ready for service until 1894" Do we know when in 1894 she was fully ready? Or what was lacking when she joined the fleet on 17 June 1893?
    • Annoyingly no.
  • "prevented an attempt by Captain Koland" The gentleman has not been formally introduced.
    • And I can't even find out his first name or anything else about him. Which probably means that he didn't make flag rank.
I meant: is he the captain of the Dvenadsat Apostolov? If so, could this be mentioned somewhere.
  • "The Naval Technical Committee proposed" "both proposals were rejected by the Naval Technical Committee" Not a big deal, but it reads oddly that the Naval Technical Committee were rejecting their own proposal.
  • "This was initially approved by the Navy Minister, Admiral Ivan Grigorovich in June 1909, but this was later reversed." Optional: Delete the second "this".
  • "she was used on various harbor duties" "on" → 'for'.
  • "while reportedly serving as a mine storage hulk" Does "reportedly" serve any purpose?
    • That's the language used by my source.
Damn. A fine point of prose wrecked by an inconvenient source.

Gog the Mild (talk) 17:41, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your thorough review. See if my changes are satisfactory.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:00, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Two follow up comments for your attention. Gog the Mild (talk) 08:59, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I think that things are clearer now. See if you agree.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:48, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent. Another cracking article. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:54, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

[edit]
  • No spotchecks carried out
  • Uncited content: see final sentence of first paragraph in "History" section
  • Formats: "Arbazov" in ref 6 appears to be a spelling error
  • Quality and reliability: no issues

Brianboulton (talk) 14:13, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Always something, isn't there? Thanks for catching these.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:50, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Parsecboy

[edit]

I reviewed this at the Milhist ACR and my concerns were address there. One little nitpick:

  • A couple of dupe links have crept in since the A-class review.

Nice work. Parsecboy (talk) 12:14, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5

[edit]

I do have some comments here.

  • Dvenadsat Apostolov (Russian: Двенадцать Апостолов—"Twelve Apostles") Unlink Russian here because of common term.
  • in exchange for an additional 75 long tons (76 t) in displacement Link tonnes here.
  • had six Siemens dynamos with a total output of 540 kilowatts (720 hp) Shoudln't horsepower be here the primary unit?
    • I usually see generator/dynamo output in kW.
  • Interesting, I'll take this one.
  • Germans in Sevastopol in May 1918 and handed over to the Allies in December 1918 Unlink Allies here.
  • by both sides during the Russian Civil War Unlink Russian Civil War here.
  • but was abandoned by the White Russians when they evacuated Unlink White Russians here.

@Ian Rose: This looks ready to be promoted. Can I nominate another?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:27, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sure -- I was close to going through this one for possible promotion on the weekend but the older noms took precedence... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:41, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Sturm, about ready to promote this but one query (aside from "reportedly", but you and Gog have been over that):
  • She was captured by both sides during the Russian Civil War -- um, simultaneously, or one after the other?
Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:26, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I missed this; I've been tied up on other stuff this last week. Clarified in the main body.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:14, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 17 July 2019 [34].

Odaenathus

[edit]
Nominator(s): Attar-Aram syria (talk) 02:36, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Odaenathus, king of Palmyra, king of kings of the East, saviour of Rome (at least in the minds of Roman writers), and the actual reason for Palmyra's rise! His wars against Persia healed the wounded pride of Rome which was shattered by the capture of emperor Valerian, the first Roman emperor to be captured by an enemy! But Odaenathus is overshadowed by his wife, Zenobia, and thats why not a lot of people know his story even though Zenobia contributed nothing to the power of Palmyra; she merely used what her husband built, including his army, generals and resources. Yet, she gets all the glory; the idea of a warrior queen is more attractive for people. I tried to give him the article he deserves, and I hope reviewers will enjoy this read. The article is already GA, and was copy-edited by the very helpful Gog the Mild.Attar-Aram syria (talk) 02:36, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Suggest adding alt text
Done
  • File:Odenaethus_bust.jpg: source link is dead - I found an available archive link but it gives a different licensing from the current tag
Seems it might have originally been non-commercial (which is not allowed). Or do you remember if it was the current licence back when you found it? FunkMonk (talk) 15:04, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria, I found the current location of the image[35], seems to be free, no? The licence and link just have to be changed. FunkMonk (talk) 17:24, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I was a beginner when I uploaded it years ago, and did not know that non-commercial not allowed. But for now, I updated the tag and the link and all should be fine
  • File:Bas_relief_nagsh-e-rostam_al.jpg should include an explicit tag for the original work
Done
  • File:Hairan_I.jpg: I am not sure why the given tag was applied, please explain
I got the image from a journal published in 1937. This volume's copyrights were not renewed in the US after 1963. I was introduced to this trick by FunkMonk during the nomination of Cleopatra Selene of Syria (see here [36]), which led to the upload of this image
  • File:Antoninian_Vaballathus_Augustus.jpg: source link is dead, should include an explicit tag for the original work
Done (and link replaced)
Done

Thanks for this Nikkimaria. Is it all satisfying now?.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 23:21, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FunkMonk

[edit]
Thanks mate. I will be working on this very soon
  • Zenobia is duplinked in pretty close proximity. I think I once linked the duplink tool, but here it is again:[37]
  • The names of various persons and places could be linked in the image captions.
  • Any reason why this image[38] is not used?
  • There seem to be some much more recent European depictions[39][40] of Odaenathus (and Zenobia) which could maybe be fun to show under legacy?
  • Link Palmyrene Kingdom in the intro, or would that just be a redirect to Palmyrene Empire?
  • I think you told me once the busts are identical, perhaps state if that's the case?
Alright FunkMonk, sorry for taking so long. I eliminated the duplinks and linked the names in captions. When it come to the more recent European depictions, Im not sure they can be used here, because it was the fame of Zenobia that led to their creation, not the legacy of Odaenathus. The king's appearance in those paintings is solely related to him being her husband. However, I will research the topic and if any more recent European depictions were made for Odaenathus himself for his deeds, then I will integrate this into the article. The link to a Palmyrene kingdom will just take you to the Palmyrene Empire. Now, the main reason why I took so long, was because you mentioned the busts. I decided that I needed to understand more about this topic, so I spent the last three five days traveling to different libraries and getting my hands on sources that address the topic. I found much, and photocopied many pages and Im using them now to create a new article about the portraits of Odaenathus. What I discovered is that it is more probable that the portraits shown in the article now do not represent Odaenathus. Those portraits have many parallels in Palmyra, and are really not special. However, the only special busts, one shows the subject wearing a tiara (like the son of Odaenathus) and the other showing the subject wearing a diadem (like that of the Seleucid kings) are the most likely depictions of Odaenathus. No other busts shows a diadem or a tiara; those were signs of eastern and Hellenistic monarchical power. Plus, we know from the portrait of Hairan (Herodianus) wearing the tiara that this object was the crown of Palmyra. According to modern research, those two busts are the only 90% certainty depictions of Odaenathus. The bad news is: we have no free photos. I have no idea why it was decided by Wiki that non-commercial use is not accepted. The photo of the bust with the tiara is the only evidence we have. It is an old photo, and the statue itself was discovered in 1939 and it is now lost. Meaning that we will never have any other photo of it. IFPO were nice enough to release their archive for free, but non-commercial use, and the photo of the tiara bust (the tiara is broken but you can notice a hole in the bust where the tiara would have been inserted) exist in this archive this link and this (photo of the upper part of the bust showing the opening for inserting the rest of the tiara). Therefore, it is important that we get the photo one way or another!
Interesting, You think that info is too much to incorporate into the article? And how about this image?[41] As for non-commercial, I have no idea how it was decided, but I think it's due to the "used for any purpose" statement. FunkMonk (talk) 18:44, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, thanks to Wiki not so bright rule, we cant have the only photo of the bust that most likely depict Odaenathus. I had to remove the photo of the infobox and replace it with a more likely depiction that is not very clear. I incorporated the info to the article and used the image you noted
  • "and 'Ôden in Aramaic" But isn't Palmyrene a form of Aramaic? Which would mean that 'Ôden is in some specific other kind of Aramaic?
Guess the author is referring to imperial or standard Aramaic. Palmyrene is an Aramaic language, but it evolved enough to be called its own language, so some words can have a different pronunciation in Palmyrene. The source itself does not specify this (guess the author is expecting the readers to automatically understand this, and thats a common feature in academic texts where the authors think that all their readers are specialists in the field)
  • "the name of his father, Hairan" and "Hairan could also be of Aramaic etymology". I think this could be stated more ambiguously than saying one thing in the text and another in the note. I think the note should be consolidated into the main text, so it doesnø't seem like you are contradicting yourself.
I deleted that note. Stonemann and Powers are historians but not linguists. Specialists tend to support the Arabic etymology
  • "No images of Odaenathus have been discovered" Rather no definite images? If there are several that could be him, we can't say no images?
fixed
  • "thus, he cannot be a son of Hairan son of Odaenathus (I).[17][41] Therefore, it is certain that King Odaenathus is the builder of the tomb" Why is this present tense, when the preceding text is oast tense?
fixed
  • "and Hairan son of Maliko son of Nasor (left)" I think you could mention in the caption that it may be a relation of Odaenathus, to establish why the image is relevant?
done
  • Is there any speculation of why Odaenathus was chosen for his ranks?
I wrote one
  • There is no mention of Odaenathus in the Edessa section, could he somehow be placed in context within that section? Or maybe that entire section should just be shortened a lot and merged with the text at the beginning of rise?
The section of Edessa is a very important background. Readers need it to understand what will come next. I also cant merge it in the rise section because chronologically, Edessa was the last event before Odaenathus declared himself king. But since you noted this, I removed the section and merged it with reign. This way, the declaration of Odaenathus as king can be connected with the events that happened before
I think it works much better now. FunkMonk (talk) 23:18, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "while Balista was captured and executed by the King in autumn 261" Until this point, it seemed like Balista and Odaenathus were allies? Why was Balista killed? Or does "the king" not refer to Odaenathus?
Allies? more like waiting to see what will happen. Once it became clear the coup is failing, Odaenathus choose the side of the emperor and attacked Emessa
Much clearer now, but "when it became clear that Gallienus will eventually win" should be past tense (would)? FunkMonk (talk) 15:24, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done
  • Regarding "the King", I think King should only be a capitalised when part of the name? Such as King Odaenathus?
changed
  • "derived from the Aramaic root" duplink since it is already inked in the first section?
Weird, I used the duplink tool several times and did not show me this
I think sometimes it doesn't recognise them if the other link is a redirect rather than a direct link. FunkMonk (talk) 15:24, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "two inscriptions in Palmyrene dialect" Palmyrene link should be moved to first section instead.
changed
  • "destroyed the Jewish city of Nehardea" Link Jewish?
changed
done
  • "and freeing Edessa and Carrhae" Is it perhaps biased to say they were "freed"?
changed
  • "rowned his son Herodianus (Hairan I)" He should be linked at first mention in the article body.
He is. In the section Odaenathus I
I see, was searching for "Herodianus". FunkMonk (talk) 15:24, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since King of Kings is discussed here, I might note it is currently nominated for GA... May benefit from the look of an expert.
  • There seems to be little to no mention of Zenobia from during Odaenathus' lifetime? Had she no significance until he died?
Yes, she was just a stay at home wife according to actual evidence (the Augustan History makes her a partner in campaign command.....) but this is discussed in her own article
Seems it could warrant at least a footnote here then? FunkMonk (talk) 15:24, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Footnote added at the first mention of Zenobia's exploits
  • "to face an influx of Germanic riders attacking Anatolia" Anything to link?
linked
  • "the story is neglected by most scholars" Or ignored?
changed
  • I don't understand why you have two different bulleted lists repeating much of the same information before and after "Instigators and motives theories". Why not consolidate the two?
I couldnt. Maybe a man named also Odaenathus killed the king according to Syncellus, but what was the motive? should I add the sentense: "according to Syncellus, the king was killed by a man named Odaenathus" to every motive paragraph? Same goes for every assassin mentioned. Thats why its best to list the names of the men who might have done it first, and the people who supported those men second.
  • "meaning that Odaenathus' eldest son and co-king was Hairan Herodianus" What is meant by this? Now it reads like that was his entire name, though the preceding text implies it is the same name in two languages?
Yes, it was common that an upper class Palmyrene have a local and Greek name
  • A lot of terms in the burial section could be linked, such as Mummification, inhumation, sepulchral, architrave.
Done
  • "that Maeonius was proclaimed emperor for a brief period" Emperor of what? And if Palmyra, how come a different title than Odaenathus had?
In the Ruler of the East section, under the bulleted Imperator totius orientis paragraph (last one), I mention that it is the Augustan history that claimed that Odaenathus was proclaimed Augustus (Emperor). Hence, since the account of Maeonius is from that source, the title used is that of an emperor
  • "two Persian tigers" reading this, I would think it refers to a population of tigers from Persia, but the image caption says "he Persians who are depicted as tigers". Could this be consolidated? And how is it known they represent Persians?
Just the hypothesis of Gawlikowski because the only tigers known to the Palmyrenes were the Caspian tigers. I re-wrote it a little to make it clearer
Interesting, by the way, that tiger population is now extinct, so perhaps say "once common". FunkMonk (talk) 15:24, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done
  • Shoudn't the tiger image be listed in the paragraph that discusses his depictions?
It is more important for the legacy section since it is connected to the proposed hero cult. In any case, like all other depiction, it is not certain that the man depicted is Odaenathus
I meant more just a mention, but no big deal. FunkMonk (talk) 15:24, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I didnt get it the first time. I think its better not to list every possible representation. I am collecting every possible depiction in the new article about this topic in my sandbox talk page
  • "hence, Odaenathus merely retook abandoned city" Cities?
fixed
  • "Septimius Odainat, romanized as Odaenathus" Shouldn't the title of the article be shown first?
Is it better now?
Yes. FunkMonk (talk) 15:24, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "largely at the mercy of the Persians" Links to the modern country of Iran, is that appropriate?
changed
  • "Odaenathus attacked the remaining usurper and quelled the rebellion. He was rewarded with many exceptional titles by the Emperor" Not sure if I missed something, but I didn't understand this from reading the article body itself? It could probably be made clearer.
Done

