Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/July 2022

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 30 July 2022 [1].

Second Punic War

[edit]
Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk) 12:56, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

After a 20-month break from the Punic Wars I am returning, with elephants, Hannibal, Cannae, crossing the Alps, elephants, 17 years of slaughter, Scipio Africanus, Zama, and yet more elephants. All in fewer than 6,000 words. I took this to GA in 2020 and put it on the backburner while I concentrated on other matters. After a recent overhaul, especially of the sourcing - thanks Buidhe - I believe that it has a chance of meeting the FAC criteria. See what you think - as usual, all and any constructive comments welcome. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:56, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: As always, a great article by our FA regulars. I haven't read through the whole article, but the paragraphs are a bit odd: some are really long (>200 words), and some are just one sentence long. I also think that center-aligning captions is a bit odd, but feel free to ignore this complaint. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 13:31, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Tim riley

[edit]

Shall review and report back. More anon. Tim riley talk 21:43, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

First lot of comments, down to the end of the Italy section:

  • "a now-largely-lost manual" – I'm often unsure about hyphens, but I rather think we don't need them here, as the adverb in the middle does the necessary work. I am quite prepared to be told I'm wrong.
Deleted. (A different review suggested their use, and you know how I hate to quibble.)
  • "personally interviewed participants" – can you interview people in any other way than personally?
Certainly, but point taken.
  • "Most male Roman citizens were eligible for military service" – just checking: does this mean they were allowed to join up or were liable to be made to do so?
An interesting point which I do not wish to go into here. Replaced with 'liable', following the source.
  • "The latter were usually Numidians" – pedantry alert: you can only have the latter of two. With any more it is "last"
Changed to 'The latter cavalry'[?]
  • "if it were to again confront Rome" – curiously convoluted construction: wouldn't "to confront Rome again" be more natural?
What's convoluted about it? But changed anyway.
  • "but was then ambushed and besieged itself" – how do you besiege yourself? (From my press cuttings file: "Lampard twice had chances to double the lead, first dragging a left-foot shot wide then failing to find Rooney in the box when he should have shot himself".)
:-) Fixed.
  • "nevertheless his is the best surviving source for this part of the war.[14][12][15]" – refs would be better in numerical order.
This is something I much disagree with. But I am going to get outvoted, so changed; much confusion to the readers.
Ah. I've wondered about this sort of thing when citing two or three sources for different parts of the preceding sentence. There is a case to be made for doing as you did, helping anyone unhinged enough to want to check to find the relevant source as efficiently as possible. I confess I assumed your order was an oversight, but if it was deliberate I withdraw my objection and encourage you to revert the change, contra mundum. Tim riley talk 18:32, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A significant part of Hannibal's campaign – what did it signify? I think you probably mean important or major or substantial. Yes, I know we've argued about this before, but I continue to press the Fowler line that "significant" should not be wasted as a mere synonym of "important".
I remain unconverted, but the offending word has been.
  • "the Hannibal's forces were compelled to evacuate" – unwanted definite article
Hmm. Gone.

More to come. Tim riley talk 21:11, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Concluding

Only four more comments:

  • The caption in the Iberia 218–215 BC section could be made more concise by changing "The warrior" to "He".
Good thinking. Done.
  • The caption of the bust in the Iberia, 214–209 BC section is a bit ambiguous: "identified" as Scipio could mean anything from "generally thought to be" to "someone has speculated".
Identify seems as unambiguous as a word can be to me: "establish the identity of". But stricken.
  • "they routed back through the Carthaginian ranks" – assuming this is "routed" to rhyme with "shouted" rather than with "suited" it is an intransitive construction unfamiliar to me. I'm guessing it means they routed the opposition, but I'm not sure.
Umm. I am not sure if you are winding me up here. (?) "Rout: To retreat from a confrontation in disorder." The elephants ("they") routed (retreated from the confrontation in disorder) through the Carthaginian (of which army they were a part) ranks. I honestly struggle to see the lack of clarity. The effect of this on the Carthaginians in those ranks and any irony inherent in this is left as an exercise for the class, this being a very summary style. I have changed "they" to 'the elephants'; does that help?
You expose my ignorance: I didn't know "rout" could be an intransitive verb. Now I know. Tim riley talk 18:32, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "'Shock' troops are those trained and used to close rapidly with an opponent, with the intention of breaking them before, or immediately upon, contact". – I struggle with this. First, why "them" rather than "him" – non-gender-specific language is hardly required unless there were soldieresses in the ranks of the troops, and secondly, I'm not sure what you mean by "breaking"? Killing? Making him flee?
"them" - ah, you have caught me attempting to have this both ways. "break" - a standard military usage, I have seen it in newspaper reports from the Falklands War. "To destroy the arrangement of; to throw into disorder; to pierce", with the example "The cavalry were not able to break the British squares." But if as sagacious a reader as yourself is confused then it needs rewriting. I have changed it to ' Changed to '"Shock" troops are those trained and used to close rapidly and aggressively with their opponents, with the intention of breaking their formation before, or immediately upon, contact.' Any better? Or any suggestions?
That's much clearer, thank you. Tim riley talk 18:32, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's all from me. My comments are just on the prose. I have nothing to say about Livy -v- Polybius, raised below, or any other aspect of the content. – Tim riley talk 05:57, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent as always Tim, and many thanks. I regret that you don't find Hannibal's goings on as gripping as Edward III's, but as you have said "de gustibus non est disputandum". Responses above. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:25, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. It is true that I don't find the Punic Wars as interesting as the Hundred Years' War, but this is still a splendid article: clear, widely sourced, balanced and comprehensive as far as I can see, and well illustrated. I note the disagreement about the relative merits of the Graeco-Roman historians, but as a non-expert I think the article meets the FA criteria, and I am happy to support. Tim riley talk 18:32, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by T8612

[edit]

Hello Gog. Before reviewing the text body, I think a significant rewriting of the "Primary sources" section is needed. You put way too much emphasis on Polybius and discredit Livy in a way that is not justified for the 2PW.

  • Polybius The main source for almost every aspect of the Punic Wars etc. This is largely true for the 1PW and 3PW, but not the 2PW, because Polybius' text breaks off in 216 after the battle of Cannae. The main source for the war is Livy (discussed below). Polybius is nevertheless a very important source for the beginning of the war, but "fairly reliable" has to be toned down a bit for the 2PW. The most damning example is about Cannae, because one of the consuls (Aemilius Paullus) was the grandfather of Scipio Aemilianus, Polybius' patron and friend. Therefore, Polybius put the blame of the defeat on the other consul, Gaius Terentius Varro. This is quite a big manipulation that ought to be noted. In general, Polybius is much less reliable when he deals with the family of Scipio, or his native Achaean League (he is therefore biased against the Aetolians also mentioned in the article).
I also think Diodorus and Cassius Dio should be moved just after Polybius, because they used him and most fragments of Polybius' lost books are found in their works. However, you can ditch Appian for the 2PW, as he is more useful for the 3PW.
  • Livy. The main source for the 2PW is thus Livy, whose books had been lost for the 1PW, but are still extent for the years from 218. Livy almost only used Polybius for the events of the Greek East, but for the Italian theatre he mixed him with the previous Roman historians, up to Fabius Pictor (also used by Polybius). Livy's book is much more pro-Roman than Polybius. He also dramatised battle descriptions in a way that is much less accurate than Polybius. Livy could also be biased: interestingly, he too put the blame on Varro for Cannae, but not for the same reason as Polybius; Livy describes Varro as a careless demagogue, while Paullus is a moderate (Livy often uses this opposition demagogue/conservative in his book, with disdain for the former).
Nevertheless, as he wrote annalistically, Livy is invaluable for his precise recordings of all the Roman magistrates, commanders, triumphs, etc. which gives us a very good chronology of the events, something we don't have for the other wars because Polybius was not that much interested in recording these.
  • You mention Plutarch, I think you should cite the relevant biographies of his Parallel Lives: Fabius Maximus and Claudius Marcellus (and some parts of the lives of Cato the Elder and Titus Flamininus). For example: Living during the Empire, the Greek moralist Plutarch wrote valuable biographies of several Roman protagonists of the war in his famous Parallel Lives, especially Fabius Maximus and Claudius Marcellus.
  • Two modern sources:
    • A. E. Astin wrote a very useful chapter on primary sources for the period in the 1st chapter (especially pp. 3-11) of the Cambridge Ancient History volume 8. Check also pp. 51-52 for Polybius' treatment of Cannae.
    • John Briscoe & Simon Hornblower, Livy: Ab urbe condita Book XXII (Cambridge Greek and Latin Classics 22), is a recent source (2020) and has a very good introduction on the whole war, and details the relationship between Polybius and Livy (there are also dicussions on Roman manpower or political factions in Rome). I can send you a pdf if you need it. T8612 (talk) 23:28, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi T8612, response in two parts:
1. It is good to be back with the Punic Wars, I have missed them. It has felt like unfinished business for the last two years. I have a raft of work I want to get done, including, hopefully, several articles coming here. If you would care to get involved on the ground floor, preventing me from straying too erroneously, and perhaps even collaborating on an article or two, I would appreciate it. If this appeals, stick a post on my talk page. And yes please, a pdf of the 2020 source would be most helpful. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:28, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again T8612:
2. Apologies for the delayed response to your substantive points. Basically I disagree quite a bit with some of them - especially the Livy and Polybius ones. Or, rather, I don't - no one cares what I think, or (no disrespect intended) what you think - but the sources do. I have been going back through the sources trying to find support for your general position and can't. I include in the article several quotes on the reliability of Livy and Polybius. After consulting more than a dozen sources since I read your post I am inclined to think that I am a bit hard on Polybius and soft on Livy - there are plenty more quotes I could use. Yes, there is the occasional quibble with Polybius, and much of the 2PW relies on Livy, but I don't think that I have unfairly represented the balance of the sources. I'll try to read Briscoe & Hornblower - many thanks for this, much appreciated - this evening and then have a go at rewriting the Sources section. I would certainly be happy to say something about the potential Scipio relatives issue. Bear with me and come back to me once I have done this. It may then come down to each of us stacking up sources, which is fine, if time consuming, but let's try to settle this. But I think you will find it difficult to find many sources which contradict the basic thrust of what I write, and even harder to establish a consensus of RSs for that. Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:03, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Gog, I checked Goldsworthy and there are several places where he wrote in support of the points I mentioned above:
  • p. 21 on Polybius and Scipio His association with Scipio Aemilianus did result in a very favourable depiction of the role played by his relatives in the conflict. [...] Polybius does much to exonerate the elder Paullus for responsibility for this disaster [Cannae]... p. 199 The latter [Paullus] was the grandfather of Scipio Aemilianus and therefore receives a very favourable treatment from Polybius...
  • p. 21 also mentions that Polybius' text breaks in 216 (therefore he can't be the "main source" for the 2PW).
  • p. 22 on Livy more detailed than Polybius Livy provides more detail than Polybius concerning Roman politics, especially some of the controversial elections, and of Rome’s state religion.
Have you been able to read Briscoe & Hornblower? T8612 (talk) 15:24, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@T8912: - Has this been resolved? Hog Farm Talk 19:00, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, and it's my fault. I'll get on to it. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:40, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi T8612 and apologies for taking so ridiculously long to get back to you. (RL has been silly busy; other things on WP have distracted me; and rereading all of my sources, plus the one you sent me, plus some others discovered along the way has made my brain want to melt.) I have a draft replacement at User:Gog the Mild/sandbox. You were completely correct in many of your specific criticisms of the current one, which certainly cannot remain as is. I thing that the draft more or less gets the correct balance for a summary style, although it has regrettably grown from 285 to 313 words. Your comments on my attempt would be most welcome. Feel free to edit directly onto the sandbox if that is easier. If you can see ways to trim back the verbiage, that would also be good. Thanks.Gog the Mild (talk) 20:28, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Gog. I've amended a bit your sandbox draft to give more details about Livy and Plutarch. I've tried to make it short.
    I'm not familiar with the sfn template, but is it possible to merge the note to Mineo with Mineo's ref? T8612 (talk) 22:24, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi T8612, that's great and thank you. I have trimmed your additions a little for summary style - [2] - and changed the section in the article. Any further comments would be much appreciated. And I will try to respond to them more promptly!
Mineo: if I understand you correctly then I could, but I prefer the note to go with the other "Notes" and not in with "Citations". Gog the Mild (talk) 10:56, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Random break
[edit]
  • Gog the Mild Continuing review:
    • In "Background", I would write about Roman colonisation of northern Italy, and the resentment it caused among the Gauls. It would explain the later revolts when Hannibal arrived, as well as mirror the part you wrote on Carthaginian expansion in Spain (see Goldsworthy, pp. 138-140).
Done.
    • "Both states possessed large fleets throughout the war, etc.", but the following sentence implies that Rome was superior. Perhaps tell that Carthaginian navy lost its advantage in the 1PW.
I don't have a source that says that the outcome of the 1PW effected Carthage's naval effort in the 2PW. For whatever reason they made no real effort to contest naval superiority in the 2PW. I mean, they had 500 warships at the end of it (!!) so they could have; and clearly did have a "large fleet". I don't see anything I have written that implies qualitative or numerical superiority for the Romans. (Which they may or may not have possessed at some or all points of the war.)
    • You only describe Rome's initial plan in bits. It could be clearer if you said from the start that the consuls P. Cornelius Scipio would have attacked Spain and Ti. Sempronius Longus Africa (Goldsworty, 150-151). Hannibal's crossing of the Alps and the Gallic revolts foiled this plan. You also give Sempronius' name but without link.
Done, and linked. (Good spot.)
    • "The Carthaginians reached the foot of the Alps by late autumn and crossed them" etc. You already linked the crossing of the Alps in the "main article" tag above.
True. Is there a policy suggesting that one shouldn't? There may well be, but if so I am unaware of it.
    • Since you mention that Massalia was a Roman ally, you should put it in the infobox.
No I shouldn't. See Template:Infobox military conflict: "When there is a large number of participants, it may be better to list only the three or four major groups on each side of the conflict, and to describe the rest in the body of the article."
Linked.