Jens Lallensack

[edit]

Looks good!

Sorry for the late reply Jens Lallensack, but your note about the bust and FunkMonk's note about the same topic made it important that I expand on the topic, which is what I was doing for the past few days (see here)
  • "Odaenathus" is the Greek transcription of the King's name – the intro says its latinized?
I meant romanization. I blame my sometimes clumsy English. Fixed
  • his name, 'Dynt, the name of his father, Hairan, and that of his grandfather, Wahb-Allat, are Arabic, – above it was stated that it was Palmyrene
The name 'Dynt is the Palmyrene version of an Arabic name. Its like today in the west Salah al-Din is Saladin. We can call this the English version of an Arabic name (while the man himself was a Kurd)
  • SE (Seleucid year)) – is it possible to get rid of the double bracket?
It annoys me as well, but I could'nt come up with a solution. We need to indicate what SE means as most readers will not understand it
  • Image caption: Odenaethus' bust from the museum of Palmyra – It was stated in the text that the attribution of any busts to Odaenaethus is far from sure. Maybe indicate this ambiguity in the caption.
fixed
  • In two image captions you use the spelling Odenaethus, is that a typo?
fixed
  • Bilingual inscriptions from Palmyra record the title of the Palmyrene ruler as ras in Palmyrene – This confuses a bit as it seems to be in contradiction with the preceding sentence. Only in the next sentence it becomes clear – a bit to late, it disrupts reading flow.
  • Section "Ras of Palmyra" – shouldn't most of the content under "Rise" also fall under this heading, as it is about the Ras?
  • the Palmyrenes might have elected Odaenathus to defend the city. – Shouldn't this be discussed together with and its incursions which affected Palmyrene trade,combined with the weakness of the Roman Empire, were probably the reasons behind the Palmyrene council's decision to elect a lord for the city in order for him to lead a strengthened army? These very similar sentences are completely separated.
I have re-organized the rise section, so I hope it looks better now. Sometimes you cant keep simple reading flow when discussing an ambiguous topic. I cant move most of the content under "rise" to "ras". The former section discusses the circumstances for the creation of the title while the latter discusses what Odaenathus did as a bearer of the title.
  • after Philip the Arab – I would add "Emperor Philip the Arab", to help readers like me that are unfamiliar with the less famous Roman emperors.
fixed
  • to occupy the area; while – I would not use ";" together with "while" here. Either the one or the other.
fixed
  • Odaenathuss – Should it be with apostrophe?
fixed
  • After this year, a governor, Septimius Worod, was appointed for the city of Palmyra – was this a roman governor?
Palmyrene appointed by Odaenathus. Fixed
  • The evidence for the second campaign is meager; Zosimus is the only one to mention it specifically. A passage in the Thirteenth Sibylline Oracle is interpreted by Hartmann as an indication of a second offensive. – So this Sibylline was written by Zosimus? Not entirely clear. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:21, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Zosimus did not write the the Sibylline which is introduced in the Administration and royal image section. Zosimus mentioned the campaign clearly. But in the Sibylline, a collection of "prophecies" obviously written after the events it prophesized and probably by an anonymous Syrian writer serving Odaenathus, there is a "prophecy" that Hartmann intrepreted as indicating the second capmaign

LouisAragon

[edit]

A great article Attar. This is my second or third review, so go easy on me ;-))

Thanks for taking the time Louis
  • "Mlk Mlk DY MDNH" (Western Aramaic)" -- Did any other rulers of Palmyra/Syria hold this title?
Not as far as I know (well, aside from his successor Vaballathus)
If its only attested for two rulers, it might be valuable to explain/mention this full title in the body of the article. For example "Mlk Mlk" is already mentioned separately, but "DY MDNH" is not as far as I can see. Please correct me if I'm mistaken.
It existed in note 19, but I wrote it in the main text now)
  • "By 263, Odaenathus was in effective control of the Levant, Mesopotamia and Anatolia's eastern region." -- When I click on Mesopotamia, it shows "Upper Mesopotamia". Did Odenaethus take all of Mesopotamia (including Sasanian-ruled Mesopotamia) or just the Roman-held parts?
Only Roman Mesopotamia. I made it clear
  • In the first alinea of the body, you mention several foreign names/words (including Palmyrene, Arabic and Aramaic) without using italics. In the rest of the article, you do use italics however for all foreign languages.
Thats difficult. Where to use it and where not? Should we use Italics for Zonaras? or every mention of Hairan? but those are the forms used in English. Odaenathus itself is not an English name, should we use italics?. What do you think Gog
Note: I used Italics now for Palmyrene names (Italics are not used for proper)
  • "Byzantine historians of the sixth century, such as Procopius, referred to him as "king of the Saracens", meaning of the Arabs." -- Suggestion: add a link to "Byzantine".
linked

More later. - LouisAragon (talk) 12:00, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • "The tribes attacking Anatolia were probably the Heruli who built ships to cross the Black Sea in 267 and ravaged the coasts of Bithynia and Pontus, besieging Heraclea Pontica." -- Suggest adding a link to "Pontus"; either Pontus (region) or Bithynia and Pontus. If you're going to choose the latter, please remove the link to Bithynia (Captain Obvious, I know).
linked
  • Support - Read the article two more times but couldn't really find anything. This article is extremely well referenced and written in full compliance with the FA criteria. A superb piece of work. - LouisAragon (talk) 23:17, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note

[edit]

Don't think I could see a source review for reliability and formatting -- you can request at the top of WT:FAC if necessary. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:14, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass

[edit]

I'll have a look at it. Give me a little time. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:48, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Gog for this thorough review
  • Citations 4, 14, 25, 27 have their harv links to their sources broken.
fixed
  • Altheim et al (1965) is incorrectly labelled as Altheim & Stiehl.
fixed
  • Matyszak (2004) is listed under sources, but not referred to.
fixed
  • Eight cites use "p." (not pp.) when referring to multiple pages.
fixed
  • Brown (1939) should give the page number range; as should Cataudella (2003), De Blois (2014), Drinkwater (2005), Gawlikowski (2005a), Hartmann (2008) and (2016), Kaizer (2009), Klijn (1999), Kropp & Raja (2016), Potter (2010), Powers (2010), Sartre (2005a), Teixidor (2005), Wadeson (2014), Wintermute (2011).
fixed
  • Butcher (1996): has something gone wrong with the formatting? (Several faults, hopefully self evident.)
I dont see errors tbh. Butcher wanted to review the book of Potter, but he had more to say than just a review. So the title used in the article is literally the one used by Butcher (see link)
  • Damascus and Palmyra: a journey to the East: needs an upper case J
fixed
  • Maximinus to Diocletian and the 'crisis': needs an upper case C
fixed
  • Kaizer (2008): could we turn the upper case into title case please.
Same problem as with Butcher. This is the exact title of the article (see link)
  • Vervaet (2007): title case please.
fixed
  • Cooke (1903): ISBNs did not exist in 1903. Are you referring to a later edition?
replaced with oclc because Im using the 1903 edition
  • I consider Gibbon a seriously unreliable source. Could you not find other sources for the two occasions on which you cite him?
I removed the first instance of Gibbon and replaced the sentence with a new one. The second instance is important I believe. The Augustan History listed Odaenathus as one of the thirty tyrants, i.e. usurpers, despite him not claiming the imperial throne or rebelling against an emperor, and Gibbon is the only one to give a possible reason. However, I did indicate that this is the opinion of Gibbon

With the exception of Gibbon the sources used appear reliable. I am unable to find any other sources which would materially add to the content of the article. The sources referred to support the text cited, insofar as I have checked them. I found no unattributed close paraphrasing. I consider the sources to be current, as these things go. A reasonable mix of perspectives are represented. Everything that I would expect to be cited, is.