T8612 (talk) 07:57, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Something on Roman pre-war activities in Cisalpine Gaul to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:16, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi T8612, your comments to date addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:01, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt

[edit]
  • "The Second Punic War (218 to 201 BC) was the second of three wars fought between Carthage and Rome, the two main powers of the western Mediterranean in the 3rd century BC." I might add a "which were" after the comma to settle any ambiguity as what "in the 3rd century BC is intended to refer to."
Done.
  • "defended the Carthaginian colonial cities with mixed success until moving into Italy;" I should say "before" rather than "until"
Done.
More soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:00, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about the delay.
  • " by suborning pro-Roman factions." If they were pro-Roman, why did they need to be suborned?
That, ah, is an excellent point. Changed to 'by suborning factions within to give them entry'.
  • "Without the expected reinforcement the Hannibal's forces were compelled to evacuate allied towns and withdraw to Bruttium.[143][144]" Something odd going on with the second "the".
Indeed. Tim also picked up this stray definite article, which has now been humanely put down.
  • "After Publius Cornelius Scipio invaded the Carthaginian homeland in 204 BC," This is the first time you mention him in the body of the article.
It is?! Too many Scipios, too much editing. Edited out, so his introduction is also his earliest chronological mention.
With only minor quibbles in this excellent article, I support.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:48, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
High praise indeed. Thank you Wehwalt. Responses above. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:36, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
  • Suggest scaling up all maps except Hannibal's allies, and see MOS:COLOUR
Two maps enlarged.
I am seeing MOS:COLOUR. Which part in particular would you like to draw my attention to?
The first point: avoid using colour as the only means of conveying information. Without being able to see colour several of the shades in these maps are indistinguishable. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:45, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Background map is missing a legend
Very strange. Thank you. The version of this map with a legend swapped in.
  • File:Altar_Domitius_Ahenobarbus_Louvre_n3_(cropped).jpg: the citation to the French code for the original work includes a non-commercial clause, which is non-free for the purposes of Commons
I hadn't understood it to mean that, but removed.
  • File:Second_Punic_war_(cropped).png: source links are dead
And neither linked to the actual original sources anyway. It was a complete pig tracking them down, but done. (It turns out that I own both of them - *rolly eyes*.)
  • File:Archimedes_before_his_death_with_the_Roman_soldier,_Roman_mosaic.jpg needs a US tag
Oops. Done.
  • File:Relieve_de_Osuna_(M.A.N._Madrid)_03.jpg needs a tag for original work.
Sloppy, sloppy. Done.
  • Ditto File:Bust_of_Sulla_(loan_from_Ny_Carlsberg_Glyptotek)_-_Glyptothek_-_Munich_-_Germany_2017.jpg.
And done.

Nikkimaria (talk) 04:06, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like most of these are still pending? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:45, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies Nikkimaria, I was busy in RL, put this on the back burner and then overlooked it. Thanks both for prompting me and for going through the images in the first place. Responses above. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:19, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Compassionate727

[edit]

Alright, I've never done this before, but Gog the Mild convinced me to give this a try, so bare with me. I'll begin with comments on prose. If in the future, I should just make these kinds of changes myself, let me know.

  • First, I can tell you really hate commas. In fact, I'm not even going to bother pointing out all the places there should be commas but aren't; I'm just going to fix them.
Compassionate727, no, please don't. I will simply take them out again. I assure you that the article is correctly punctuated. For example, a comma inserted before "and" is known as a serial or Oxford comma. It is, under the MoS a permissible practice, but not a required one. The MoS states "Editors may use either convention so long as each article is internally consistent". Similarly, I am aware of the, to my mind strange, convention of inserting a comma after any initial mention of time. It is not one I use. So proponents of it would write, and, I assume, say "Today, I ate breakfast"; I would write and say "Today I ate breakfast". Either is acceptable. (Much as I itch to remove examples of the former when copy editing.) It is entirely acceptable to not use the former convention. And so on. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:52, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: I'll admit I don't know the MOS as well as I should, so if you can point me to something, please do. I know that commas are frequently omitted from short dependent clauses; "Today I ate breakfast" is a good example. But I believe they cease to be optional once the clause is a certain length. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 22:16, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Who does? The only place you will find commas in the MoS is at MOS:OXFORD and immediately above. Other comma use is just the normal rules of English grammar. Of which, contrary to many opinions, there are a multiplicity. The ones I use are a common and consistent set of such rules, which clearly are not those which you are accustomed to. That doesn't make either of us wrong, it just means that there are no - or fewer than we thought - universal rules of English. If your jaw is dropping, I sympathise; when I first discovered that some writers always put a comma before "and" and after any date I was so shocked I couldn't speak. I am as liable to err as anyone, so if you really, really think that a comma is missing in the article, flag it up below and I'll have a look at it. Meanwhile, I'm for bed. PS "length" - really? That's a new one on me. How long is "a certain length"? (Just curious.) Gog the Mild (talk) 22:32, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, go to bed; we'll both still be here when you wake up. I'll do some more research and get back to you. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 22:41, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
British English is on the whole much more sparing with commas than American English. For examples see pp. 4 and 732 of the current edition of Modern English Usage (Oxford University Press, 2015). On the other hand the Queen's English does not follow Amerenglish in proscribing commas where they are useful but outlawed by some made-up "rule": the superstition that American teachers propound that when a subordinate clause follows an independent clause a comma is forbidden between them has no place in BrE. Equally a BrE speaker has no urge to rewrite the opening sentence of the Bible to insert an unnecessary comma in "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth". It is in short unwise of a speaker of AmE to tell a writer of BrE how to punctuate - or vice versa, of course. Tim riley talk 06:50, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fair, and it's not my intention to be insensitive regarding Engvar issues; I just don't know what is an Engvar issue vs. an actual mistake until someone tells me its an Engvar thing. If you can recommend any good sources listing the differences, I would be delighted to read them. I recall attempting to find some many years ago without much success.
FWIW, my own research was only somewhat helpful. I was able to find a rather large number of sources saying that commas are necessary after initial dependent clauses, but we all agree that's not the full picture. I did find this article from Grammarly that says: Since the introductory clause consists of only three words, the comma separating the introductory clause from the main clause may or may not be used. (Grammarly, notably, prescribes according to American English standards.) It's not clear from this source if three words is actually a cut-off point or just an example of an acceptable omission (for whatever it's worth, I think three words is also what my Composition teacher in college said); I'm not inclined to treat is as a hard rule (it clearly never has been), and when I look at a Google Books preview of Modern English Usage, I see an example on p. 4 of a slightly longer dependent clause (four words) that also omits a comma.
I'm rambling now, though. If we accept that commas are definitely optional after subordinate clauses of three words or fewer, we eliminate most of the examples I'd ordinarily complain about. I can raise the rest below. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 13:45, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I so sympathise with your wish for a list of differences between English and American punctuation! It would indeed be useful all round. The main obstacle to compiling one, I think, is that where something is a non-issue, as in the use of a comma after "In the beginning" or between a main and subordinate clause it would no more occur to a writer of a good BrE guide to say do or don't use a comma here than it would to say do or don't start a sentence with a capital letter. Some things just don't need mentioning. (That being said, a teacher of infants told me not long ago that the American form "In the beginning comma God created..." is now being drummed into British tinies, on the orders of HM Government. Heigh ho! Fortunately I shall probably be dead by the time today's infants are perpetrating prose in public.) Tim riley talk 14:15, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Lead
[edit]
  • The Romans established a lodgement in north-east Iberia When did this happen? A year would be nice.
Good point. Done.
  • took the offensive in Iberia and were badly defeated, while maintaining their hold Don't like this construction, would prefer "were badly defeated but maintained": parallelism is pretty.
I slightly prefer mine, but done.
  • The final engagement of the war took place between armies under Scipio and Hannibal at the battle of Zama in 202 strike "battle of", it's unnecessary when we already mentioned it was an engagement. If you prefer specifying that it was a battle (don't know what else it would be, but whatever), you can replace "engagement" with "battle"
Done.
  • resulted in Hannibal's defeat and in Carthage suing for peace. Personally, I think it would sound better without repeating the second "in", but this is a mild preference.
Good, cus I would have fought to keep the current construction. ;-)
  • The peace treaty imposed on the Carthaginians stripped them I would strike the imposition part. It seems odd to speak of a peace treaty being imposed when it didn't follow an unconditional surrender, and even if there is a sourcing reason for it, here it's just clunky. As it is, we can already tell that the treaty was quite harsh from the fact that most Carthaginian politicians opposed it
Like any politician has ever sung the praises of any treaty their country has signed of on after losing a war? And obviously the statements of politicians can be taken as an accurate reflection of reality? [/irony] I prefer it to stay, without being wedded to the exact wording, if only to reflect the sources.
Which is fair, but it's a little awkward IMO, and it doesn't strike as important to note in the lead. If you disagree, I'll think some more about how to possibly restructure the sentence. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 17:57, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't insist on the word "imposition", but this sense needs to be retained in order to follow the sources.
  • Henceforth it was clear that Carthage was politically
Mr riley, if you could spare a moment, do I need a "that" there? I am inclined to believe not, and it seems clunky with one added, but I would value your opinion. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:48, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry - just spotted this. You don't need 'that'. I'd probably use one, but it's fine with or without. See current edition of Fowler, p. 808. Tim riley talk 07:11, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. That stays out then. (I shall abstain from Fowler, if only to spare the wallcovering of whichever room I might read it in.) Gog the Mild (talk) 21:12, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Scipio was awarded a triumph and received the agnomen "Africanus". "received" seems redundant
Why? Otherwise it would read as if he were awarded the agnomen.
Would that not be a fair statement? —Compassionate727 (T·C) 17:57, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. I see your point. The problem is that we don't actually know how he came by the name. Livy explicitly states this, so the modern sources all fudge it. As I have. :-)
Mmm. Could you briefly summarize what we do know and what is unclear? I'm not familiar with this issue and don't have access to the sources in question. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 16:20, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We know he became known as "Scipio Africanus". The sources use words like "accorded"; "as a tribute ... he would be known as"; "assume[d] the cognomen"; "he assumed". Lazenby writes "Livy says he could not discover who had first conferred it". [My emphasis.]
Are we reasonably confident that it was originally conferred (i.e., Scipio didn't just adopt it on his own initiative)? —Compassionate727 (T·C) 17:11, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"reasonably"? Depends what you call reasonable. We are not certain that happened, no. He could have just assumed it. He could have become known as Africanus informally before it was formalised; it is just about possible that it never was formalised. (IMO unlikely but not 100% ruled out.) IMO these possibilities is covered by the current form of words.
Yeah, I agree. Or at least, I agree that "received" is about as good of a one word description of what happened here as we are going to get. One last question: would it be acceptable to write: Scipio received a triumph and the agnomen "Africanus"? I recognize that "award a triumph" is a standard construction, so if "receive" would be considered inaccurate, it's fine to leave the sentence as-is. Just trying to tighten the prose as much as possible while faithfully preserving the meaning. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 17:44, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This sentence now remove from the lead. (I did some trimming to make space for some other issues in the lead requested by AirshipJungleman29 below.
Opposing forces
[edit]
  • The balance were equipped as heavy infantry "rest" or "remainder", not "balance". This isn't a bank account.
Done.
  • into three ranks, of which the front rank would prefer these clauses be separated by a colon or semi-colon (not certain off-hand which is correct) and "of which" eliminated
Done.
  • second and third ranks had a thrusting spear carried? bore? wielded? just not "had", please
Changed.
  • Both legionary sub-units and individual legionaries For some reason, when "both" leads like that, my brain's first reaction is to think that it means two sub-units. Maybe move it to afterward? Also, what the heck is a "sub-unit" in this context?
1. Done. 2. sub unit
The wikilink you (or someone) added to manicle is what I was looking for. Thanks. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 18:15, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Good. I should have thought to include it in the first place.
  • legionaries fought in a? relatively open order
Er, no.
Yeah, now that I actually know exactly what that means, I agree. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 18:15, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • elect two men each year, known as consuls, as senior magistrates, who Is it really necessary to specify that consuls were senior magistrates? I think everyone can infer this. If you feel like it is, the sentence would flow better if the title came after category of job (e.g., "two mean each year as senior magistrates, called consuls").
I do. Order tweaked as you suggest.
  • at time of war "at" should be "during," and "time of" is a waste of words
'during war' does not work for me. I am happy to rephrase, but my first two thoughts are both longer than the current formulation, which I assume you will object to.
Probably. This must be a British English thing, I don't think I've ever seen the preposition "at" used with time before. I don't suppose "in" would be less offensive to you than "during"? If not, don't worry about it. I would still prefer to eliminate "time of" if possible, though. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 18:15, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"in" is fine. Changed.
  • would each lead an army. An army was usually formed by combining two Roman legions This implies that there would be four Roman legions fielded during war (2+2=4), when the second sentence says that traditionally only two total legions of Romans were fielded. Not sure which is correct, but please fix.
Oops. Thanks. Fixed.
  • Carthage recruited foreigners to make up its army i.e., mercenaries, or should I understand something else here?
You should. My explanatory footnote seems to have gone walk about, so I have reinstated it.
  • were from North Africa and so were frequently Does this mean that even non-North African troops were called "Libyans," so long as they weren't Carthaginians?
Clarified.
  • provided several types of fighter, including: close order infantry while I understand why you wanted a colon there, I doubt it is correct
Possibly this is another example of "wo nations separated by a common language". It is usual to start a list with a colon. You have an issue with that?
It might be. My instinct is that you could use either a colon or "including" but not both together. But you can't remove "including" without altering the meaning of the sentence, and like I said, the colon's use makes a kind of sense to me, so I won't fight you over it. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 18:15, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • experienced infantry and cavalry. These infantry were
Done.
  • The Gallic cavalry, and possibly some of the Iberians, wore armour Unless your sources are stressing the possibility that some Iberians were heavy calvary, I would leave the possibilizing to the next sentence ("most or all" is adequate, I think)
Yes, the source is indicating that some of the Iberians were probably - but not certainly - heavy cavalry.
Should the sentence say "probably" instead of "possibly" then? Your call, I've not read the sources. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 18:18, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The source says "There is some evidence that some of the Spanish horse were heavy cavalry ... and may well have been armoured." Bleh!
  • I'm realizing I don't really understand what "open-order" and "close-order" means. I don't suppose there's something you could wikilink?
The first mention of close-order is already Wikilinked. I have just Wiktionary-linked open-order.
Compassionate727, lovely stuff. Many thanks. Responses above.
More will be coming as I have the time and mental capacity to do so. I intend to get through the entire article eventually. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 16:41, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Primary sources
[edit]

I'm not going to suggest copy edits to this section with your revisit pending and T8612's concerns still under discussion. I will say, however, that this section seems to have been basically copied and pasted between the various Punic Wars articles without attention to the context of each article. It is especially striking here: surely, the fact that almost all of Polybius's account of this war is missing deserves more than a single sentence, especially when the previous two paragraphs are almost entirely about how important Polybius's account is. If Polybius's account is broken and Livy's is suspect, who are we relying on? —Compassionate727 (T·C) 16:41, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Background
[edit]

The same indiscriminate copying seems to have happened in the first paragraph of this section that happened in the primary sources section. It's overly detailed for a Second Punic War article. Do we really need to know about the Pyrrhic War to understand the Second Punic War? Or Richard Miles's opinion that they "stumbled" into the First Punic War? —Compassionate727 (T·C) 16:41, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and yes. This is the sort of deep background which would be expected in a FAC in order to cover the second part of FA criterion 1b . (You may wish to skim my very recent oppose to CSS Baltic
1b. it neglects no major facts or details I would not consider the name of the Pyrrhic War a major detail in the background to the Second Punic War. (The first, sure, but not the second.) Neither is Richard Miles's name. The effect of the Pyrrhic War is important, of course; so is how Carthage and Rome didn't always see each other as inevitable enemies. I note both of these things in my proposed version of the paragraph below. But a few of the details that would be important background for the First Punic War become unimportant when you widen your view to include everything leading up to the Second. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 17:36, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: I'll take the lack of a response to mean that you disagree with me that those details are excessive. That's fine, I suppose; we may just have different instincts regarding the appropriate level of background detail. Here's what I intend to be a little more forceful about: I think that the level of detail given for the prelude to the First Punic War is very imbalanced when compared to the level of detail provided regarding the war itself. If you want to keep the amount of detail you currently have in the first paragraph, I will strongly encourage you to expand the second a little. Just a sentence or two outlining the course of the war in very general terms would, I believe, help maintain parity of detail in that section. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 16:57, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Correct. But I'll take a look at both paragraphs and see what I feel I can do. Note that even if it is agreed/established that something in an article is not a major fact or detail this does not mean that the article is failing the criteria. To do that it has to go into "unnecessary detail" or not use WP:summary style. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:07.
Pyrrhic War removed, a little unhappily. A couple of other tweaks made along the lines you suggest. You are correct about my skimping on the 1PW. I have expanded and may yet add a little more. (If I do I'll let you know.) Gog the Mild (talk) 17:32, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I might propose text like this: The Roman Republic had been aggressively expanding in the southern Italian mainland for a century before the First Punic War, and by 270 BC controlled all of peninsular Italy south of the Arno river. During this time, Carthage, with its capital in what is now Tunisia, had come to dominate southern Iberia, much of the coastal regions of North Africa, the Balearic Islands, Corsica, Sardinia and the western half of Sicily. By 264 BC, Carthage was the dominant external power on the island, (Sicily?) and Carthage and Rome were the preeminent powers in the western Mediterranean. Although their relationship was initially friendly, Rome's continued expansionary attitude and Carthage's proprietary approach to Sicily brought them into conflict. In 264 BC Carthage and Rome went to war over control of the independent Sicilian city state of Messana (modern Messina), starting the First Punic War. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 16:50, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would also consider glossing the Balearic Islands, Corsica, Sardinia as "the Western Mediterranean islands" (or "the islands of the Western Mediterranean"). It isn't shorter, but it is fewer items to process, which I believe is valuable when the goal is to convey an overview of Carthage's possessions and the islands' individual names aren't all that important. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 16:59, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why deprive a reader of information when we are not even saving words or characters!? Why force a reader to chase a link to find out which islands the broader term refers to?
Well, I can't speak for anyone else, but when I read that line, I had to pause for a second to process all those names before realizing: "Oh, that's just every island in the Western Mediterranean." It would have easier for me to understand its meaning if the sentence had just said that to begin with. You ask why we should force a reader to follow a link to find out their names, but I don't see why any reader would bother doing so, because at this point in the article, at the very beginning of the background section, none of these islands are important as individual islands. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 17:36, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You know what, I'm having second thoughts about this suggestion. I was quite sleep-deprived yesterday, which may explain why I stumbled while trying to process the sentence, and I'd rather avoid any ambiguity over what exactly is included in the phrase "islands of the Western Mediterranean" (I obviously wasn't understanding small islands just off the coast of Italy like the Pontine to be included, but I'm not sure there's any good way to communicate that). Consider this suggestion withdrawn unless someone else sees any merit to it. I would, however, suggest that Sardinia and Corsica be separated by "and" instead of a comma. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 15:31, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Compassionate727 and apologies for the hiatus. I have now, I think, addressed all of your points above, agreeing with most but not all, and am eagerly awaiting your next contribution. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:19, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not a problem, I've been busy too, especially this past week. I'll add more as I have time.
  • This section uses the name "Truceless War" (wikilinked) in the second paragraph and "Mercenary War" (without a wikilink) in the third. It wasn't immediately obvious to me that both names refer to the same conflict. I would suggest picking one and sticking with it.
D'oh! Fixed.
  • After the First Punic War, Carthaginian possessions in Iberia Did Carthage lose territory in Iberia as a result of the First Punic War? To my mind, including that particular temporal clause after having already specified the timeframe in the previous sentence implies that they did; if this was not the case, I would suggest omitting it.
Hmm. Ok. Gone. Although it now reads a little clunkily to me. Hmm again, I have unclunked it, but this results in a monster sentence. How would you feel about "At the time"?
"At the time" should be fine, I think. I believe that, more so than the redundancy, it was how "with the suppression of the rebellion" and "after the First Punic War" are actually slightly different timepoints that gave rise to a potential phantom of meaning (in my mind, anyway), since I was wondering if there was a significance to the slight pivot.
  • in the early 220s BC and then his son, Hannibal, in 221 BC This construction has the potential to be slightly confusing due to the nature of BC years. (Early chronologically and early numerically are at opposite ends of the decade.) Did Hasdrubal not immediately succeed Hamilcar as viceroy? If he did, I would suggest specifying the exact year.
I was following what I thought was the best source, but have found one with a precise date. Amended. Good nudge. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:53, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 219 BC a Carthaginian army under Hannibal besieged, captured and sacked Saguntum and in spring 218 BC Rome declared war on Carthage. My memory of this event isn't perfect, but I feel like you could (and probably should) say a little bit more about incident that sparked the war.
Very little is known with certainty. I have added the duration. Most of what you have read was probably based on Livy, about whom modern sources are even more scathing than usual for this event. To quote from just one HQ RS: "his chronology at this point is hopelessly confused"; "it is probably best to reject this"; "Livy even claims that ..." (This last the author feeling that they have to state one of the common "facts" about the siege - that Hannibal was wounded - but, unusually, distancing themselves from what they are writing.) I could go on. ("the more unreliable Livy") Even "facts" supported by Polybius are hedged with things like - to use a third HQ RS "at least suggest that he was not too unwilling to ..."; you what? I have expanded on the political to and froing preceding Rome's declaration of war a little.
The politics was really what I was looking for; sacked the city straight into war seemed a little to abrupt. Thanks.
  • Rome made a separate agreement Do we know anything about this agreement? The vague recollection I have from my college Spanish history class is that it wasn't a formal alliance and Rome's citing it as a casus belli was something of a pretext, and I'm pretty sure we don't know much, but if we could be any more specific than just "an agreement," that would be nice.
You are pretty spot on in that "it wasn't a formal alliance", "Rome's citing it as a casus belli was something of a pretext" and "we don't know much". So calling it an "agreement" is about as specific as we can be - it is not clear that it was either formal or written. It seems that both sides were up for a confrontation and the situation around Saguntum would do as well as anything - regardless of any actual wrongs or rights.
Hi Compassionate727, I believe that I have now addressed all of your comments to date. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:14, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I've been busy and will continue to be for another week as my summer class wraps up. I hope to have time to finish commenting after that. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 23:55, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from HAL

[edit]
  • Would dropping "which were" from the first sentence be an improvement?
Lol! You are so right. What convoluted phraseology. Changed.
  • There is some inconsistency in the content of the captions. Sometimes there is a bit of context on the artwork, and elsewhere it only has the name of who is depicted.
Yerse. I am probably being slow, but I am missing your point. Is this a problem? Happy to remove information if it is.
It's not a big deal. I was thinking of actually adding more info to the captions. For instance, adding "1704 French bust" in the Hannibal caption, etc. ~ HAL333 16:36, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Good grief no. Who cares? It's like mentioning sources in line for each paragraph of prose. If readers want more information, they can click on the images, just like they could chase the cites. I didn't add all of the images, and while I have trimmed the fluff from some, for others I have gritted my teeth and left as is. Bleh! What the heck - if that is all you want I'll grit my teeth harder. Done.
  • In the 'Primary sources' section, "Carthaginian" and "Roman" are linked yet "Greek" isn't.
Ho hum. (MOS:OVERLINK). "Greek" now linked, although I am not really happy with it.
Thanks. Done.
  • 'Much of Polybius's account of the Second Punic War is missing, or only exists in fragmentary form." needs a source.
Since I took it to GAN someone had "helpfully" introduced a paragraph break and I somehow missed it. Well spotted. Fixed.
  • "if there was a direct threat to the city" Should that be if there were? I'm unsure myself...
Umm. I see what you mean, but surely 'if there was a direct threat to the city' or 'if there were direct threats to the city'? No?
An Engvar thing. Until fairly recently in BrE the subjunctive was thought to be on the way out, but lately it seems to be making a comeback, infected by AmE. The phrasing as drawn is the correct BrE for now. Tim riley talk 20:56, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not that we Americans are particularly consistent about when we use the subjunctive, either. But yes, the English subjunctive is pretty much always optional in conditional and counterfactual constructions; "if there was" is fine. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 17:28, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "When they did they fought" clunky
I disagree. It reads fine to me. But I would be happy to consider alternatives.
I know you hate commas, but adding one here would make it more obvious to us Americans that they did they isn't an error. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 17:28, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if it helps readers. Where would you like it? (I have mentally inserted one in every possibility, and each just reduces the phrase to nonsense to my eyes. PS, have I yet referred you to the grammar writer Lynne Truss - [3]?
I should never have shared that quote with you! If I were to insert a comma, he said, carefully using the subjunctive, it would be "When they did, they fought...". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:29, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No good deed goes unpunished. That almost makes sense. Fair enough - inserted. Gog the Mild (talk) 00:26, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "if a combat" is the 'a' needed?
I think so. Possibly I am being over subtle, but it does change the meaning. (Ie, it is not a case of the battle as a whole being protracted ("if combat") so much as the particular sub-battle they were engaged in ("if a combat").)
Is the nuance you are driving at that within a particular battle, the shock infantry would sometimes charge, disengage, then charge again? Otherwise, I'm not sure the difference is actually substantial. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 17:38, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. Although they might. The one I outline above. The more I think on't the more it seems to be needed. If it's clunky I could completely rewrite? (Albeit in a slightly less summary style.)
  • "Carthage never attempted to use its fleet decisively" I'm not sure what that means.... Is there a more clear way to word that?
Oof! It seems pretty clear to me. Which possibly means I am too close to it or trying to be too succinct. Let me think on't.
While most of the changes you made were an improvement, and not to act aggressively decidedly is equally, if not more, vague. The impression I'm getting is that the Carthaginian fleet tried to avoid a pitched battle; if that is what you mean, I would suggest saying so. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 17:33, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think the real problem is that the sources are even vaguer. Fair nuff, they are trying to get 17 years into a sentence or two. Straining them a little I have "when it did it was usually to escort transport ships; it rarely acted aggressively." How's that?