Gog the Mild (talk) 20:53, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. A pleasure to work on this excellent quality article again.
  • Cite 228 has a broken harv link.
fixed
  • Page number range missing for Kuhn.
fixed
  • Kaizer: It doesn't matter what the title etc is in the original, the MoS requires it to be given in title case. (It's a bizarre title IMO, but that's not our problem.)
fixed
  • Butcher: See above. But I see what you mean about the rest. A little odd, but it is what it is.
fixed
  • Gibbon: it the limited way you use I suppose that it is acceptable.

Gog the Mild (talk) 10:57, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 16 July 2019 [42].

1969 Curaçao uprising

[edit]
Nominator(s): Carabinieri (talk) 00:31, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This was a major event in the history of a small country. The article reflects all significant scholarship on the topic and I'd be interested in getting some feedback. Carabinieri (talk) 00:31, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Suggest adding alt text
  • File:Curacao-CIA_WFB_Map.png: source link is dead
Hi User:Nikkimaria, thanks for your comments. I believe I've addressed them:
  • I've done the best I could, but I'm still a little unclear on the difference between alt texts and captions.
  • I've added an updated link. Does the fact that this map appeared in the CIA Factbook make it public domain?

Sources review

[edit]
  • The sources all seem to be scholarly and appropriate. However, there is a serious concern about the method of referencing, which is organised in a way that makes verification nearly impossible. Typically, each fact-packed paragraph is given a single citation, which appears at its end; this citation generally consists of multiple works and page references, with no guidance as to what refers to what. The referencing needs to be reorganised, so that individual statements and, in particular, direct quotations can be traced to a specific source.
  • The language of the source, if other than English, should be stated – see refs 28, 30, 31, 34.
  • It is standard practice for FA bibliographies to include ISBN details, unless there is a specific reason for omission. Brianboulton (talk) 21:52, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your review, Brian. As a reader, I find having a footnote after every sentence very distracting. That's why I generally don't use as many, but I'll increase the footnote density to make it clearer which source covers which claim. As to your other two points, they're not really standard practice outside of Wikipedia and I've never really understood why we do it here. But if you think it's important I'll implement them.--Carabinieri (talk) 00:10, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's a minor point, but it's probably best to follow Wikipedia's standard practices when working on Wikipedia. Brianboulton (talk) 12:26, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
User:Brianboulton, I believed I've addressed all the issues you've raised.--Carabinieri (talk) 06:24, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oh and by the way, I can send you PDFs of most of the sources, if you want to check anything.--Carabinieri (talk) 18:24, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FunkMonk

[edit]
  • I know nothing about this topic, but it looks interesting, so while I would usually wait for someone else to comment, I'll have a look soon so it won't get archived just yet. FunkMonk (talk) 16:38, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • " which is a country (Dutch: land) within the Kingdom of the Netherlands" and "seat of government of the country Netherlands Antilles" kind of confuses me. So it is a country, but also part of another country, both within the kingdom of the Netherlands?
Got it now on second reading, somehow I missed that the latter described a former entity. FunkMonk (talk) 00:20, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "while the former spoke Papiamentu" You could explain in parenthesis what kind of language this is. I see you explain it by the end of the article, as "Papiamentu, a Creole language", but would be best earlier.
  • "The Dutch colonization of Curaçao began with the importation of slaves" Slaves from where?
  • "rhetoric as Black Power and civil rights movements" Link those. I see then former is linked further down, but should be at first mention.
  • "many Antilleans traveled abroad, including a number who studied abroad" The double abroad looks repetitive.
  • "The uprising would parallel anti-colonial, anti-capitalist, and anti-racist movements" Link these terms.
  • "When Vitó started being published in Papiamentu rather than Dutch in 1967" How long had it been published until then?
  • "In many ways, black Curaçaoans' situation" Reads a bit awkwardly, "the situation of black Curaçaoans" maybe?
  • "Although a progressive priest" Seems a bit disjointed if you don't mention his name or nationality.
  • "was about read a declaration" Missing to?
  • You can choose a more exciting thumb still for the video if you use the thumb time parameter, see for example the videos under description in the passenger pigeon article.
  • "and guard banks and other key buildings" Guarded?
  • "countries.Deliberations" Missing space.
  • "as Antilleans and the Surinamese" Why only definite for the second group?
  • "Dutch parliament discussed the events" Why not "the Dutch"?
  • "Anderson/Dynes" Wouldn't "Anderson & Dynes" be a more common way of citing?
  • Link Sephardic Jews?
Thanks a lot for your feedback.--Carabinieri (talk) 00:00, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Indy beetle

[edit]

Fascinating subject. My comments:

  • I'm in agreement with the above comment about the citations containing to much condensed referencing information; this makes it hard to verify what came from where.
  • I've already greatly increased the density of footnotes in response to that comment. I'm not sure how it's hard to verify the information: one only has to look at the footnotes and then check the sources. I understand that over the years it's become common practice, particularly on FAs, to have more footnotes than sentences. (It was one of the things I was most struck by when I returned to Wikipedia after a rather lengthy hiatus a while back.) I don't really see how this trend is all that helpful though. It mainly just makes articles grotesquely cumbersome to read. Is there a particular statement you're having difficulty verifying?--Carabinieri (talk) 03:37, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I assume Trinta de Mei does not translate to "1969 Curaçao uprising"; the English translation of this phrase (30th of May?) should be given too.
  • It made promises of improving workers' conditions that it was unable to make good on. Was the DP unable to do this due to the economic realities of the country's small economy, or was there a hesitancy to actually carry out its promises?
  • I suspect it was some combination of both, but the sources aren't any more specific. Anderson & Dynes just write that there was a "legacy of expectation among laborers that the Democratic Party would do something to alleviate the many economic problems that plagued them. The emergence of the May Movement was not unrelated to the fact that the Democratic Party, as the party in power in the central government, could not live up to such expectations."--Carabinieri (talk) 03:37, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although the progressive priest Amado Römer had warned... When did he make these warnings?
  • In 1957, the Federation reached a collective bargaining agreement. With whom?
  • In May 1969, there was a labor dispute...Vitó was heavily involved in the strike...It was not made clear that this dispute involved a strike. Recommend either saying so explicitly, or qualifying the word "strike" with "subsequent" or "resulting".
  • that month there was significant labor unrest taking place throughout the Netherlands Antilles. Recommend ditching passive voice here, perhaps "that month significant labor unrest occurred throughout the Netherlands Antilles."
  • a moderate labor figure was about to read a declaration announcing a compromise So Werkspoor attempted to negotiate with the strikers?
  • First, a pick-up truck with a white driver was set on fire...Was the driver (intentionally) harmed, or did the strikers only (seek to) damage the vehicle?
  • The police was attacked with a fire truck that had been sent to support them and whose driver was shot and killed. Was the driver shot and killed by rioters and then the firetruck hijacked, or did the police shoot the driver after he attacked them?
  • I wondered about this myself while I was writing the article, but Anderson & Dynes just say the following: "one of two fire trucks that had been sent to support the police was set on fire and pushed in the direction of the police lines. The man at the steering wheel, later identified as an employee of WESCAR, was shot and killed." I'm guessing that means the latter (i.e. that a striking worker got behind the wheel as the truck was being pushed), but I'm not sure, so I decided to leave this ambiguous as I wrote this.--Carabinieri (talk) 03:37, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps this then: "Two fire trucks were dispatched to assist the police. One was set on fire and pushed towards the police lines with a striker steering it. He was shot and killed." -Indy beetle (talk) 18:52, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another 300 Dutch marines arrived on the island... This presumes they were not part of the island's garrison. Is it known where they came from? A nearby ship?
  • Seeing as the local government "requested the assistance" of the marines, it seems they lacked the power to directly order them to intervene. This begs the question, who issued that order? Was it local Dutch commanders, or officials in the Dutch government?
  • Because the Prime Minister of the Netherlands Antilles and others were absent during the uprising, the request "was made by lower ranking officials", according to Oostindie. Though the troops were deployed immediately, the request wasn't officially approved by the Kingdom Council of Minister until after the riots had ended (and then the additional soldiers were sent). Another aspect to this is that under the 1954 Charter, the Netherlands were constitutionally required to provide military assistance. I've added a little more information.--Carabinieri (talk) 03:37, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • On June 5, Prime Minister Ciro Domenico Kroon, who went into hiding during the uprising... This should probably be mentioned earlier.
  • All agree that revolution was never in the cards. "In the cards" is a euphemistic phrase, and here I'm not sure what exactly it means. Revolution was never the goal of the rioters? Or there was never even a possibility that the uprising could be considered a revolution?
  • I don't think of "in the cards" as a euphemism. What would it be a euphemism for? Some participants may have had aspired to start a revolution in this situation, but what this is saying is that the uprising never came close to turning into a revolution.--Carabinieri (talk) 03:37, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • All three were arrested during the uprising This should be mentioned earlier. Also curious as to how Godett was arrested; was he taken into custody upon his discharge from the hospital?
  • The contradiction between the calls for independence and the desire to remain in the Kingdom for economic reasons is mentioned, but is not adequately explained. The Antilles rejected an independence plan, but there were also calls by the populace for independence in the uprising's aftermath. Was there a public discourse on the matter, or significant disagreement between the government and the people on what course to take?
  • Unfortunately, the sources don't go into much more depth in this regard. Oostindie & Klinkers, the canonical source on this topic, focuses mainly on the Dutch and Antillean governments' policies, not the public debate. There were surveys on the issue which showed that most Curaçaoans were opposed to outright independence and in favor of continuing some kind of constitutional relationship with the Netherlands. I've added a sentence mentioning that.--Carabinieri (talk) 05:27, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

-Indy beetle (talk) 04:44, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks a lot for your feedback. I think it really helped.--Carabinieri (talk) 05:29, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Indy beetle: Did you have any further comments/concerns? --Laser brain (talk) 12:01, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for not getting back to this sooner. Congratulations on a well-written article about a fascinating subject; offering my support for promotion to FA. -Indy beetle (talk) 02:32, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Jens Lallensack

[edit]

Very good read, only few nitpicks:

  • Its status had been changed in 1954 by the Charter for the Kingdom of the Netherlands – but what was the status before it was changed?
  • Before 1954, the Netherlands Antilles was a colony of the Netherlands, mainly ruled by the Dutch government, but with some local self-government. Do you think that needs to be mentioned? I omitted it because I thought it wasn't relevant to what happened in 1969.--Carabinieri (talk) 22:33, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I like the way you are keep reminding who the mentioned people were even if already mentioned; helps a lot
  • advocated a political struggle in his speech to the strikers – What precisely did he demand from the government in this speech (which apparently was triggering the uprising)?
  • Mainly he was demanding that the government resign or be removed. I've added a little more, both in this paragraph and the preceding paragraph in the "Labor dispute" section.--Carabinieri (talk) 22:33, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • How was political power monopolized by the white elites? Blacks weren't allowed to vote? I did not fully comprehend what precisely hindered the Curacaoans from voting for a black president before the uprising. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 09:03, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Monopolized" was likely putting it too strongly. I've changed it to "political power was mostly in the hands of white elites". Blacks were allowed to vote and they could have voted for black politicians. However, the parties were mostly in the hands of whites and there was not yet a concerted political challenge to this arrangement before 1969. Obviously, this changed after the uprising and whites also realized they had to include black people in government.--Carabinieri (talk) 22:33, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks for your comments, Jens. I hope I've addressed them adequately.--Carabinieri (talk) 22:33, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for addressing these points. All good. Supporting now! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 06:51, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator notes + support / source review pass from SnowFire