More comments to come. ~ HAL333 15:50, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi HAL333 and thanks for this. Your comments so far addressed above. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:48, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "well treated" --> "well-treated"
  • Is there a high-quality image of Fabius you could add?
Good idea. Done. (I have even put the date in the caption for you.)
(: ~ HAL333 00:13, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Roman populace derided Fabius as the Cunctator ("the Delayer") and at the elections of 216 BC elected as consuls Gaius Terentius Varro who advocated pursuing a more aggressive war strategy and Lucius Aemilius Paullus, who advocated a strategy somewhere between Fabius's and that suggested by Varr is a bit of a run-on.
True. Broken with a colon.
  • The historian Richard Miles As you've already introduced Miles, could you just use "Miles"?
Yep. Sorry.
  • A second force, under Hannibal's youngest brother Mago This is really nit-picky and I'm not sure if it's incorrect: should that be "younger"? If Hannibal only had two brothers, there can't be a 'youngest' out of two.
I believe he had more than two; but anyway, both were 'younger' than him, so noe was "youngest".
I don't much care. I don't remember linking it and it isn't currently.
  • Would moving the map of Scipio's African campaign to the right be more aesthetically appealing?
I tried it before and didn't like it. I have just switched it and still don't, so have put it back. But if you feel strongly I could live with it on the right.

That's all. Solid work. ~ HAL333 16:36, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to support this article. ~ HAL333 00:13, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from AirshipJungleman29

[edit]

I haven't done this before, so please bear with me.

Everyone starts sometime and it always cheers me up to see new people reviewing at FAC - and bringing new view points. If I really don't like a suggestion or seriously disagree I shall say so. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:13, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first paragraph of the lead seems slightly confused—specifically, the placement of the sentence explaining the war's outbreak between more sentences more geographical than it. Would it not make more sense to place "In 219 BC..." as the second sentence, with the other chronological details?
Would it help if I broke the paragraph immediately before "In 219 BC..."? (I could amalgamate the last two paragraphs to stay within the maximum of four.) This would make the opening paragraph the overall summary (per MOS:OPEN) and the following three the detailed break down.
I think that might work, if the new second paragraph begins with the military theatre discussion (or if the first paragraph ended with it).
Actually there are two discussions of the military theatres in the first paragraph, so one is probably redundant.~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:25, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Rereading after a break I can see that you are correct and I am not, so moved as you suggested.
    • Also, "which were" seems removable from the first sentence.
Yes, indeed. Gone.
  • Do you think the lead should mention the first and third wars explicitly, rather than only indirectly in the first sentence?
Again, rereading after a break I agree with you. I have removed some information which in the context of the lead is too much detail and added a brief summary of both wars. What do you think?
  • I feel like the link to Battle of the Upper Baetis in the lead should enclose the "were" of "were badly defeated". Something something verbs something something gut feeling I don't know.
I know what you mean, but that is not the usual convention. If there is a general feeling to include "were" - and similarly in similar cases - I am relaxed about doing so.
  • I'll stay out of the source discussion above, save for generally aligning with the nominator's viewpoint, which seems to concur with those of the RS I have to hand.
Cheers. :-)
  • Never a fan of one-sentence paragraphs, and even less of one-sentence sections. If the navies section is only worth one sentence, surely it isn't worth a separate section? Armies and navies aren't that diametrically opposed.
Very good point. Sections fixed. And I am with you as a rule on single sentence paragraphs, so rewritten to now be three sentences.
  • Couldn't "The immediate cause... the First Punic War." be combined into one sentence? That might solve the mini-issue of the First Punic War being referred to multiple times before its linking.
Resolved a little differently. I think it's resolved, see what you think.
  • I'm not entirely sure that the "There were three main military theatres" sentence needs to be in the background section.
Ho hum. Ok. Deleted.

Will continue. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:56, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Great stuff AirshipJungleman29, thank you. I have cherry picked some of your comments to respond to. I shall come back at the others later. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:13, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
AirshipJungleman29, apologies for taking so long to get back to you on this. I am impressed by your comments so far - you are giving my prose a good kicking and it seems warranted. Your comments to date addressed above and your next instalment eagerly awaited. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:18, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nice to hear my comments are at least somewhat tolerable. Your edits to the lead have significantly improved it, in my opinion. To finish it off, the prose of the last paragraph in the lead are somewhat too bullet-pointy (esp. the lines about the peace treaty conditions; the line "Henceforth it was clear Carthage was politically subordinate to Rome." is particularly reminiscent of a secondary-school textbook, in my opinion). Lastly, I think the Third Punic War could be referred to in one sentence: the storming, sacking, and slaughtering is less important than the ending of Carthaginian civilization.
Ah. The sources are clear that Carthaginian civilisation was not ended by the sacking etc. See the second paragraph of Third Punic War#Aftermath, which I took to FA a couple of years ago.
I stand corrected.~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:04, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "several types of fighter": is the choice of the last word to convey some sort of disorderliness compared to the more organised 'soldier'?
Yes. Ie, they were recruited as fighters and trained to become soldiers. Let me know if you think I am getting too clever there, I can always change it; although "types of soldier" would not work.
  • Another single sentence paragraph is in the Macedonia section.
Yes. The topic doesn't warrant more than a sentence and there is no other paragraph with which it could sensibly be grouped. So IMO the awkward single sentence paragraph is the least bad option.
  • Also, perhaps a sentence more on the First Macedonian War?
I am not sure why, but ok.
Hi AirshipJungleman29, I think I have addressed all of your concerns above, although you may wish to check that. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:01, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, and I now wholeheartedly support. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:35, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you AirshipJungleman29, much appreciated - even the bits I grumbled about. I hope that you didn't find it too bad, perhaps even enjoyed it. Wearing my FAC coordinator hat, can I encourage you to review another candidate for FA some time soon? You are just the sort of reviewer that FAC needs poring over its nominees. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:40, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Gog the Mild, to tell the truth, I originally came here because I myself intend to submit an article or two for FAC in the near future, and I wished to gain firsthand knowledge of the process. I have, however, enjoyed my mini-break here, so I will probably return wearing a reviewer hat in the near future. Cheers! ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:31, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

Pass. No concerns. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:14, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Iazyges

[edit]
  • and Africa, where the war was decided. given that the other two theaters give the victor of the campaigns, perhaps and Africa, where the war was decided, in Rome's favor.
Good point, done. (Not with those exact words.) Gog the Mild (talk) 18:36, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Romans beat off a Carthaginian attack suggest The Romans repulsed a Carthaginian attack, per the American understanding of the term.
Done.
  • Such Italian forces as were raised resisted operating away from their home cities and performed badly when they did can perhaps be simplified to The Italian forces that were raised resisted operating away from their home cities and performed badly when they did.
That would lose "Such Italian forces", ie not many; which would require me to add a sentence saying the same thing, and so not simplifting it at all.
  • since the Capuans had no obligations perhaps since the Capuans had no obligations to Carthage
I think it's pretty clear from the context that the current wording means that the Capuans had no obligations under the treaty. (To Carthage or to anyone else.) The sentence starts with "The treaty".
  • After the Carthaginians failed to resupply the city, Syracuse fell in the autumn of 212 BC perhaps After the Carthaginians failed to resupply the city, the entirety of Syracuse fell in the autumn of 212 BC
Good spot. Changed to "the rest of".
  • Replace the horrid British English with American English, as God intended.
Damn ex-colonials. Learn the Queen's English!
Thanks Iazyges. Responses above. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:11, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Good work, happy to support. Hopefully, I'm around to harass you review Punic Wars later on. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 00:55, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 29 July 2022 [4].

Banded broadbill

[edit]
Nominator(s): AryKun (talk) 12:13, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Another species of Southeast Asian broadbill. Pretty well-known, and rather well illustrated for an article on a species from this part of the world. AryKun (talk) 12:13, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

[edit]

Recusing to review. I may do some light copy editing as I go. If I mess anything up, could you let me know here.

  • "Mainland Southeast Asia". Why the upper case M? Also in the main article.
    • No reason, just used it because it was in the main article.
Could we make them both lower case then.
  • "On Java, the broadbill might breed year-round." "might" doesn't seem helpful here. Do you mean something like 'sometimes' or 'has been observed to'?
    • Replaced "might" with "is thought to".
  • "are sister to the Grauer's broadbill". Why the definite article? Which is not used in the preceding sentence.
    • Removed definite article.
  • "has more metallic grey underparts and pinker throats and upperparts." Just checking: the underparts are both "more metallic grey" and "pinker"?
    • Second reference is to upperparts.
D'oh! Sorry.
  • "with an indistinct neckband, blacker foreheads, and pinker throats". Either all singular or all plural.
    • Changed all to singular.
  • "with pale dark streaks". I am unsure how something can be both pale and dark.
    • Dark compared to the background, but pale overall. For example, look at the photo of the West Javan juvenile. The streaks on the breast are rather pale overall, but dark compared to the yellowish background.
Hmm. Ok.
  • Perhaps link still-hunting to Hunting strategy#Still hunting?
    • Added link, but the hunting strategy article is about human hunters, so unsure how helpful it would be.
That's why I put "perhaps". Personally I think it's of some utility. But if you disagree, take it out.
  • "as well as catching prey in flight in more elegantly." Is there a word missing?
    • Rephrased.

That's all I have. Nice work. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:50, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just the M/mainland issue, but no reason for that to stand in the way of my support. Gog the Mild (talk) 07:57, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Funk