[edit]

I've had this on the Urgents list for a while but unfortunately it doesn't have sufficient support for promotion despite all the feedback. I'm hoping it will get some more attention soon, otherwise it will have to be archived. --Laser brain (talk) 11:43, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is about ready now but I notice that the nominator hasn't taken an article all the way to FA for a long time, so I'd like to see a reviewer undertake a spotcheck of sources for accuracy and avoidance of close paraphrasing -- unless someone's done so and I missed it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:50, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be happy to provide pdfs of most of the sources to anyone willing to do this.--Carabinieri (talk) 13:56, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Carabinieri: Since nobody else seems to be stepping forward - I'll volunteer to do this source review. It will require the journal PDFs, however - if you can send Google Drive share links or the like to my email, that'd be appreciated. One question first though: this article portrays the event as rather momentous locally, a turning point. Do "general" historians of the Caribbean consider it as important, as well? Sometimes specialist literature can slightly overplay the importance of whatever it is that they're studying specifically, because nobody wants to write a journal article on "this event didn't really matter and was quickly forgotten" - not saying that happened here, just something to be aware of. SnowFire (talk) 19:55, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
User:SnowFire, thanks for volunteering. I'm putting the sources together to send them to you. Just a brief note on the importance of the event: I don't think the uprising is a significant even in Caribbean history. Curacao is a very small country and the uprising took place around the same time as more significant events like the Cuban Revolution or the Black Power Revolution in Trinidad and Tobago. I've taken a quick peek at several "Brief History of the Caribbean"-type books and none of them mention, as far as I can tell by the Google Books previews. The only exception is "Modern Political Culture in the Caribbean", which has a very short paragraph on the uprising itself and several more about the background and aftermath, but this is in a chapter that is specifically about the Dutch Caribbean, so it also doesn't place it in the context of the broader history of the Caribbean. Similarly, the book "Black Power in the Caribbean" also has a chapter about the Dutch Caribbean, much of which is about the 1969 uprising, and it is one of the main sources in the article, but neither the chapter itself nor the book's introduction make any claims about the uprising's significance with respect to the Caribbean in general.
Unless I'm overlooking something, the only claim about the uprising's significance the article makes is: "It was a pivotal moment in the history of Curaçao and of the vestigial Dutch Empire". I don't think there's any denying that. Many of the sources used in the article aren't about 1969 specifically, but about some aspect of the history of Curacao, the Dutch Antilles, or the Dutch possessions in the Americas. Pretty much every one of them mentions the importance of the uprising. Anyway, I'll get started on the sources.--Carabinieri (talk) 12:30, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just a few comments, reading this is still ongoing.

  • Carabinieri, didn't get Oostindie 2015 in your pack - is that possible to send over? If not, it's not a huge deal, don't need everything, but the quotes at the end of the "Uprising" section should ideally have a reference, which is presumably Oostindie 2015. I know you said that you don't like citation spam, which is fair, but think that per-sentence quotes (even if they all point to the same named reference) is probably good practice here.
    • In the same way, ÷"[DP] made promises of improving workers' conditions that it was unable to make good on" in Background isn't exactly in 1975, so I presume that's in 2015 as well. Might want a bit more context there since every politician ever makes promises they can't make good on. EDIT: Okay, it was in A&D 1975, but... not exactly a stirring endorsement with the uprising being "not unrelated to [DP] could not live up to such expectations." While this is referenced from a source review perspective, I'm not sold on its inclusion from a content perspective - the impression I get is that the economic slowdown in the 1960s was the problem and the DP's "promises" being unfulfilled was a tiny symptom. (Like, in the alternate world where the DP said "bad news we are all screwed there is no economic hope" I dunno if anything would have been different.)
    • Actually I'll just quit with this because there's a number of interesting claims that seem to be referenced to a few sources one of which is the 2015 journal article, so I'll hold off on comments in case you can send it over which would speed this up. (EDIT: Thanks!)
  • "This led to a segmentation of Curaçaoan society into landskinderen, those who had been in Curaçao for generations, and makamba, the new inhabitants from Europe. The latter had closer ties to the Netherlands and spoke Dutch, while the former spoke Papiamentu, a local Creole language." --> The impression I get from the source is that it was specifically talking about the splintering of white, Protestant Curacao society - so landskind spoke Dutch too, but they were the grandchildren of the old colonials and had a provincial education, while the newcomers had actually economically useful educations. Meanwhile as best I can tell Afro-Curacaoians made no such distinction; Makamba is translated by Oostindie 2015 as loosely "Dutch/White", so a general term. I think this requires some revision.
    • While on the above note, the 1975 source notes a good deal that the racial divide was also a religious one - that most of the African-descent population was Catholic (vs. the Protestants & Sephardic Jews), and this is in various other sources too (e.g. Romer 1981). Is this worth including somewhere, or was that incidental? (I recognize that the background section is already arguably too long.)
  • Social and cultural effects - I see you've referenced Verton 1976 here. In fairness to the source, Verton is also highly cynical, and while he acknowledges "upward social mobility for well-educated Afro-Curaçaoans" he also thinks the whole thing is a bit of a sham - that it just created new patronage positions for educated blacks, that the politics didn't change, that nothing improved for the poor who stagnated. Is Verton alone in believing this? This is quite a dated source written only a few years after the event, so not saying the above should be included, just curious.

SnowFire (talk) 03:23, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    • Although I suppose, on second look, this is already in "critics have also blamed mismanagement and corruption by the new political elites" at the end of the paragraph. SnowFire (talk) 06:30, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know how to express this properly, because it's very weird, but the lede might do better at dispelling misconceptions - specifically that the Netherlands wanted to cut loose its colonies that its voters saw as poor, irrelevant, and sources of immigration, and it was the population of the Antilles that resisted independence. It'd be easy to assume based off the anti-colonial elements in the lede that the Dutch wanted to keep their colony while the activists wanted out, the usual way this works (e.g. in the Portuguese Empire in Africa) and that isn't quite the case here. Flip side, the lede space is precious, and the most hardcore activists were certainly influenced by Cuba and the like, so I'm not sure how best to express this myself.
  • Great, thanks, that was a very useful source. Really after checking various references only the above concern about the landskind sentence + two-three questions / thoughts remain. I've checked quite a lot of the references and they are almost all accurately matching the content in the cited pages, so things look good after the above issues are dealt with. SnowFire (talk) 06:30, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your very great feedback. I've added footnotes to that paragraph at the end of the "Uprising" section. I've changed "[DP] made promises of improving workers' conditions that it was unable to make good on" to "This relationship [between the DP and the labor movement] was strained by its inability to satisfy expectations it would improve workers' conditions". That makes it more directly about the conditions that gave rise to the uprising and aligns it more closely with what Anderson and Dynes say. You're totally right about the lanskinderen-makamba issue. I've reworked the paragraph, let me know what you think. I thought about adding information about the religious divide, as I wrote the article. I think, at one point, I actually did add it, but then changed my mind. Although several of the sources mention this fact, none of it say it contributed to the uprising in any direct way. If you think it would be helpful, I'm not opposed to introducing it to the article. I've added "while others defended this relationship [the Antilles' constitutional relationship with the Netherlands] as being beneficial to the island" as well "while the Netherlands Antilles itself resisted independence out of fear of the economic repercussions" to the lede. Is this the kind of change you were thinking of? The uprising's leaders and possibly many of the participants did think of the situation in terms of anti-colonial struggle as in Cuba or Angola. A majority of Curaçao's population and political leaders, it seems, did not. Thanks again for looking at this and your very helpful comments.--Carabinieri (talk) 23:49, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, looks good to me. If the Catholic part doesn't come up that much, totally fine to keep it out. I edited the lede a bit with the parts you just recently changed; take a look? I am still not 100% sold on the landskind phrasing we have now, but it's a lot closer to ideal, and I admit I'm not sure what the proper spin here is myself since most of the other sources don't talk about this particular split too deeply. Nice work! Support on both content and on accurately mirroring the sources, reference spotchecks checked out or have been fixed per above. SnowFire (talk) 06:51, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know about the changes in the lede. "Still, others who were satisfied with the political situation as being beneficial to the island nevertheless decried societal inequality." I'm not sure who this is referring to. I can't remember any of the sources drawing a connection between support for the Charter and calls for equality. "most citizens of the Netherlands Antilles resisted independence out of fear of the economic repercussions" I'm not sure this is entirely accurate either. According to surveys, most citizens did oppose independence, but "resisted" would appear to imply that they opposed it actively in some way. None of the sources say they did, as far as I remember. They weren't actually asked for their opinion in a referendum until 1993.--Carabinieri (talk) 23:09, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Carabinieri: Feel free to adjust my modifications then; what I was trying to get at with the first change was that there were unhappy rioters who weren't seeking revolution (per later in the article & sources that a full-on independence movement was not in the cards). My second change was more a manner of grammar than of content - it's slightly old-fashioned to say "the Netherlands Antilles itself resisted independence" where a personification of a country represents the will of its citizens or some such, so I spelled it out with "most citizens of." I'm definitely open to other options. SnowFire (talk) 02:04, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from TRM

[edit]

I reviewed this for GA and there's no reason to disallow this based on an arbitrary lack of support, particularly if nothing is actionable to make it "better". Some application of common sense is helpful here. All I can say beyond supporting is : "May 31–June 1, 1969" shouldn't that be spaced en-dash per MOS:DATE? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:08, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note, it would also be helpful if Indy beetle, who gave really good feedback, could take another look an possibly offer some comments relating to the resolution of their concerns, and maybe even a support? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:10, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, User:The Rambling Man. You're right about the dash thing. I've changed it.--Carabinieri (talk) 18:42, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Red Phoenix

[edit]

I arrived pretty late to the party, but I found this a very interesting subject as I read it. I found it very well written, and I can see where there's already been significant refinement to the prose of the article. Essentially all I could identify was a missing apostrophe in a word, which I corrected myself. I do have a couple of prose suggestions I'll list below, none of which will be a barrier to my support because they're minor in my eyes:

  • All in all, the uprising cost two lives, identified as A. Gutierrez and A. Doran, left 22 police officers and 57 others injured, and led to a total of 322 arrests, including the leaders Papa Godett and Amador Nita of the dock workers' union and Stanley Brown, the editor of Vitó. - is there a need for "All in all" here? It doesn't sound terribly encyclopedic.
  • However, the soldiers immediately joined police, local volunteers, and firemen as they fought hard to stop the rioting, put out fires set in looted buildings, and guarded banks and other key buildings while thick plumes of dark smoke emanated from the city center. Yet, many of the buildings in this part of Willemstad were old and burned easily. - Two consecutive sentences starting with transition words just reads odd for sentence fluency.
  • Paragraph before and after the Aftermath header start consecutively with "The uprising" - even separated by a section header, this reads a little repetitively. The next one after that starts with "The uprising's leaders", which contributes more to this.
  • On June 1, 1969, 300 to 500, some of them Antillean students, marched in support of the struggle in Curaçao and clashed with police in The Hague, the seat of the Dutch government. Maybe it's just me who didn't get this right away, but 300 to 500 what? I get it's implied it's people, but is it a group of people? It's a bit ambiguous this way.

Excellent job with this article. Red Phoenix talk 15:27, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Phoenix. I've made some adjustments to the passages you listed.--Carabinieri (talk) 13:34, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 16 July 2019 [43].

Payún Matrú

[edit]
Nominator(s): Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:50, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a volcano in Argentina. It was active starting from the Pleistocene until recent times, that is until 515 years ago, and consists of a shield volcano capped off by a caldera formed during an explosive eruption and a mass of monogenetic volcanoes. It is not particularly remarkable as far as volcanoes go, save for its giant lava flows which are among the longest of the Quaternary; one of these is known as Pampas Onduladas and is almost 200 kilometres (120 mi) long. If such an eruption were to occur today, though, it would not be much of a threat to anyone; the region is thinly inhabited. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:50, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Hurricane Noah

[edit]

Quite an impressive article. Most of those issues should be easy to fix. NoahTalk 01:01, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Hurricane Noah:Thanks. I think I got all these issues. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:26, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Looks fine now... Support NoahTalk 10:21, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Tim riley

[edit]

A few spellings looked a bit odd to me, at first read-through, but it may an Engvar thing:

  • Aerodinamically – aerodynamically?
  • Sinouous – sinuous?
  • Abovelying – is there such a word in AmE? Looks very odd to an English eye.
  • Coulee – the OED prescribes an acute accent. Engvar, very possibly, as I know AmE users are allergic to diacriticals.

As far (not very, or indeed not at all) as I am any judge the text is authoritative and comprehensive. It is certainly very readable for a non-expert visitor. I lean towards supporting, but will, if I may, delay signing on the dotted line, to see if more informed editors than I express a view on the scientific content. – Tim riley talk 21:10, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Tim riley: Nah, these were mostly typos; I've remedied them. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:17, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging Tim riley to see whether SnowFire's comment satisfies more informed editors than I express a view on the scientific content. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:38, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to support, having read those comments. Tim riley talk 05:23, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Suggest scaling up the stratigraphy
  • Suggest adding alt text
@Nikkimaria: Got them. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:55, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]
  • Spotchecks not carried out
  • Links: all links to sources are working, per the external links checker tool
  • Formats
  • Ref 1 requires retrieval date
  • Ref 99 is not properly formatted, and requires retrieval date
  • Replace hyphens with ndashes in the page ranges in refs 10, 48, 50, 88, 107
  • Ref 121 requires pp. not p.
  • Use of "Retrieved" and "retrieved" in sources
  • In sources, Diaz requires "in Spanish"
  • Same for Mikkan 2017
  • External links: Smithsonian Institute is used as a source (ref 1)

Comments Tentative support from Cas Liber

[edit]

Taking a look now....

...whose foot coincides with the 1,750 m (5,740 ft) elevation line and which extends mainly east-west... - this comes out odd. Might be better as, "whose foot extends mainly east-west and coincides with the 1,750 m (5,740 ft) elevation line" (?)
That wouldn't work as the "east-west" bit is about the volcano as a whole. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:04, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
..it covers about 5,200 km2 (2,000 sq mi) of land with lavas - I don't understand the use of lava in plural here.
Remedied. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:04, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
hang on, is it the volcano that rises 2 km above the surrounding plain or its foot?
The source says verbatim stands 2,000 m above the surrounding plain; this will need more rewording to avoid close paraphrasing issues if we put "plain" in. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:04, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Para 2 of Local needs some work. Just not sure how just yet....
Did some rewrites here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:04, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
... the area of Payún Matrú is largely devoid of permanent water resources - do we need "resources", which is a word we'd use for servicing human settlements or businesses. Either "sources" or leave out altogether.
Changed to "sources". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:04, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
..The volcanic field has erupted rocks... - "erupted" is odd here as a transitive verb.."produced"?
Yes; changed this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:04, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There are two profile/landscape photos of the volcano. Can we add any information as to where they are taken from (what aspect) as I am otherwise unsure if is necessary to have both....
@Casliber:The files don't have this kind of information, seems like, although the aspects appear to be different (note the shape of the summit crater). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:04, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, looking better...more questions:

Right, I feel this is a difficult topic to get a good flowing narrative in the prose, and I think you've done the best you can. I can't see any outstanding prose or comprehensiveness issues but my eye for detail is not as good as some others' so I'll offer a tentative support Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:41, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SnowFire

[edit]

This is a bit out of my domain, but I had a geologist friend give the article a look over, and he didn't see any obvious problems or suspicious sources. Support. Other comments, all optional:

  • I am of the reverse opinion of Hurricane Noah, spelling metric units out is just fine in my book rather than abbreviating them. It's a stylistic preference either way.
  • There are several references to the "local population" and "oral tradition by local inhabitants". Who are these locals? Part of the indigenous peoples in Argentina I presume? If so, do they have a name? What (possibly extinct) language was "Payún Matrú" originally in? If the last eruption was 500 years ago, this was a Pre-Colombian era eruption then. Are there still the same locals now, or is the area largely Europeanized like the rest of Argentina, in which case it'd be more like "According to the original local population" rather than the current one? (Yes, I recognize that info about Amerindians in Argentina is really shoddy and this information might be hard to get at, but hopefully there's at least a name somewhere.)
    The first unfortunately only vaguely refers to "local people". Regarding the second, after a bit of turns this source says No volcanic activity was witnessed in the last 200 years, since Argentinean colonization, but according to a local Indian their tribe was already in the area when the last eruption occurred, and it is likely that this oral tradition has existed no more than several centuries (Groeber 1946). None of the sources about the volcano discusses ethnicity or the like. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:34, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    For the second, then, maybe best to be explicit and mirror the source - see this edit (feel free to adjust or revert, I didn't know the page number to cite from Inbar & Risso). SnowFire (talk) 19:12, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @SnowFire:Regarding although no eruptions have been observed since the European settlement. the source says no human-recorded eruptions I am not sure if these should be considered synonyms. I've added the pagenumber to the other reference. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:23, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm pretty sure my interpretation is what the source means. If we only have an oral tradition of an eruption, it's technically true that we have no human-recorded eruptions, but the key word is "recorded" not "human". People were there, they just didn't have written records. Better and clearer to say "none since Europeans arrived" then say "no historical eruptions" and force the reader to know that "history" starts with European settlement in academic usage. SnowFire (talk) 22:11, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Eh, we'll see if anyone else has concerns about this being unduly interpretative. I agree that "historical eruptions" is a mite unclear but it is hard to define. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:16, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It is also known as Payun Liso,[25] Payún and Payún Liso.[26] " --> Despite what your Spanish teacher said, accents are not really THAT important in the age of Twitter, especially for place names that are probably not originally Spanish. This (and "Payun" from the previous sentence) is all basically the same name. Pick the most popular spelling (Payun?) and use that in the previous sentence, and move the alternate spellings / abbreviations to the Footnotes section? Or keep just "Payun" and "Payun Liso" in the text as an alternative.
    With respect to Payxn Liso, it seems like either spelling is used in sources. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:34, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Uneroded volcanic cones and dark basaltic lavas indicate that activity continued into the Holocene and oral tradition by local inhabitants indicate that recent volcanic activity occurred,[17] although no historical eruptions have been observed." --> I know that this means "historical era" in the sense of written history, but suspect this might still confuse some lay readers. Maybe something more like "Uneroded volcanic cones and dark basaltic lavas indicate that activity continued into the Holocene. Oral tradition by local inhabitants indicate that volcanic activity occurred during the Pre-Columbian era, but no eruptions have been observed since."
    I don't think Pre-Columbian era is correct here as Europeans arrived to these parts of Argentina later. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:34, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    That's what I was trying to express in the above sentence - that the last observed eruption was pre-European settlement. If you don't like Pre-Columbian era for that, would just writing it out work? (Geological time "recent", sure, but "recent" might throw some lay readers.) See same edit as above. SnowFire (talk) 19:12, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Future volcanic eruptions would be unlikely to constitute a hazard" --> Did any of the sources also comment on if future eruptions are likely, a separate issue from their impact if they happen?
    Not as far as I can tell. I suspect that like most volcanoes in the world, the future hazard of eruptions here is not well studied, probably also because it's so remote. I see that SEGEMAR (the Argentine geological agency) has no webpage for dangerous volcanoes. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:34, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Andesite? In the Andes? It's more likely than you'd think!

SnowFire (talk) 13:56, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SnowFire:Thanks for the review; commented on some points. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:34, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Red Phoenix

[edit]

This was a neat article to read. Argentina has always seemed like an interesting part of the world to me since I took classes on Latin America years ago. Oddly enough, reading this made me want to put on Top Gear: Patagonia Special as background noise while I prepared this review. Bear with me as I'm admittedly not the best prose reviewer, but I'll let you know what I see from a good reading.

  • On a note of comprehensiveness, does this volcano have a cultural history at all? Have people lived here and does it have a significance to a culture? If not, we're in good shape here, but I wondered since it's part of an area listed as selected to be a World Heritage site (and if that significance applies to the area and not this volcano, I understand it belongs better elsewhere).
    Not as far as the sources go, and I am inclined to believe that as far as Google Scholar is concerned absence of evidence is evidence of absence, as it usually covers even foreign language topics extensively. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:12, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The highest point of the volcanic field is the[17] 3,796 m (12,454 ft) high,[1] conical, eroded Payun stratovolcano.[17] - The first citation feels like it's in a very weird spot, and given it's in the same sentence at the end, I would personally presume it's safe to remove. I'm sure the intention was to be very specific on the citation but it's a bit visually distracting in this format. That or perhaps the sentence can be reworded to avoid this?
    Hrm, the first source does not give the elevation and the second does not say that it's the highest (but gives no counterargument either). That's why it has a split reference. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:12, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not an expert in geology, admittedly. I see that lava rise and lava tumuli are redlinked. Is there an article that covers these even if not at full article depth for someone reading now who doesn't know?
    Not currently; I think that this publication may contain explanations. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:12, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other volcanic fields in the region are the Llancanelo volcanic field, the Nevado volcanic field and Salado Basin volcanic field, the first two lie north of Payún Matrú and the last south. - wouldn't a semicolon make more sense than a comma for the last separation between the list of volcanic fields and their

locations? Otherwise, it sort of looks like part of the list.