[edit]
  • I'll have a closer look soon. FunkMonk (talk) 01:37, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect all subspecies names and synonyms here, if they aren't already.
    • Done.
  • This individual[5] seems much lighter than the ones shown in the article. If it's a juvenile, perhaps clearer than the current juveniles shown in the article?
    • Definitely not a juvenile. I suspect that it's due to the lighting, since the background indicates the bird is captive. It might be an immature or perhaps a different subspecies, but I can't be sure since the photo doesn't provide any location info.
  • "All the subspecies excluding javanicus are sometimes split as a separate species on the basis of morphology, which would make the current species monotypic (having only one subspecies)." but does anyone still follow that scheme? If it is an old proposition, could be said in past tense.
    • IUCN/Birdlife still split it into two.
You could add "according to this scheme" to this sentence then: "The nominate subspecies is called the Javan broadbill,[1] while the three subspecies in E. harterti (harterti, brookei, and pallidus) are called the banded broadbill.[13]" FunkMonk (talk) 10:25, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done. AryKun (talk) 05:38, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The species is called takau rimba in Malay and Nok Phaya Paak Kwaang laay leuang in Thai." Considering the nominate is from Indonesia, and some of the other subspecies occur there too, wouldn't it make sense to have the Indonesian name there?
    • Haven't found any sources with the Indonesian name. The source for the Thai and Malay names is only a guide for the Malay Peninsula and thus restricts itself to those.
  • "This larger clade is sister to one formed by the long-tailed broadbill and dusky broadbill. Both of these clades are sister to Grauer's broadbill." Is this level of text description detail needed when it is shown in the cladogram?
    • Can't hurt, and might be helpful for those with screen readers or those who don't know how to "read" a cladogram.
  • What do the subspecies names mean?
    • Generally, this information isn't given in the article, as it's a bit excessively detailed.
Hmmm, is it really? I think this is of much more interest than describing sister taxa relationships in-text of every clade in the cladogram, for example. FunkMonk (talk) 19:59, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you want, I could add the meaning in a footnote after each ssp name. AryKun (talk) 05:38, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly couldn't hurt, it could even be in the main text. Since this is the article that covers those subspecies too, this is where people will have to look for the meaning of their names and any other info about them. FunkMonk (talk) 07:44, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It is the type species of the genus Eurylaimus, which was created for it." Both parts of the sentence means the same, but I can see the latter part could be needed as an explanation.
    • Yep, the second part is meant as an explanation for those unfamiliar with taxonomy.
  • "The weight of 10 specimens of adults of pallidus" unnecessarily wordy, what about "The weight of 10 adult pallidus specimens"
    • Done.
  • "that allows it to mash and "chew" its food, helping the species consume relatively large prey." Isn't this more suited for the diet section?
    • Well, I guess it might fit in there, but the first part of the sentence is actually describing its bill's appearance and size; the latter part is just there to provide an explanation for why the bill is so large.
  • Explain anatomical terms like supercilium in parenthesis.
    • Added glosses for supercilium and lores, but haven't added them for all the feathers, since those require a rather lengthy explanation of their function and position that would obscure the focus of the paragraph.
  • You state the location of some pictured specimens, but not others, could be consistent.
    • Added location for the picture lacking it, don't think the infobox image needs location as the subspecies is already mentioned.
  • In one place you say "coloration", though the rest seems to be UK "colour".
    • Fixed.
  • "which splits the banded broadbill into two species" Which two species?
    • Mentioned earlier in the taxonomy section, assuming readers are at least skimming it as they go through.
  • And on that issue, what authority are we following here in only having one species? I believe we generally follow IOC, what do they say? In case the article will have to be split.
    • IOC keeps it as one species, so that's how I've treated it.
  • Terms like ovoid and lateral could be explained or replaced with common terms.
    • Done.
  • "is a striking species" Seems rather informal and hyperbolic for the very first sentence.
    • Striking means distinctive or conspicuous, which it is; also, since the BOW account calls it "remarkable-looking" and "comical-looking", I thought that at least a cursory mention of its distinctive appearance was needed at the start.
Shouldn't this be at the start of the description part of the intro then? Now you instantly characterise it as "striking", which I don't think is common for the first introductory sentence in other articles. FunkMonk (talk) 19:59, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Moved the mention in the lead to the description part, instead of the first sentence. AryKun (talk) 05:36, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "is sometimes split into two species, one including only the nominate subspecies, E. j. javanicus, and one including all the remaining subspecies." The article body should go into this in more detail under taxonomy. What is the name of the other supposed species, and what is its nominate subspecies?
    • Adde extra detail in taxonomy.
  • On what basis are the other subspecies grouped together to the exclusion of the nominate?
    • Added.
  • Link arthropod in intro.
    • Done.
  • Not a big deal, but instead of having the very long double image of immatures, perhaps use one of them under reproduction where immatures are mentioned, and perhaps give the month the photo was taken (can be seen in the exif data of the photos) in the image caption, since this seems important in the text?
    • Added months, but I think the images are best placed where they are.
  • "the other subspecies as being of least concern" Shouldn't this be the other species? I don't think they cover subspecies.
    • The other subspecies as in all three of them, changed to "and all the other" to make it clearer. I think saying subspecies maintains internal consistency, since the rest of the article treats it as one species, not two.
  • Should be possible to identify which subspecies are pictured from their locations?
Some replies above. FunkMonk (talk) 10:25, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aa77zz

[edit]

Description

  • "The weight of adults of pallidus from the Malay Peninsula was ..." I suggest the present tense "is" – unless you specify a particular study.
    • Reworded.
  • "with a black band across the neck." and "a pure grey breast-band". This is confusing. Is this the same band? Does the male of the nominate subspecies have a band on the upper breast? Perhaps also mention the breastband/neckband when listing ssp in Taxonomy and systematics
    • The neck-band is black and across the neck; the breast-band is gray and lower down across the breast. This can be seen in the infobox image, where there is a black band across the neck and another grayish streak below the neck-band. The entire description para refers to the nominate ssp as mentioned at the beginning ("Adult males of the nominate subspecies"), while the neckband is mentioned in the ssp descriptions where it differs (eg in brookei - "with an indistinct neckband").
  • Consider mentioning the white spots visible on the underside of the retrices.
    • Already mentioned ("The tail..and has white spots on the underside").
  • The sentence beginning "It is among the widest-billed broadbills, ..." seems out of place. Consider moving the sentence to before "The irises are pale yellow...".
    • Done.

Distribution

  • link Indochina
    • That redirects to Mainland Southeast Asia, which is linked earlier.

Breeding

  • Perhaps mention that both sexes collect nest material (Gulson-Castillo et al 2019 p. 16)
    • Added.

References

  • The references are cluttered with links from overzealous archiving. For many Wikipedia articles link rot is a serious problem, but fortunately this is not the case for most of the references in this article. There is no need to archive links to scans available from the Biodiversity Heritage Library (BHL) or those from the Internet Archive (IA). (Note that the BHL and the archived copies are on the same IA web server.) I'm unable to display the archived copies of the BHL book scans.
    • Removed archive links to BHL content.
  • The archived copy for Kirwan et al 2021 (Cornell BOW) is useless – the article is behind a paywall so the archive contains no useful information.
    • Removed link.
  • Gulson-Castillo et al 2019 – the page numbers should be 8–27.
    • But 11–15 are the ones supporting cited info. The field pages in the ref template says "Pages in the source that support the content (not an indication of the number of pages in the source".
  • Dekker et 2000 Notes 3 – For journal articles it is usual to specify the page numbers of the article rather than the actual page. (as with your Notes 2 reference) The pages are 77-88.
    • See above

- Aa77zz (talk) 10:50, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • I still find the description of the neckband unsatisfactory. When describing the female you write: "although the neckband is faint or absent in males as well on Borneo and Java." Presumably the race on Java is E. j. javanicus, the nominate subspecies, which you've described earlier as "with a black band across the neck." Perhaps you should make it clear earlier that not all males of the nominate subspecies have a black band across the neck. - Aa77zz (talk) 12:36, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I've tweaked the description and moved the sentence mentioning the lack of a neckband in Bornean and Javan males into the para describing males, which I think should make this clearer. AryKun (talk) 08:55, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support - the changes look good. Great work. - Aa77zz (talk) 09:31, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Replaced map with new one citing its sources. The adult feeding juvenile may be a low-quality image, but it illustrates a feature of its behaviour well, and in any case, there aren't any other images that could be used for the Behaviour and ecology section. AryKun (talk) 06:43, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: - Are you comfortable with signing off on the image review, or do you believe more still needs to be done? Hog Farm Talk 18:57, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not thrilled with the quality of the juvenile image but will not oppose over it. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:26, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]
  • For the web and journal cites, you give the publisher only where the publisher is the Cornell Lab of Ornithology. Is there a reason for the inconsistency?
  • Suggest adding the "subscription required" icon for those Cornell Lab references that are not free access.
    • Done.

That's everything I can see. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:38, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pass. I removed one more that I think you missed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:10, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 29 July 2022 [6].

CSS Baltic

[edit]
Nominators: User:Sturmvogel 66, User:Hog Farm

A co-nom from me and Sturmvogel. An object lesson in what happens when you try to DIY an ironclad. I believe that this is the first FAC for a warship of the Confederate States. Hog Farm Talk 02:56, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review pass per ACR (t · c) buidhe 04:18, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Support: A good article, but I think that long paragraphs in it may benefit from splitting. Long paragraphs are both very hard to keep track of and distasteful, and the issue would be further compounded by the new Vector skin. Other than that, I found the article is an interesting read about an obscure subject, will support if the aforementioned issue has been resolved. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 13:38, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@CactiStaccingCrane: - I've split one that did seem kinda long. Did you have concerns about the other paragraph lengths? The paragraphs are generally arranged fairly topically. Hog Farm Talk 22:34, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not really, partly because other paragraphs are long for a good reason. Changing my comment to support. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 00:16, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Vami

[edit]

Reviewing this version. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 03:57, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • How often do we describe the Federal government during the Civil War as the "Union" on the English Wikipedia, and in the modern historiography of the war?
    • From what I've seen probably over 70% of recent works still use "Union", although a lot of what I read is bio/campaign histories and I'd say it's probably the more social-history stuff that use "United States" or other terms (Ed Bearss used "Federals", which is probably the second most common thing I see). As of right now, I'd say that "Union" is still probably the primary usage form, although it's possible that's no longer the case in 5-10 years. Hog Farm Talk 04:32, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • [...] the process of converting her into a military vessel began on December 22.[1] The process of converting her into an [...] Could use a switchup in the verbiage here.

A nice little treat of an article. Glad to see it at FAC now. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 03:57, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Support from Gog the Mild

[edit]

Recusing to review.

  • This seems to be missing any background or context. After the description the narrative starts "On May 12, 1862, Baltic was transferred by Alabama to the Confederate States Navy." How about a summary of what the ACW was, its broad outline to that date and something about the struggle for control of the navigable rivers and why this was important so we know what gave rise to the building of the Baltic. Something on what she was intended to do and how she compared with other riverine ships of the time would also be useful.
    • Given that this is a short article, I don't want to delve too much into backstory. I've added another sentence about the importance of controlling the coast, which should go with the mentions of Port Royal and Fts. Hatteras and Clark up in the construction section to make it clear why the ship was built (this one had little to do with the riverine warfare) I'm afraid that a comparison with other riverine ships of the time isn't really possible - there's just too little about her pre-Confederate career, and her CSA naval career can be summarized as "floating pile of trash". I have added the mention of Fort Sumter as the start of the war. Hog Farm Talk 02:48, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry, but I disagree. While I would not expect the same level of background as I would for, say, the battle of Vicksburg, I would expect enough from scratch background and context for a new to the topic reader to be able to make sense of it. I fail to see how the short length of the article absolves it of this. I am regretfully opposing on the grounds that the second part of FA criterion 1b is not met. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:40, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: - I've added several sentences from scratch introducing slavery, states' rights, Lincoln, secession, and the formation of the Confederacy and then tying that into the Confederates firing on Sumter. Then flowing into the Confederate naval advantage, the Anaconda Plan and the blockade, and then the early Union coastal victories at Hatteras, Clark, and Port Royal. Does this provide the needed background? It's not easy to summarize the causes of this war in a few sentences. Hog Farm Talk 03:59, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just what I was looking for. While I don't wish to tell you how to write the minutiae of the article, so far as I am concerned you could delete "Slavery became a significant part of southern culture, and the ideology of states' rights was used to support the institution." and perhaps add something on the blockade throttling the Confederate supply of arms and materiel after "in order to cut off trade". Rest of the review to follow.
  • In passing: "the ship was too deteriorated for service, and was afterwards used to place naval mines". Is mine laying not "service"?
Yeah, I understand that, but your average reader is likely to do a double take. Something like 'and so was relegated to mine laying duties ...' maybe? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:14, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've went with the "relegated" phrasing Hog Farm Talk 02:48, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild (talk) 13:17, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: - sorry for the delay in getting to this. I've added a bit of background (first battle, more specific date of start of war, clarified importance of holding the coasts). I could add some more, but I'm not sure how much there's really space for since this is a shorter article than normal. Any thoughts? Hog Farm Talk 02:48, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Optional: put the second paragraph (commencing "During the early 19th century") at the start. Possibly in a separate "Background" section.
  • "she served on Mobile Bay". I assume "on" rather than 'in' is a USEng varient.
  • "when the Confederates fired on Fort Sumter". Perhaps 'when the Confederates fired on the Union sea fort of Fort Sumter'?
  • "the crew frequently slept outside of the ship". Do you mean on the deck, or ashore?
  • "two Dahlgrens and three 32-pounders or possibly with one 42-pounder and two 32-pounders (presumably in addition to the Dahlgren guns). I am unsure what the bit in brackets adds.
  • Could we have an in line description/explanation of "cottonclad".
  • "and was afterwards relegated to placing naval mines". Suggest deleting "afterwards".
  • "On May 20, after Porter's inspection". I suspect that a reader can remember from the prior sentence that Porter's inspection had already taken place.
  • "mud scow". Perhaps a Wiktionary link?
  • "With the end of the war approaching, Baltic, Nashville, and other vessels were later sent up the Tombigbee." Delete "later".

Gog the Mild (talk) 10:58, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What the hell is this screen? It doesn't copy the text to which I wish to reply? WTF?
The source doesn't specify exactly where the crew slept. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 10:59, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Sturmvogel 66: - are these all taken care of or should I dig out the sources in my spare time tonight? Hog Farm Talk 22:34, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, these are all done. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:36, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers. It may be a day or two before I can get back to you on this. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:23, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Second reading
[edit]
  • Construction and characteristics section: the first paragraph is nothing to do with either of these.
  • Suggest deleting "Slavery became a significant part of southern culture, and the ideology of states' rights was used to support the institution."
  • Could we have something - a sentence might do - on the effect, if any, and/or the intended effect of the blockade on the Confederate military.
  • Could you confirm that her armament was either "two Dahlgrens and three 32-pounders" or "one 42-pounder and two 32-pounders". Ie, in the latter case there were no Dahlgrens.
  • "her armament consisted of two Dahlgrens and three 32-pounders or possibly with one 42-pounder and two 32-pounders." Grammae: either delete "with" or replace it with 'of'.
    • Canney actually says "2 Dahlgrens and 3 x 32 pdrs (also reported as one 42-pdr with 2 x 32 pdrs)", which I interpret as 2 Dahlgrens and either 3 x 32 pdrs or 1 x 42 pdr and 2 x 32 pdrs. YMMV--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:24, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The link to scow does little to convey to the uninitiated what a "mud scow" might be. A scow made out of mud perhaps? A mud coloured scow? A scow whose name was mud? wikt:one's name is mud. Something else?

Gog the Mild (talk) 20:50, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See if my changes are acceptable--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:24, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

Spotchecks not done

Comments by Pendright

[edit]

Back soon! Pendright (talk) 04:32, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Dugan Murphy

[edit]

I'll add something here in a bit. Dugan Murphy (talk) 21:58, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • "and the layout of the vessel is largely unknown" doesn't really fit at the end of that sentence, which otherwise is a description of the ship's cladding. I recommend breaking that off as a separate sentence.
    • Split sentence
  • "transferred by Alabama" – I think "Alabama" should be "State of Alabama" to make it clear that it was a state-owned ship before being transferred to the Navy.
    • Done

I'll write more later. Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:14, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Why is the ship described in the lede and the infobox as a casemate ironclad but in the body as simply an ironclad?
  • Is it necessary to reference Bisbee in the lede? Unless Bisbee's name is particularly notable or the issue particularly contentious, I think "naval historian Saxon Bisbee believes that" is too much detail for the lede.
    • Removed
  • Does the book listed as further reading offer something that the listed sources do not? If so, why is it not included as a source? Really what I'm getting at is, do you think including a section on further reading adds value that the sources list does not already add?
    • I don't own a copy of this work, but I believe that it gives further technical details on the models of cannon that would be used on this type of ship, so I think it is a useful addition.

That's it for comments, I think. Overall, I find this article easy to read and well-cited to what seems to be a reasonably comprehensive collection of reliable-looking sources. I think the lede does a good job of summarizing the article. It skips much of the background section (the part on general Civil War background that it seems was added during this nomination review), which I think is just fine. The infobox is a good summary of the stats listed in the body. Thank you for improving this article! Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:49, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Pendright

[edit]

@Hog Farm: My circumstaces have changed yet agan - leaving me free to review the article. I'll begin when the above review is wrapped up. Pendright (talk) 02:50, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Pendright: it looks like everything above has been ironed out. Hog Farm Talk 18:57, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

LEAD:

  • After being transferred over to the Confederate Navy [as an ironclad] in May 1862, she served on Mobile Bay off the Gulf of Mexico.
Consider the above suggested changes
Done
  • Baltic's state in Confederate service was such that naval historian William N. Still Jr. has described her as "a nondescript vessel in many ways".[3]
What is the correlation between "state" and "nondescript"?
Went with "condition" instead
  • She deteriorated over the next two years and became rotten.
A few sentences below says, "upper hull and deck were rotten"?
Is "She deteriorated over the next two years and started to rot" an improvement?
<>How about sonething like this: Over the next two years, parts of the ship's wooden strucure had been affcted by wood rot? Pendright (talk) 23:38, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done
  • Her armor was removed to put onto the ironclad CSS Nashville in 1864.
to "be" put, or "and" put
"to put onto" works at least in Ozarks English, but have added a "be"
  • By that August, she had been decommissioned, and was taken up the Tombigbee River near the end of the war, where she was captured by Union forces on May 10, 1865.
  • Drop the comma after decommissioned
  • See below
  • Add a comma after River - near the end of the war seems like supplemental informationon.
  • I've actually split the sentence after decommissioned - the decommissioning happened in August but she wasn't taken up the Tombigbee until later.
  • An inspection the next month found that her upper hull and deck were rotten and that her boilers were unsafe.
An inapection of what?
Added "of Baltic" to indicate that this was a general inspection of the ship

BACKGROUND:

  • During the early 19th century, a large cultural divide had developed between the northern and southern regions of the United States over slavery.
As you know, many historians believe that it was "primarily" over slavery -> Add primarily
Done
  • Northerner Abraham Lincoln won the 1860 United States Presidential Election,[4] and a number of southern states seceded in late 1860 and early 1861, forming the Confederate States of America.[5]
  • Consider this -> and [due to his anti-salvery position] a number of southern states seceded...
  • Done
  • For readers not famililar with the Civil War, might add a new sentence with something like this-> The northern states were generally ant-salvery while the southern states were generally pro-salvery.
  • I've tacked something similar onto the sentence discussing the cultural divide
  • The American Civil War broke out when the Confederates fired on the Union sea fort of Fort Sumter on April 12, 1861.[6]
  • Could tell readers why the Fort was fired upon and that the small Union force surrendered.
  • I've noted that the fort was within Confederate territory and that its garrison surrendered the next day
  • At the beginning of the war, the Confederates were at a distinct naval disadvantage to the Union Navy, [because it lacked] lacking ships, infrastructure, and manufacturing capabilities.[7]
Consider the above suggestions
Done
  • According to Bisbee, the vessel was taken to Mobile, Alabama, after her construction by Bragdon,[1] while the Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships (DANFS) says that she was built for the Southern Steamship Company.[10]
Chabge while to but
Done
  • Most Confederate ironclads were screw steamers instead of paddle steamers; Baltic was one of the few paddle steamers actually completed within the Confederacy,[18] and naval historian Raimondo Luraghi described her propulsion as obsolescent.
  • completed or converted?
  • Changed to "Baltic was one of the few paddle steamer ironclads actually completed or converted within the Confederacy" as the ship clearly wasn't built the first time in the CSA, although the CSA did physically build a few ironclads besides the conversions
  • Conditions inside were bad enough that the crew frequently slept outside of the ship.[20]
inside ad outside - odd use of terms in this setting? As an old US Navy man, I suspect that the sleeping quarters of the crew were below deck and when the heat became unbearable they came topside and slept on the ship's deck.
Source says "and the crews of several ships, such as the Albemarle and the Baltic, slept ashore or in the open air whenever possible". The context is referring to the general issues with CSA ironclads to have component parts heating up so bad they glowed red and the tendency of the machinery to emit toxic/unpleasant fumes. Give that the only information Baltic-specific notes that they slept on deck or on shore, I think the current phrasing is useful although I'd be open to rephrasing suggestions. Hog Farm Talk 03:08, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
<>I'd opt for a version of the sources description. Pendright (talk) 18:04, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Have attempted this

SERVICE HISTORY:

  • She served in Mobile Bay, the area around Mobile, Alabama, and in the Tombigbee River.
  • Perhaps you could squeeze out a few things from the sources to beef it up a bit.
  • Unfortunately not, from the sources I've seen. As Bisbee notes, there's very little original documentation for her, so it honestly seems unlikely we'll ever get much more detail
  • Is it "in" or "on the Bay and River?
  • Probably on
  • By February 1863, the ship was too deteriorated for active service,[10] and was relegated to placing naval mines to protect Mobile Bay.[21]
Add "she" between and & was
Done
  • On May 20, Simms wrote that Baltic was very rotten and was "about as fit to go into action as a mud scow".
Did he indicate where she was rotten ?
No, and I've consulted both the quoted material in Bisbee, and the original source material Bisbee cites (a letter by Simms)
  • On July 21, Simms was appointed to command Nashville, and the rest of Baltic's armor was removed to put on Nashville.[27]
to "be' put on
Done
  • With the end of the war approaching, Baltic, Nashville, and other vessels were sent up the Tombigbee.
Tombigbee "River"
Done
  • The next month, Union authorities surveyed Baltic and noted that below the load line, she was in good condition, but that the portion of the hull above the load line and the deck were both rotten.
  • Drop the comma after load line
  • Gone
  • Change hull to "her" hull
  • Done

@Hog Farm: Finished - I found the article a bit unusual; in that the subject of it had so few redemming values. Pendright (talk) 19:30, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Pendright: - Sorry for the delay on this. I've actioned everything above as best possible. Hog Farm Talk 01:31, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Hog Farm: - Supporting - Pendright (talk) 03:07, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 29 July 2022 [7].

C. J. Cregg

[edit]
Nominator(s): theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 01:49, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is Claudia Jean Cregg, a fictional character on NBC's The West Wing and my indirect namesake. She was a core cast member throughout the entirety of the show's run, and earned her portrayer, Allison Janney, more Emmys than anyone else on the show (justice for Martin Sheen, who played President Jed Bartlet and somehow didn't get any). Her portrayal was—while hampered by the show's misogynistic atmosphere—smart, funny, and assertive. I've been working on lots of West Wing characters articles (not to mention lots of people named Claudia), but I'm proud and excited that this is the first in both categories that I'm submitting for FA. Thanks in advance to everyone who weighs in! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 01:49, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Things that need consensus from new commenters:

  • Is three dates in the citations (date published, date archived, date accessed) too many? should the latter be cut?
    I don't see why. Archives can fail or be inaccessible, so it's important contextual information to put the access date, which can differ from the archive date. Urve (talk) 14:26, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from indopug

[edit]

Comments from Guerillero

[edit]

I will do the source review --Guerillero Parlez Moi 15:02, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

One of my favorite characters from one of my favorite shows
  • Per WP:SCHOLARSHIP "Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence." What is the significant influence of Gregg 2009?
  • Heisler 2009a and Heisler 2009b need the publication info
  • Why is Comic Book Resources a High Quality Reliable Source?
  • Why is The Cut a High Quality Reliable Source?
  • Is the tweet from AP covered anywhere else?
  • Missing author for The Journal News article
  • Post-Teen Vouge's 2016 slip into being a glorified mouthpiece of the DSA, I have a decent amount of skepticism of using them for political opinions
-- Guerillero Parlez Moi 15:27, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Pass -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 10:37, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Indy beetle

[edit]
  • Why is the character's first name used in preference to her surname? There is a mix on naming choices in this article generally that should have some logic to it. Simon Donovan is referred to by his last name, for example.
  • "Indeed" is used to start sentences four times. It's not really a great word to use, and adds unnecessary editorial emphasis to some statements over others in Wiki voice.
  • Indeed, C. J. is widely thought to be an adept, empathetic, confident, witty, and independent character with considerable depth, This is cited to four sources. Unless one of those sources plainly states that these are "widely thought" views of the character, this is technically a WP:SYNTH violation. None of the quotes provided with those citations suggest that this is a majority view, it just happens to be an amalgamation of sources which profess a positive view.
  • Since The West Wing frequently mixes the personal and professional, This is somewhat vague. Perhaps be more specific that the show covers both the "personal lives" and "professional careers" of its characters.
  • This is realized in the series finale, "Tomorrow"; in the episode, C. J. leaves the White House, choosing Danny instead. No need for the dramatic implication; just say outright, "choosing to pursue a relationship with Danny instead" or something applicable.
  • Critical reception of C. J. Cregg has been highly positive, both during and after the show's run. Is this claim directly supported by a reliable source?