Very nice job with this article. I enjoyed reading it, and it reads to me as very professionally written, informative, and chock full of facts. It pretty well reads as FA standard to me, though I'd like to have my comments answered just to be sure, and I'll be willing to lend my support. Red Phoenix talk 18:05, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Red Phoenix: Replied to the points. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:12, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
All right, looks good. It's enough explanation for me. Support. Red Phoenix talk 21:39, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bulleted list item

Comments by Ceoil

[edit]

This is very impressive and hope to support. Two things to start off;

  • some terms are used repetitively, eg lava flow, volcanic field. (not stating this as actionable, but as a warning for some c/es)
  • "Payún Matrú developed over sediments and volcanic rocks ranging from the Mesoproterozoic to Tertiary ages" - I dont get this. Developed upon, or during. Would prefer that terms like Mesoproterozoic were clarified with eg (1,600 to 1,000 myr).
  • the 1,750 m (5,740 ft) elevation line, the wot?

Ceoil (talk) 19:37, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, Ceoil. I've taken the liberty to match your header to these used by other commenters. Regarding the first point: I've unlinked some excessive "lava flow" links, I am not sure about whether replacing some mentions with "flow" is a good idea; when I read the text with "flow" mentally subtracted I always feel like "what kind of flow?". Not sure about other words. I've rewritten that sentence and added some million years dates on some of the date metrics. Replaced "elevation line" with "elevation contour", does that fix the problem? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:03, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes mostly thanks. We just ec'd, so I might reintroduce some errors or some such shortly, but to say this is a fascinating read. Ceoil (talk) 20:12, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, so can you be clearer. Ceoil (talk) 22:16, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Reworded a bit more. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:39, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 9 July 2019 [44].

Cut the Crap

[edit]
Nominator(s): Ceoil (talk) 19:43, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Career disastrous album by the second most important of the late 1970s foundational English punk bands. There is a good, but very unfortunate story here. The level of inter-band and band vs management warfare during its recording would make Joffrey Baratheon blush, and alas lead to their eventual demise, with many careers and reputations destroyed along the way. Although the album was at the time uniformly critically maligned (to put it mildly), it contains, according to more recent critics, and myself, at least three seminal tracks - "This Is England", "Dirty Punk", and "We are the Clash".

The article represents a long lost project between myself and the much missed WesleyDodds. There was a very rewarding PR, during which User:BLZ was invaluable, outlining a structure and and digging up many of the sources, and Moisejp made many copy-edits and salient observations before the final expansion. Ceoil (talk) 19:43, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Suggest adding alt text

Comments Support from Cas Liber

[edit]

Ok, big picture - an engaging read and a thorough dissection of the album and its (sad) story, so quite comprehensive. Although engaging, the prose does have some POV language and overuse of quotation that needs tweaking. I'll post some queries below: Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:21, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

... and they weren't really communicating - a tad informal. I think can be rewritten.
He sought novel and radical ideas... - could chop this and just start the sentence, " He replaced live musicians with synthetic sounds at times and layered the tracks with audio from TV programs."
In the same way, [the highly accomplished and well practiced] White - bracketed bit sounds POV....

Late here and I need to sleep. There are some other examples I came across on first read but I can't find them now. More later. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:40, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FunkMonk

[edit]
  • Haven't listened to this album for probably ten years, will have a listen and return soon. I wonder if other Clash albums will get the treatment later on? Would be a bit sad if this remains their only featured effort... FunkMonk (talk) 20:55, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Mick Jones of Big Audio Dynamite, in 1987" Seems an odd caption (especially for unfamiliar readers), how about implying more specifically that it is post-Clash? Like "Mick Jones with his new band Big Audio Dynamite" or similar. Also confusing because you don't even mention (except for a footnote) that he formed this band subsequently, which would probably be good to add.
?
Went with "Founding Clash guitarist Mick Jones in 1987". The BAD stuff is already better cover elsewhere. Ceoil (talk) 00:01, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think this needs elaboration. You also explain why Mick was dismissed, so why not Headon? FunkMonk (talk) 14:42, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
?
?
?
  • No, but now fixed. Ceoil (talk) 23:56, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "writer Bill Wyman (not to be confused with Bill Wyman of the Rolling Stones)" Hmm, I'm not sure if this is really needed. If it was him, I'm sure it would have been specified that it was the band member.
?
This came up a lot in the PR. Frankly, I couldn't give a shit. Ceoil (talk) 03:29, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
?
?
?
  • Done Ceoil (talk) 15:45, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "band's recently reinstated manager Bernie Rhodes" Only stated in the intro, which should not have unique info. Also, could need some background. Had he been fired?
Yes. There was a battle to the death between them, and once Jones was out, Bernie was back in. Have clarified this. Ceoil (talk) 18:13, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Again, this is not just about it not being mentioned in the intro, but about elaboration. It is important for the story to know why there had already been problems with Rhodes and how it was handled. FunkMonk (talk) 14:42, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, and its rather salacious - working on this. Ceoil (talk) 15:45, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "with three unknowns" You only state in the intro they were unknowns.
    Done. Ceoil (talk) 14:52, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "One writer described the sound as brash and seemingly "designed to sound hip and modern—'80s style!"" Again unique to the intro, wonder if it is better moved to the article body, as the intro should be more of a summary.
    well, I don't want to repeat a quote in both the lead an article - but choose this for the lead as I think its a attention grabbing summation of the conclusions in both the the "recording and "reception" sects Ceoil (talk) 23:59, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "as well as "one of the most disastrous [albums] ever released by a major artist and a complete failure artistically and commercially"" Likewise.
    Well, this is the whole point of the article, which goes into some detail to back this claim, but I take your point, its not stated as clearly in the body. Hold tough and will add down further. Ceoil (talk) 15:45, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the often-mocked album title" Only stated in intro.
    Done. Ceoil (talk) 14:52, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Simonon refused from the outset to take part in any activity involving Rhodes" Only stated in intro, could need elaboration.
Here, the issue is not just that it is unique to the intro, it also begs for elaboration. What was the circumstances? FunkMonk (talk) 14:42, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "planned an expensive video" Only stated in the intro it was expensive.
    Done. Ceoil (talk) 14:52, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a recent critical tendency casts the album in a more favourable light" Again, 1986 and 1991 is so close to the actual release of the album that I would hardly say "recent".
    Done. Ceoil (talk) 14:52, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "due in part to family issues, in part to escape the critical backlash, in part as a physical act of disowning the album" Only stated in intro.
  • i'm not so sure I agree with some of these "only in the lead" complaints. Many of the points are subtle, and are explained in the body, in so many words, and often in far more detail. To take an example, I say later about the album title; "Nevertheless Jucha found the title "awful". It seems that you are looking for exact replicas of claims, where as I want the lead to to be a tonal, overview. Have fixed the (many) typos, my somewhat embarrassed thanks ;) Ceoil (talk) 00:59, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, there are still a few issues left that seem to have been overlooked/not replied to (hard to see if there is not something like "done" or "not done, reason" under each point). I'll mark them with question marks above. I have also elaborated on some of the intro stuff; it is not just about "duplication", but elaboration and missing context. FunkMonk (talk) 14:42, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I know - had actually posed updates, but we edited conflicted - [45] ps, had a rather manic week at work, hence did not give updates, and also - agree with 99% of your non-typo suggestions. Ceoil (talk) 14:54, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, whoops, just ping me when you're ready, so I don't bust it up again, hehe... FunkMonk (talk) 15:29, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Will do, and thank you so much for helping to draw out finer detail. Ceoil (talk) 15:33, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi FunkMonk can you take another look please; I am about done. Ceoil (talk) 18:13, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Moise

[edit]

I participated in the peer review and believe there was lots of good expansion and good improvements made by Ceoil throughout the PR. As Cas Liber mentioned above, I also believe the article to be quite comprehensive. I didn't have a chance to do a final reading of all the latest changes before the PR was closed, and I'm noticing a few other points I would like to comment on during this FAC:
Lead:

  • It may be confusing to mention both Munich and its suburb Unterföhring as the place it was recorded. Maybe just mention one of them?
    Done Ceoil (talk) 00:52, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of this content in the lead overlaps, and it may be good to trim some of it: "After Strummer lost control of the final mixes, he disowned the album and split up the Clash within weeks of its release ... Strummer was so disappointed with the manager's production choices that he disowned the album and fled for refuge in Spain ... Strummer had moved to Spain, in part due to family issues, in part to escape the critical backlash, in part as a physical act of disowning the album." Moisejp (talk) 02:00, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Done Ceoil (talk) 00:52, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Background:

  • "In all, the Clash Mark II had written around 20 new songs before entering the studio to record the band's fourth album." Should this be their sixth album?
    Final Ceoil (talk) 00:52, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead says "The songs were mostly written by Strummer. During its production Rhodes seized the vacuum left by Jones, and took control of arrangements, track sequencing and the final mix." But the Background section says "Unknown to the band, and especially Strummer, Rhodes had already conceived his own solution to Jones's departure—he would write the music." These bits seem somewhat contradictory, and it may be confusing the extent of Rhodes' role and how much he "wrote" the songs vs. produced/arranged/mixed. Later in "Recording and production" it also talks about Strummer's demos (meaning presumably he wrote them) vs. Rhodes not having experience songwriting (possibly suggesting he was also doing songwriting here—not clear).
    Yes, good point. The way it worked was that in the original Clash Mick wrote the music, then Joe wrote the lyrics. In Mark II, the new musicians wrote the music, increasingly as they went on, under the directorship of Rhodes, then Joe added the lyrics. Thinking how this can be made more clear in the article. Ceoil (talk) 14:06, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

More comments soon. Moisejp (talk) 02:52, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • In this section it may also be unclear or quasi-contradictory that it says Strummer and Jones were the "two principal songwriters" in the band but later that "Jones had written virtually all of the band's recorded music to this point". Moisejp (talk) 03:02, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Now clarified that "While Strummer remained the principal lyricist, Jones had written virtually all of the band's music to this point" Ceoil (talk) 15:04, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Recording and production:

  • "after suddenly ending the recordings, Rhodes physically removed the master tapes from the studio[5] so as to have total control over the final mixes and mastering, and added further samplers.[n 2] The musicians suspected that the sessions were cut short so that Rhodes could spend more time mixing the album alone." I'd argue the second sentence here doesn't seem to add much that the first sentence doesn't already say. Moisejp (talk) 03:35, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Done Ceoil (talk) 00:52, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1986, Strummer recalled how he liked a few of the tunes but "really I hated it ... I didn't hear Cut the Crap until it was in the shops." " For "really I hated it", I'd suggest replacing "it" with something like "[the album as a whole]" for clarity and flow.
  • Done Ceoil (talk) 00:52, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • This came up in the peer review too, where I know you rewrote this bit some, but is there no more information surrounding Simonon's not appearing on any of the final recordings? You've got quite a bit about Howard and White's being pushed out of the band in this section, but very very little about Simonon. Moisejp (talk) 03:45, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Somewhat contradictory: "He remembered that Strummer had at times stood up to the producer, but "not nearly enough"" and "Strummer was unable to stand up to Rhodes". One sentence suggests he sometimes stood up to Rhodes, and the other that he didn't at all. Moisejp (talk) 03:53, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It was a loosing battle, so to me these point of time claims make sense. Ceoil (talk) 01:19, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Now re-phrased as "Strummer ultimately lost control of the album to Rhodes" Ceoil (talk) 14:16, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Now " I didn't hear [the album as a whole] until it was in the shops" Ceoil (talk) 17:04, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Great, I've read to the end of Recording and production, and all my concerns are pretty much addressed for these sections. The only remaining point is about giving more information about Simonon not being on any of the final recordings. But I noticed it mentions in the lead that he refused to work with Rhodes, which is not mentioned in Recording and production. At the very least, I think adding mention about that would do a lot to give background about Simonon's lack of involvement.
From now I'll start looking at your changes for the next sections. Moisejp (talk) 01:01, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Music and lyrics:

  • "Reflecting this, Jucha summed up the album as produced by a manager whose musical ambitions were over stretched by lack of experience and talent." This sentence definitely feels unnecessary as these points have already been well established in the paragraph. Also "as produced by a manager whose musical ambitions were ... lack of ... talent" is a word-for-word repeat of the first sentence in the paragraph. Moisejp (talk) 04:33, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
done Ceoil (talk) 01:21, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Side one:

  • "Never a live favourite, writer Mark Andersen described it as "one of the less successful of the new tunes"." Here "Never a live favourite" feels like a dangling modifier (not sure if it fits the absolute definition of one) but also I'm not sure it adds much or is relevant to to how successful the recorded version is. Possibly consider cutting it? Moisejp (talk) 05:33, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It seems relevant to me that the track was disliked from its outset. Ceoil (talk) 01:12, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've now read through the rest of the Side one section, and it mostly looks very good. One suggestion:

  • "Dirty Punk: The song that best represents Strummer and Rhode's attempt to return the band to its punk rock origins." Sounds subjective. I suggest adding something like "Critic Bill Wyman [or just Wyman if he's already been mentioned—I didn't check] has argued that this song best represents..." Moisejp (talk) 01:29, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh I see Wyman is first mentioned a little below. You could easily move the "writer Bill Wyman (not to be confused with Bill Wyman of the Rolling Stones)" bit to the "Dirty Punk" caption. Moisejp (talk) 01:33, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I dont want to over attribute. My view is that Wyman was not alone in his thinking. Ceoil (talk) 01:56, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorted. Ceoil (talk) 13:59, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Side two:

  • "The track was an early live favourite, when it was often played as a straightforward punk song." I'm just curious how early "early" was, and if this means the song was around as an unrecorded Strummer song in their repertoire from long before. Or maybe "early" just means in the last couple of years before recording CTC? It could be interesting to give more information about this, or clarify the question, if the information is available. Moisejp (talk) 01:44, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
well spotted. Ceoil (talk) 01:58, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reception:

  • Hmm, I haven't spot-checked hardly any of your refs, but I just happened to look at the Christgau source and noticed "take effect, some persistent, exuberant, melancholic, and even-keeled, particularly 'We Are the Clash' " doesn't seem to be there, although he says somewhat similar things and does mention "We Are the Clash" as a standout. Maybe there's another version of his review around that you saw (I couldn't find one with a quick google search, though)? Moisejp (talk) 02:14, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Dunno what happened there - did a lot of chopping and changing to that sect in last few days, looks like the attribution was mangled. I dont really like Christgau anyway, so removed. Ceoil (talk) 02:27, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All right, I've finished reading through the article again and believe I'm close to supporting. I think I'd like to come back to it in a couple of days and do one more read-through with fresh eyes, and check all your changes for my last batch of comments. BTW, I see you replied right away to some of my comments today but I wasn't sure if you might have missed seeing the other one a little higher up about my suggestion to add mention in the main text of Simonon's refusal to work with Rhodes (it is mentioned in the lead). I'd like to say I medium-strongly disagree with you about your decision not to attribute Wyman in the "Dirty Punk" caption, but if you feel strongly that it's better as is, I won't push the issue. Cool, so I'll be back in a couple of days. This article is making really good progress. Cheers, Moisejp (talk) 02:46, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It was the case that he couldnt be bothered messing with Rhodes. Ceoil (talk) 17:51, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You can take it that I take everything you say into consideration, Moisejp. I'm listening, just swamped here, and trying to catch up. Hold tight. Ceoil (talk) 02:55, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'm ready to support now on prose and comprehensiveness. There may be a few small points throughout the article that I might handle differently if I were writing it, but overall it's well-written, engaging, and informative, and (note that I haven't looked at the sources at all within the scope of my review), I believe it satisfies the criteria for FA. Moisejp (talk) 02:14, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from BLZ

[edit]

I was involved fairly early in the PR and, as Ceoil indicated, I provided a lot of sources only accessible in databases behind paywalls. As such I'll recuse myself from doing a source check, although if necessary I'm be happy to assist with verification of those sources during the source review. I've been checking in every now and then on Ceoil's progress and the article has expanded considerably since I last went through it line-by-line. I'm going to start working on a copyedit of it, leaving notes and queries on bigger issues here. —BLZ · talk 23:33, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lead
  • —'80s style!". – The exclamation mark followed by a period are sort of nonstandard, although there are usually a few different ways to handle this. This pops up again later with "... Now, how to take that idea to the next level!". What's good is that it's consistent, and I like that the period emphasizes the ! as part of the quote itself rather than adopting it as the "actual" end of the sentence, if that makes sense. But I thought I'd run it by you one more time.
  • "Strummer had moved to Spain, due in part to family issues, in part to escape the critical backlash, in part as a physical act of disowning the album." – I think this sentence could be slightly restructured but I'm leaving it for now since the contents may change. I don't believe the family issues are brought up below, leaving this topic in suspense. The threat of litigation is mentioned later, and may be worth mentioning in the lead. Unless I missed it, it might be worth briefly unpacking the nature of Strummer's family issues in the article itself.

As I'm going through, I'm also changing some present-tense verbs to past-tense, especially words like "recalls" —> "recalled", etc. I find this is easier to keep consistent and is technically more accurate (i.e., a person recalled something at a particular place and time in the past like a cited interview; past tense for verbs like "recalled" also works for both the living and the dead alike, whereas "recalls" only works for the living). Let me know if you object. —BLZ · talk 23:33, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I'm going to take a pause on changing tenses because in some instances it may be trickier and it'd be better to hash out a consistent approach before I make further changes. It looks like you generally prefer present tense for writers' statements—"describes" instead of "described", for example. I'll allow that this makes more sense than a statement given in an interview, which to me feels more bound by place and time, whereas an opinion or statement given in writing exists in something closer to literary present tense (as used when writing plot summaries). I want to run it by you because there are a few instances where you use past tense instead of present; for example, "Gary Jucha dismisses" and "Popoff describes", but "Robert Christgau said" and "Stephen Thomas Erlewine described". —BLZ · talk 23:44, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with moving to past tense throughout. Ceoil (talk) 19:51, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. —BLZ · talk 23:27, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Recording and production
Yes, excellent, this is much better. done Ceoil (talk) 21:21, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Music and lyrics
  • "Writer Gary Jucha dismissed Cut the Crap as produced by a manager whose musical ambitions were compromised by a lack of talent." ... then "Reflecting this, Jucha summed up the album as produced by a manager whose musical ambitions were over stretched by lack of experience and talent." I think it's probably better at the end of the paragraph rather than at the start; makes more sense to open with "broad consensus" than conclude with a single writer's summation to put a bow on it. —BLZ · talk 23:27, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
done Ceoil (talk) 21:21, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, now it seems like you've cut both sentences; I thought one could stay, I just felt it would be better at the end of the paragraph rather than the beginning. —BLZ · talk 20:34, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Jesus I'm having a bad week. Now restored. Ceoil (talk) 23:43, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 2017, Vulture placed it as number 136 in its 'All 139 the Clash Songs, Ranked From Worst to Best' survey". – I brought this up in the peer review, but I still find this to be an odd choice of fact to single out from the Vulture ranking. It's not wrong exactly, but why highlight the 4th-worst song when the 1st-worst is also on the same album—and indeed, the bottom seven are all from this album? Maybe a footnote is the way to go here. You can still note that "Dictator" ranks terribly low, but a note can clarify that the author ranked most of Cut the Crap at the bottom.
  • "a piece of unconscious self-parody" that is quite probably the worst line ever to appear on a Clash record" – the middle quotation mark makes it unclear where the quoted portion begins and ends. While copyediting I just took out the extra quote mark, presuming that the entire portion is one full quote, but revisit this to make sure that's accurate.
    My bad. Ceoil (talk) 01:13, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The album closes with 'Life Is Wild', which had not been played live before." – is it the only track on the album that had never been performed live? Context overwhelmingly suggests yes, but if that's true it's worth drawing out (or otherwise indicating which other tracks had gone unperformed, if any).
Your right, and have clarified. Ceoil (talk) 01:13, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Title and sleeve art
  • A (perhaps harebrained) suggestion: remarkably there are not just one, not just two, but three free-license photo portraits of Mel Gibson in 1985 on Commons. Truly an embarrassment of riches; I feel the synchronicity is too tempting to ignore. I think it would be funny (yet also, not inappropriate) to include that first image of '85 Gibson with a caption like Mel Gibson in 1985. The title Cut the Crap was borrowed from a line delivered by Gibson in Mad Max 2. On the other hand, Gibson is such a toxic human being that I would understand not wanting to associate the Clash with him any more than is strictly necessary (besides, the line comes from the fictional Max Rockatansky and not Gibson as a real person). —BLZ · talk 05:30, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have wondered about this, and yes toxic and a serious arsehole, for the ages. And yet - have just watched Dragged across Concrete, as dark, noir, a film as there has been in the last 30 years, and was reminded...almost...we do have S. Craig Zahler. How does a man go from so cool to such a prick in just a single human life time. Dunno. Ceoil (talk) 06:25, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Reception
  • Somewhat unusual: the actual release/release date is nowhere mentioned in the main prose. Maybe the best thing would be to retitle this section "Release and reception" and include it there? Since the first paragraph already provides much of the same contextual content that usually goes in a "release" section.
Done. Ceoil (talk) 06:39, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Richard Defendorf of the Orlando Sentinel" – this review is in the retrospective section, yet it was published in 1985 only days later than some of the other contemporary reviews. Which actually bolsters your overarching thesis, since it seems Defendorf was overwhelmingly negative.
Done. Ceoil (talk) 12:49, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Christgau is missing! Particularly noteworthy as he was always a staunch promoter of the Clash in the US and a rare dissenter as to this album's quality.
  • I think it's worth quoting and/or summarizing Jon Savage's take in more depth, since he has combines authoritative weight and contrarian-revisionist/positive take on the album.
I am inclined to take Savage's opening with some weight, however he doest go too deep in England's Dreaming. Ceoil (talk) 12:49, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fricke's Jan. 86 review in Rolling Stone
  • Totally optional, but you could use the book copy of All Music Guide to Rock (2002, 3rd edition) via Google Books to pin a date on the esteemed S. T. Erlewine's review of Cut the Crap. (The more general pan-genre [All Music Guide] (2001, 4th edition) only includes a star rating for Cut the Crap, no review.) It might just be me, and I kinda get why they do it, but it nonetheless drives me bananas that AllMusic's site doesn't date its reviews. —BLZ · talk 05:30, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Ceoil (talk) 16:56, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It has 27kb of readable prose, and can be significantly large (up to 50kb) before anyone will fuss too much BTW. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:50, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think 100 kb is the current split limit (due to better Internet), and it is hardly ever enforced. More context can't hurt, in my opinion. FunkMonk (talk) 17:17, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • After reading through this section a few more times, I've slightly reconsidered my comments. I still think you should add a little more on the contempo critical consensus, but I've given some thought as to what I'm asking for beyond a bare request for "more critics pls". Your summary style is already quite good as-is and doesn't necessarily need to be bogged down with an exhaustive accounting/unpacking of all major critics' opinions (which tends to be my approach). The critical quotations you've already included deftly, purposefully weave together some major points of critical consensus.
Still, specific in-text mentions of the major rock publications/critics who ran bad reviews would help to substantiate your summaries and give a more comprehensive picture. I don't think there would have to be too much more text, and there wouldn't have to be any further quoting from reviews. I'm thinking of something along these lines (green text is what's there now, regular text would be my additions/modifications):
... generally viewed the album in an unfavourable light. Melody Maker and NME both ran sharply negative reviews, the latter of which was titled "No Way, Jose" in sarcastic reference to the "Jose Unidos" production credit.[cite: Anderson, Heibutzki (2018), chapter 9] David Fricke panned the album in Rolling Stone, while longtime Clash proponent Robert Christgau offered restrained praise in a Village Voice blurb that alluded to the negative word-of-mouth.[cite: the '86 Fricke review, Christgau, maybe Anderson, Heibutzki (2018), chapter 9 again for "longtime Clash proponent"] Reflecting the critical consensus at the time, ... [insert paragraph break here] The absence of Jones and Headon ... Rolling Stone's Fricke remained dismissive in 2016 because, he believed, ...
Let me know what you think. —BLZ · talk 23:05, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Aftermath
  • Overall, really good. The section could use an image. I think Joe-Strummer.jpg would be a good candidate. The description says he's backing the Pogues in Japan (in 1992, I think—I did a little research to pin a date on it), so that syncs up with the Straight to Hell tidbit. Plus it's black and white, so it's somewhat of an aesthetic match with the earlier photo portraits.
    Good call. Now in place. Ceoil (talk) 01:13, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The album was omitted from some Clash box sets re-issues,[footnote] including 2013's Sound System." The footnote goes to the RS "22 Terrible Songs by Great Artists" article, which doesn't talk about box sets or reissues or anything along these lines.
  • I think it would be better to enumerate the box sets/reissues that excluded Cut the Crap. There are certainly sources that mention these omissions with specificity.
Track listing
  • Not sure about subsection headers for ===Side one=== and ===Side two===. Bold text in the same style as the personnel section would probably suffice.