-Indy beetle (talk) 09:49, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Tentative replies: theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 18:29, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • The characters are referred to by their WP:COMMONNAME – some characters, like the show's core senior staff, are on a first-name basis with the audience (RSes) and each other. Other characters, like the president and side characters with honorifics, aren't generally referred to by first name by reliable sources or the show.
    • Cut the "indeed"s
    • I mean, I suppose you're right that the "widely thought" isn't in the sourcing, but I'm not sure I agree that that's a SYNTH problem. If every reliable source stated that the Earth was a globe, but none opined that every other source thought the exact same way, would we really not be allowed to say "the Earth is widely thought to be a globe" (that would be relevant in the Flat Earth article)? When we're looking for the common name of an article, do we need sources that say "this is most commonly referred to as A, but it's also B or C"? It seems a strange interpretation of SYNTH to say that editors are responsible for assessing the attitude of reliable sources as it relates to due weight, but aren't allowed to express that in prose. That said, I'd be happy to look for broader sources, or change to "has been described as" to narrow the scope to those for, but I don't know if I take much issue with it.
      • Well, since it is the viewpoint of RSes, I just put it in wikivoice.
    • Fixed the sentence in the reception section
    • Fixed "personal/professional" and C. J./Danny
  • Sorry for the delay, Indy beetle! Stuff's been crazy- I think I've got it now. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 01:50, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Lee Vilenski

[edit]

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

Lede
Prose
Additional comments

Additionally, if you liked this review, or are looking for items to review, I have some at my nominations list. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 22:18, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Vilenski ? Gog the Mild (talk) 21:11, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Lee Vilenski: I've made some replies :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 20:23, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments and support from Gerda

[edit]

I feel invited to another subject I don't know, will comment as I read, looking at the lead last. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:46, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

name

  • I am puzzled by C. J. Cregg vs. the full name. If the character is known by the abbreviated form, that should also show on top of the infobox, and be explained with a bold name in the lead. Otherwise the infobox is fine, just "children at least one" tells me nothing at this point.
    • In the day-to-day of the show, she goes by "C. J." – if she walked up to you and introduced herself, she'd tell you that she's "C. J. Cregg". If she had to sign a mortgage, that'd probably be "Claudia Jean Cregg". theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 21:19, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think, even if this a character, I'd would like to see the two names handled the same way as for a real person, - if she is commonly C. J. Gregg, that should be bold in the first paragraph, and be the header of the infobox. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:21, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

TOC

Creation

  • Forgive me, but knowing nothing, not the series, not the actress, I'd like first a bit of what kind of character in what kind of series. Yes, there are links, but three sentences of a general introduction of the context wouldn't hurt. Actress probably last, unless it is completely determined by her - which I don't know yet.
    • Hmm... let me brainstorm on this a bit. I'm generally quite averse to putting in-universe information in the real-world section, but there might be some context I can give anyway.
    • I've given this a lot of thought, and I don't think giving in-universe details about the characters is good for the real-world section. I really prefer maintaining that separation between the two, and any information I'd be comfortable putting up there would already appear in the lead. This isn't a story, it's an encyclopedia article – I think it's okay to keep that information in its section. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 20:30, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Casting

  • Once Sorkin has been introduced, surname is enough.
    • I'll say this once up here, because unlike my policy on given names, I do mind repetition on this. I often find that this minimalistic policy of given names/surnames is too restrictive, and harmful in writing an article. Some names are only thrown around two or three times; it's easier to build an impression in the mind of the reader if they can instantly connect these names together, instead of mentioning a full name once in the first body paragraph and then throwing in a last name near the end. That's something I often find annoying in reading others' articles, especially when I'm Ctrl+F hopping for a single section. Having to track down where the author's article felt a single first name mention was enough and putting together who this person is and why they're important is frustrating. Instead, for names that only come up a few times, I prefer to repeat both the given and surname, to keep a clear, consistent identifier the reader can internalize. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 21:19, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I find all the details about the actresses relationship to the character a bit premature, not yet knowing what character that is.
  • The image caption repeats much of the prose, while I'd prefer to know when it was taken, and if it is the actress in private, the character, or the character in the other show mentioned.
    • Hmm. I had an image caption like you describe over at Mrs. Landingham, but I got dinged because simply picturing the actor wasn't enough to demonstrate relevancy. I developed that caption style because of that. Do you think it'd be okay to switch back? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 20:30, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please take this up with the other editor. I want to see in a caption what a pic shows, more than context. This caption doesn't tell me if this is a private pic, or from one show or from another, which would be minimum I expect from a caption. The reasons for her being chosen are not pictured. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:21, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • While I like the present caption better, I think "portrayer" and "pictured" make it needlessly complicated. How about: "J, who played C, in 2014"? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:33, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Appearance

  • Once Lyn Paolo is introduced, Paolo is enough.

Character ..

  • I think I'd prefer to know that part before the details of casting and appearance.
  • more given names that are not needed

Personality

  • ref order
  • "that a relationship would "hurt my reputation" - I think this doesn't need to be a quote, to avoid third person here, first person there: "that a relationship would hurt her reputation"
    • Both fixed :)

Romance

  • Why is it C. J. and Danny here, but Donovan there?
    • C. J. and Danny (in particular, C. J.) are regular characters on the show without formal titles – so, on the show (and in RSes), they're referred to by their common names. Donovan, however, is a special recurring character for only a season, and since he works for the Secret Service, he's usually referred to as Donovan or Agent Donovan – not Simon. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 21:19, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sexism

  • "Leo, who relayed the staffers' guesses to the president, left out C. J.'s predictions, which she suspected was because she was a woman. In the end, C. J. was shown to have made the correct guess." - I understand not wanting to repeat "predictions" but "guess" sounds wrong if it should be stressed that she had the best evaluation.
  • "... she is introduced as the "very lovely, the very talented – Claudia Jean Cregg". He then tells the entire room ..." - who is "he"?
    • Whoops! fixed.

Lead

  • just general at this point: I think it is too short, but too long repeating all these awards. Will look again tomorrow. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:41, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Let me know – thanks, Gerda! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 21:19, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Gerda Arendt: I think I've responded to everything now :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 20:30, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Gerda Arendt? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 04:35, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am with you for the explanations, but would like to read once more, in the light of them. I had hoped to do that on Monday, but both here and RL more urgent things came in between (here Stefan Geosits and Kurt Equiluz), sorry. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:22, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • I now gave you a bit of feedback above, and all without a response is taken as you explained.
      • Lead once more:
        • Can we have a year for the sixth season, or do we just assume 2005 by thinking season is year?
        • I think the lead has too much detail about the awards.
        • Things I could imagine to be in the lead: number of episodes, about her character "empathetic", "emotionally vulnarable", "politically inept" (first) but "develops into a politically astute character, sometimes more so than her male counterparts", and the BBC as quite a to-the point summary.
      • See also: I don't need it. Two of the items are in the navbox, and the third could just be linked, no? It seems nothing particular for this article. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:21, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        @Gerda Arendt: Thanks for getting back to me! I've added the year for the sixth season (1999 + five seasons later = 2004), fleshed out the lead and trimmed the awards, changed the image's caption, and cut out the "see also" section. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 10:20, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        Thank you, I like it better. I feel that first to say how the character is portrayed, and then who designed, puts it the chronologically wrong way. You might use that first sentence further up to give a general idea. I feel that the romance episode is not really lead-worthy, but again, that may be just me. I might rather include other reception items. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:34, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        I looked again now, and while I'm happy with the first and the last para, the center is not yet "there" for me. "C. J. is portrayed as a smart, strong, witty, and thoughtful character, but she is frequently patronized and objectified by the men on the show. Aaron Sorkin, the show's creator, designed her to be assertive and independent from men. Initially, she is portrayed as politically inept, but she quickly becomes one of the most respected and savvy characters on the show. She is also sometimes portrayed as over-emotional, a trait criticized by reviewers as a misogynistic stereotype. Her onscreen romance with Danny Concannon, a senior White House reporter, was also criticized by commentators as unfairly subject to the "woman-as-traitor" trope." As said before, first "is portrayed" and then "designed" is the wrong order for my understanding. I think the para uses "also" too much, and "also sometimes" is top saying nothing for me. "woman-as-traitor" trope: I'd need to look up what that means. All this could be just me who would so like to end with the "most respected character" bit ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:33, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
theleekycauldron ? Gog the Mild (talk) 13:54, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Gerda Arendt: I've reworked the lead some – I think it's definitely a lot better. The romance was a not-insignificant part of her character, so it should probably stay (I can try to slim it down a little)? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 11:43, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I like it much better. Please find a way to not use "portrayed" three times, which should be easy as the article is not about an actress but the character, so you might say what she does. "Despite C. J.'s shortcomings and surroundings", - I'd argue that it might be because of her complexity that she is a believable character. One question about a pic caption is open (further up), but we are almost there. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:48, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Gerda Arendt: I can't parse your second idea here, but I fixed the first and third? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 19:34, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, and support. The second: I think that her character might be the best not despite her "shortcomings", but in a way because of them, as a complex human being with shortcomings. Like Percy Grainger (born on this day). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:13, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
@Nikkimaria: Hmm, not sure what to do about the alt text, because the captions seem to do fine? If there's more information to be included, I'm happy to do so. As for the infobox image FUR, these image files are quite old and predate my involvement, so I never caught that one. Just fixed it up. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 10:26, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you really feel the captions are sufficient information for those who cannot see the files, you can use an alt of 'refer to caption' - I would suggest though that that would be sufficient only for the actress image. I'd also suggest merging some of the information from the second FUR into the remaining one, which is now quite sparse. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:29, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
theleekycauldron ? Gog the Mild (talk) 13:54, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping back! @Nikkimaria: I've taken a run at adding some alts? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 07:39, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Alts that exist are fine - as above, the actress image can use a 'refer to caption' alt. Also don't use fixed px size, and the point re: merging above is pending. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:32, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: Fixed the upright, and beefed up the FUR a little bit – for the actress image, you mean the second file (first non-infobox)? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 06:21, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, you meant that the actress image is good to go, I think. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 06:21, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
File:Allison-Janney in 2014.jpg currently has no |alt= at all - as above, it can just refer to caption, but should be included. For the FUR, suggest further expanding the purpose of use. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:50, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: Done, I believe – sorry this has taken such a back-and-forth! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 11:23, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Support from Gog the Mild

[edit]

Recusing to review.

Ah, the MoS (MOS:INITIALS) treats this as a rare specific exception, so ok.
  • Link Guyanese.
    • Done!
  • There are a couple of duplinks.
  • Insert a non-breaking space into every use of "C. J.".
    • Oh, jeez – okay, done.
  • "gave way for a "longer drape" ". Consider "way" → 'scope' or similar.
    • I changed it to "allowed for", that should be clearer.
  • "as intellectually on par with the male senior staff." I assume this is correct USEng? BritEng would have 'as intellectually on a par with the male senior staff.'
    • Someone's free to challenge me, but yeah, that doesn't look amiss to my understanding of AmEng.
  • In the "Romance" section the tense jumps from past to present and back. Could you pick one an stick to it.
    • Changed the one past section to present
  • Lead "Children: At least one"; article: "married to Danny with one child." Which? If the former, mention it in the article.
    • We only know about one, so I just made it 1 in the ibox.
  • "The host then tells the entire room during a commercial break that C. J. is not wearing pants." Why should telling the audience that C. J. is wearing a skirt be an issue? And why can they not see that for themselves?
Ok. I think I get it. I guess that you had to have been there.
  • Are there so few sources that it is necessary to quote "represented the fantasy of the Bartlet White House better than anyone" twice?
  • "Reviewers also praised Janney's performance;The Cincinnati Enquirer wrote in 2001 that Janney "combines comedy, drama, and political savvy" in C. J., praising her ability to alternate between wit and seriousness throughout each episode." "... praised ... praising ...' Synonym time?
    • Synonym time indeed!
  • "in attempting to mimic". Is it accepted that Psaki was attempting to mimic C. J.?
    • Fixed that :)

That's all I have. Classy. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:29, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 29 July 2022 [8].

Title (EP)

[edit]
Nominator(s): NØ 08:10, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Meghan Trainor's debut extended play Title, which was promoted for a very short duration in 2014. It had a modest commercial performance and was the first appearance of Trainor's best-selling single "All About That Bass" on a full-length project. It received mixed reviews from critics who noted its repetitive lyrical themes despite its short duration. You may have heard its title track when it went viral on TikTok last year. I have reworked this article recently and think it is in good shape. Thanks a lot to everyone who will take the time to give their feedback here.--NØ 08:10, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47

[edit]
  • The lead says the EP received mixed reviews, but only the negative aspects are highlighted.
  • Added the positive aspect.
  • It may be worthwhile to link catchiness in the "the catchiest stuff" quote.
  • Linked.
  • Agreed on both.
  • I'd change the ballad link to sentimental ballad as I believe that is more accurate and reflective of this type of music.
  • Done.
  • For Citation 41, there appears to be an author named for the article (i.e. Ians). It's not much of a by-line, but I'd include it in the citation for completion sake.