Last comment, which I give in any FA review: I'm strongly in favor of archiving all links in the references. There aren't that many online sources here, but I'd be remiss not to suggest it. Given the tedium involved in such labor, and give that I'm in the habit of archiving as I go, I'll gladly go through the trouble and archive them for you. Let me know if you have any strong objections to doing so. —BLZ · talk 23:05, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Will work on this yes, and any help appreciated. Thanks man. Ceoil (talk) 01:13, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've archived all the sources and did one more round of copyedits. Some final thoughts:

  • To tie a loose end from my earlier comments, I'm cool with skipping a quote from Savage. The sentence that's already there implies the authoratitiveness/weight of his approval.
  • I added a PopMatters article as a source for which comps omitted the album. Incidentally, that article backs up your overall characterization of the album's reception virtually point-for-point, so it could be peppered almost anywhere throughout if you happen to feel inclined to reinforce anything. Not necessary tho.
  • That article also draws a direct parallel between Cut the Crap and Squeeze. Earlier I had found a handful of lists with titles like "Worst Albums Released by Great Artists" (see e.g. "40 Terrible Albums by Great Artists" from my local SF Chronicle). I ultimately decided against recommending any of those for the article. Still, part of me wondered whether it would be good to connect the dots to any of the other so-called "trainwreck" albums by otherwise legendary artists—if only for the benefit of rock novices who don't know the proverbial bargain-bin anti-canon (stuffed with the likes of Self Portrait and Music from "The Elder").
But if there's just one of these albums that might be worth referencing, it's gotta be Squeeze. The album is so similar in so many ways: final album before disbandment ✓, often regarded as a covert solo album ✓, disowned and disappeared from retrospectives ✓. It's not mandatory by any means, more historiography than history, but I think it'd be cool and figured I'd at least see what you think. (P.S.: I may finally understand how you feel about Cut the Crap after seeing the SF Chronicle "Terrible Albums" list Monster, my first R.E.M. album and a sentimental favorite to this day. It's not that bad!! It's actually really good!!)
  • Squeeze seems the closest and most apt comparison to me, so in it goes. Monster is in my top 6 REM albums, and dont get me started how journalists turned on them then through to "up", all good albums, and then fawned over later shite that made up their later career as, over and over, for 10 years, "a turning point, this time we mean it". Ceoil (talk) 23:11, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe worth noting that the cover art design is uncredited and the designer unknown. I hadn't given this much thought until stumbling upon the entry for a 58.4 x 58.4 cm lithograph of the Cut the Crap cover in MoMA's collection. Up to you; you're the paintings guy, so you know better on this point than I.
    Nice find indeed. You didn't seriously think I wasn't going to mention that it's in the MoMA. Its a bIt puzzling; I always guessed Rhodes, who was a designer to begin with...but is not one to go uncredited. Ceoil (talk) 23:11, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at the above and check out my last edits. I'm ready to support but figured I'd let you review my last changes/comments before doing so. (P.P.S., I've made a note to check out Dragged Across Concrete. I saw Brawl in Cell Block 99 a while back and enjoyed it. Over the top, but very fun; exactly the kind of schlocky flick I can get into.) —BLZ · talk 21:25, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Dragged Across Concrete" is great, a slow burner with an amazing shoot out at the end. Also, by the way, your edits are on point and thank you so much! Ceoil (talk) 23:11, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – at this stage I have no further comments, it's about as good as an album article can possibly be. I'm confident that no stone has been left unturned: this is an exceptionally fair and thorough accounting of what went wrong with a very important, albeit "non-canonical", record. Once again, Ceoil's writing does justice to the great traditions of British punk on the one hand and over-produced rock&roll disappointments on the other. —BLZ · talk 22:23, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ian

[edit]

Recusing from coord duties, I commented early in PR but haven't added anything since so am looking at this from scratch. FWIW I might add that I'm no particular fan of the Clash and have never heard this album...

  • In the lead I wonder if we could rejig to remove some repetition:
    • "Strummer disowned the album ... Strummer had moved to Spain, due in part to family issues, in part to escape the critical backlash, in part as a physical act of disowning the album"
    • "The tension with Rhodes left the newly recruited band members disillusioned ... by the album's release the band members were so disillusioned...".
  • Under Background, "The two principal songwriters no longer trusted each other, due to the latter's frequent absence from rehearsals and use of synthesizers" -- ah, something missing here, like who the two principal songwriters are? I mean I know, and they have been mentioned, but not labelled as such.

More later... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 3:30, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Still under Background, consider dropping a couple of (IMO) trite quotes: "a fucking cunt" (no issue with language but we know their animosity by now and I daresay Jones had his own ideas about Strummer too); and "Name me one cool guy called Greg" ("Simonon complained that he would prefer to quit than play in a band with someone named Greg" says enough).
    Strongly disagree. I consider these key, revealing details and in both cases its best to capture the voice of the band member. Ceoil (talk) 01:53, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Well I see you've compromised on the latter quote, tks for that. I won't press the matter re. the first, I accept that it'd be a little difficult to render this depth of feeling in WP's voice...! Cheers Ian Rose (talk) 03:06, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Thinking again, your right about both. Gone. Ceoil (talk) 08:32, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's about it re. prose from me -- copyedited as I went but nothing major. One spotcheck (I may do more if I have time):

  • Yet its reputation as a failure, or at least as a lost opportunity, has endured. In 2016 Rolling Stone's David Fricke was dismissive because, he believed, "too much of Cut the Crap is Strummer's angst running on automatic, superficially ferocious but ultimately stiff and unconvincing" -- couldn't see this quote in the cited source. One reason I checked is I wanted to see if the general statement you make before the quote is directly supported by the source, as editorialising based on a single source is a trap we can easily fall into -- will reserve judgement on that till you sort out the supporting source. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:21, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The source should have been David Fricke, rolling stone. I did a lot of cutting and chopping before the nom, trying to get the flow right; looks like I need to do a full audit. Ceoil (talk) 01:50, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah maybe -- this is the same RS review at FN66, apparently contemporary. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:06, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Resuming, I can see now that the Fricke source matches the "stiff and unconvincing" quo now, so that's fine, but we now have Yet its reputation as a failure, or at least as a lost opportunity, has endured. Music journalist Richard Cromelin found the album's uptempo songs less effective than those on earlier Clash records, but concluded that Strummer's singing is compelling and "This Is England" and "North and South" make the record "more than passable" -- this paragraph this comes from seems to be about retrospective views like the AllMusic one that follows this, but Cromelin's review is contemporary, so it doesn't really belong; it certainly doesn't appear to support the bit about the album's 'enduring reputation'. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:19, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Andy, Ceoil, I made my last edit to the article 15 minutes before the promotion and opened the FAC from the saved article page so I hadn't seen the promotion -- this last issue wouldn't be enough for me to have opposed but I'd like to see it dealt with, ideally before FACbot runs at midnight GMT. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:31, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ian Rose Sorry about that! What a timely edit conflict... --Laser brain (talk) 12:41, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, I really should've returned earlier -- Cass' support presumably promoted your promotion the same time it prompted me to take another look... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:48, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Cassianto

[edit]

No crap to cut from this. Thoroughly enjoyable. CassiantoTalk 11:40, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
  1. ^ Bierl & Lardinois 2016, p. 1.
  2. ^ Sappho, Brothers Poem, ll.11–12. trans. Rayor & Lardinois 2014, p. 160
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Featured_log/July_2019&oldid=908556012"