The article looks solid to me. These are my comments after reading through the article a few times. Once everything has been addressed, I will look through everything one more time. I hope this is helpful. Aoba47 (talk) 22:51, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for another very helpful review, Aoba47! These should all be addressed now.--NØ 01:05, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Once this last point, I will support this FAC for promotion. I hope you are having a great start to your week. Aoba47 (talk) 09:50, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Elias

[edit]
  • Article's prose is looking good so far, although some concerns present themselves.
  • The standout one - the article says that the EP "received mixed reviews"; however, no source directly says this. We need to be careful with summarising reception like this, since this counts as novel synthesis and goes against the original research policy. Does Metacritic aggregate reviews for EPs? They might help.
  • Metacritic usually picks up releases with more than four mainstream reviews so this one didn't get a page, unfortunately. However, I think a summary sentence is necessary and "mixed reviews" is the best way of putting it. A true example of synthesis would be if I said "Every critic in the universe raved about the EP and thought Trainor's vocals resembled Mariah Carey"
  • Ah, I see. With the reviews using a five-star system to indicate a positive, negative, or mediocre review, I suppose I'll let this one slide as a summary sentence. Usually I'm more critical of things like these in song articles, where multiple, separate reviews for songs are rare, and it's harder to make value judgments of commentary. Consider this resolved
  • Minor nitpick - "It additionally entered charts", shouldn't this be "It also entered charts"?
  • Done.
  • "Trainor's eponymous 2009 release" we can simplify this to "Meghan Trainor (2009)" since the previous sentence doesn't mention her name and there's no concern with repetition.
  • Probably it would cause confusion to any readers that don't understand italics demarcate album titles.
  • We could sidestep that by changing "These included ..." to "these albums included ..."
  • I see that the above suggestion has been implemented, though I'm still keen on simplifying "eponymous ... release". Both album and release are already in the previous sentence, so there's some clunkiness in here
  • Switched.
  • For the "Music and lyrics" section, I've added some commas and semicolons in places where I think they were missing, as well some (hopefully) minor copyedits. Diff to visualize. Feel free to revert some of these. Otherwise, this section is pretty good.
  • The copyedits look good to me, though I really prefer making all the changes myself, lol.
  • That's neat to know. I'm just concerned with asking editors to make really really minor and nitpicky changes that would be resolved faster if I were to boldly do them myself.
  • "Epic Records released the EP as a ... digital download four days later." - "released the EP in compact disc (CD) and digital download formats"
  • Hmm, I'm not sure about using "in" in the sentence with "formats". Can we keep the existing wording if it's not too much of an issue?
  • Fuck, miswrote this, I meant to write as "released the EP through CD and download formats" etc.
  • "The October 3, 2014, digital release of 'All About That Bass' ... shared an identical track list." this would fit better in the second paragraph, preferably after the opening sentence
  • The second paragraph is about singles and the first one is about release formats for the EP. Since it shares an identical tracklist (aka basically is the EP), I think it goes in the first paragraph.
  • Perhaps it's because of the way it's currently worded that made me think it was out of place. That sentence alone is giving me a lot of details, overwhelming me. I would suggest trimming the release dates for the German-speaking countries
  • I hope the revised wording addressed your concern.
  • Way better; thank you
  • The body shaming wikilink can be expanded to "shaming thin women" to reduce WP:EASTEREGG issues
  • Done.
  • "The title track became a trend" hard to parse. -> "The title track went viral" might be better
  • Worded this a bit differently and I kind of prefer to link to Viral marketing instead since the other one is too general.
  • Fair enough
  • "various television shows." she also performed this on concerts
  • Added, sans the Jingle Ball Tour which isn't noteworthy enough for the lead in my opinion.
  • I was referring to the wording in "Release and promotion", but nonetheless good catch
  • Added there too.
  • Also performed some copyedits on the "Critical reception" section. Diff to visualize. Again, feel free to revert anything here.
  • "...as 'soulful' and 'highly resonant' and deemed it catchy" you can simplify this to 'soulful, highly resonant, and catchy'
  • Done.
  • "Others criticized the repetitive lyrical themes on Title given its short duration. I don't understand the "short duration" bit.
  • The criticism seemed to come from the fact that the EP is short in duration but still features repetitive lyrical themes.
  • I see, this explains things. Though I imagine there is a clearer way to express this meaning in the article, no?
  • Changed to "despite", can't think of simpler wording than that.
  • Is it possible to split the critical reception section into two paragraphs, dividing the positive/not-very-negative details from the more critical ones?
  • Compared to other paragraphs in the article, two split paragraphs here would stick out and look too short.
  • I'll allow it. There is still some cohesion in this one paragraph, so a split isn't too necessary
  • Omg, thanks for allowing it!
  • Tables and lists are okay.
  • Glad to hear that.
  • That is all from me. The article covers all the important details of the EP with sufficient comprehension, and apart from the stuff I pointed out, it's written and researched pretty well! Ran Earwig for any copyvio; no glaring issues found. Will support(tm) once all my concerns have been addressed. Well done for another great article, Marano.
‍ ‍ elias. 🧣 ‍ ‍ 💬reach out to me
📝see my work 03:08, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • With regards to prose, five two concerns remain. I've striked the ones that are already addressed.

Image review (Pass)

[edit]

Will also do this since I have free time. ‍ ‍ elias. 🧣 ‍ ‍ 💬reach out to me
📝see my work 03:24, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • File:Meghan Trainor Title EP Album Cover.png - infobox image and cover art; FUR is good. ALT text is fine. For the source link, including an archived version would help for posterity and verifiability.
  • Included an archive.
  • File:KK Fano.JPG - licensed to public domain by the photographer, a Wikipedia user. It shows Kadish in a recording studio, which is appropriate given its placement in the article. ALT text is sufficient.
  • Agreed.
  • File:Meghan Trainor (15996126761).jpg - optional, but this photo looks too big on my screen, so I would recommend doing |upright=0.7 on it. Flickr licensing is verified. There's ALT text, although only the first sentence is really essential; try to keep them short and avoid oversharing.
  • Shortened alt text; the picture looks fine on desktop as well as mobile for me, though, and looks too small with upright. Also in the past I have been discouraged from modifying image sizes.
  • Thanks for clipping. From my observations of FAC throughout the months, it seems like using fixed px size isn't allowed. Scaling is fine - see MOS:UPRIGHT

Pseud 14

[edit]

Placeholder, going to provide comments soon. Pseud 14 (talk) 16:50, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Article seems to be in good shape. Here are a few comments/suggestions from me:

  • but considered the lyrics too repetitive given its short duration and questioned what else Trainor is capable of doing musically – perhaps you can be direct by saying “but considered the lyrics too repetitive and questioned Trainor’s musicality (or musical talent)”
  • three albums of material she had written – three albums from material she had written..
  • felt a strong song-writing – believe either is correct, but be consistent with use of songwriting or song-writing
  • due to its doo-wop pop production - perhaps replace production with either "style", "theme" or "sound"
  • I would probably unlink either girl power or women empowerment, as I think they are both synonymous.
  • Same with "body image" and "self-acceptance", as they tend to be self-explanatory, to avoid WP:OVERLINK
  • That's all I have. Another solid Meghan Trainor related article here. --Pseud 14 (talk) 17:12, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the really helpful review, Pseud 14. I really appreciate it! All done.--NØ 17:19, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Happy to support this article for promotion.
If you have the time or inclination, I'd appreciate your feedback as well on my current FAC. Pseud 14 (talk) 17:48, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by FrB.TG

[edit]

Placeholder FrB.TG (talk) 16:39, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you FrB.TG!--NØ 15:23, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The EP debuted at number 15 on the Billboard 200 and sold 171,000 copies in the United States." Is this figure in total or just for the debut week?
  • It's the total figure. I'd go with something like "debuted at number 15 with 171,000 copies sold" if it were for the debut week.
  • "These albums included Meghan Trainor (2009), and her 2010 albums I'll Sing with You and Only 17." - repetitive prose ("these albums included ... albums").
  • Fixed.
  • The release and promotion section lists three singles from the EP, yet the EP infobox only mentions "All About the Bass" as its single.
  • "Lips Are Movin" was only included on the 2015 full-length and "Husband" served as a single from that as well. Though not released in the promotional run for the EP, I considered this relevant to mention here.
In that case, it should be clarified that the singles were released as parts of the LP and not the EP. FrB.TG (talk) 11:10, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes N-Magazine a high-quality reliable source?
  • Removed.
  • Done.
  • Us Weekly is a subpar source and should generally be avoided in an FA.
  • Eliminated.
  • Ref. 58 returns a 'not found' result.
  • Fixed.

I have made some changes here to make minor copy-edits, eliminate prose redundancy and fix MoS/punctuation issues. Let me know if I messed up something or if you don't see them as improvements. FrB.TG (talk) 17:52, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Copy-edits all look great to me. Thanks again for the review, FrB.TG!--NØ 18:44, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. My concerns were addressed in a speedy manner by the nominator. I have left one reply above concerning the release of Trainor's next two singles, but that should not affect my support. Good work. FrB.TG (talk) 11:10, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Jaguar

[edit]

To come soon. ♦ jaguar 18:09, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!--NØ 15:23, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Jaguar is now inactive for almost a week and has not been able to respond to my message and email.--NØ 06:54, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was in hospital a few days ago which was why I couldn't respond, but everything is alright now. As I'm making my read-through very late I cannot find any issues with the article which warrants rectifying. It is evidently well-written and comprehensive. I was going to do a source review but was beaten on that, so I have little choice but to outright support it. Sorry for the lame comments! ♦ jaguar 10:26, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh my, no worries at all. I hope you are doing better now. Thanks for taking the time to give this article a read anyways!--NØ 10:32, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review – Pass

[edit]

Will do soon. Aza24 (talk) 18:56, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting
  • Done.
  • Is the title of ref 56 intentional?
  • Yes, it doesn't go to the right link with any alternate titling.
  • Assuming USA Today is meant to have a link in ref 67
  • Yes! Thanks for catching this.
  • jpc (last ref) seems to be stylized in lowercase? Not sure if should be here as well
  • Seems to be an abbreviation of "Jazz Pop Classic" so I figured it probably goes in caps.
Reliability
  • Songwriter Universe seems kind eh in this regard, but as an interview it's probably fine
  • Agreed, I probably wouldn't use it for critical commentary but I deemed it a quality interview for background information.
  • Well the Wikipedia page for Stereogum doesn't make it sound all that reliable, but that site itself seems high-quality reporting in regards to the subject matter
  • The critic cited has contributed to several prestigious publications like Billboard and Rolling Stone (Full list). I do think its usage in this particular article is important and irreplaceable.
Verifiability

Query for the coordinators

[edit]

@FAC coordinators: Sorry for bothering, just asking if it would be okay for me to nominate another one at this point. Regards.--NØ 16:29, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 29 July 2022 [9].

Margaret Abbott

[edit]
Nominator(s): Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:45, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for FAC because ... we need more woman in sports biographies to be featured, and I think this one meets the criteria.

Imaging winning gold in Olympics, but still no one knows about you. But this is an interesting case, even she didn't know that she won the Olympics! All constructive feedback is more than welcome. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:45, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edwininlondon helped a lot by reviewing the article for GA. @Extraordinary Writ, The Rambling Man, and Gerda Arendt: were kind enough to review the article during the peer review. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:56, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment by Wehwalt

[edit]

Have you consulted biographies of her husband, who is a well-studied figure (I brought his best-known creation, Mr. Dooley to FA) to see if you can get further information about her? I see the Ellis biography of him on Internet Archive, and it seems to mention Abbott a few times.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:14, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I note you say The NY Times published a belated obituary. But they did publish an obituary at the time, here, though it was obviously inadequate as mostly discussing her husband and children.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:56, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Marriage was reported here.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:56, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Wehwalt! Yes, I did look at various biographies of Mr. Dunne in search for more information about her, but found nothing more than trivial mentions about their marriage. And yes, the Ellis biography, which has some information is already used as a source; see this. I have looked through the internet archive, google books, JSTOR, Wikipedia library, Google scholar, Chicago Tribune at Newspaper.com, and other places but it appears that we don't know much about her. This is mostly because most people didn't knew about her until Paula Welch publisher her research [10] in 1982. As for the NYT archive newspapers, I can't access them. Mail me if you can, but I suspect that the obituary and the marriage report won't add anything substantial other than what we already know. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:45, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You can access The New York Times (plus the Washington Post and lots of other papers) through ProQuest in the Wikipedia Library—for the two articles Wehwalt mentions, try this link and this link. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:33, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I did check out those links, but I think they don't have much to add in the article. Feel free to add more comments. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:08, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Wehwalt, do you have any more comments. Regards, – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 03:23, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That was just a drive-by. The name sounded familiar. I'm not sure whether I'll have time for a full review right now, I'm busy with other stuff.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:46, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Therapyisgood

[edit]

Image review - pass

[edit]
  • File:Margaret-abbott-gold-medal-1900-golf.jpg tag insufficient since source country and publication date unknown. I would imagine the source country is France and it could potentially be copyrighted there. (t · c) buidhe 05:54, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Buidhe: I'm sorry but I am having a hard time understanding the issue. Per the copyright tag, "it is an anonymous work, a pseudonymous work, or a work made for hire, and it was created before 1902." It is indeed created before 1902 (event took place in 1900), and an 'anonymous work' (we don't know the author). By that reasoning, it meets the criteria for being in the PD in US. Source country should be France (for creation of the work). I am unaware of French copyright laws, but Commons:Commons:Copyright rules by territory/France says: "if the work is anonymous, pseudonymous or collective, [the normal duration of copyright] is 70 years following the end of the year of publication of the work (unless the authors named themselves). This applies only if publication occurs within 70 years of creation". I see no evidence whether it was published by 1972, so should be in the PD there as well. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:02, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • There's no evidence that it wasn't published before 1972. We don't know when it was first published. Generally you need more than one source published long after the fact that does not provide author information in order to conclude the photographer is actually unknown. If it was published in France after 1927 and before 1972 it is still likely copyrighted in the US because of URAA and could still be copyrighted in France as well. (t · c) buidhe 17:13, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Dugan Murphy

[edit]

I'll add some comments here in a bit. Dugan Murphy (talk) 00:01, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a short article, but I'm willing to believe it is sufficiently comprehensive given how little scholarship there is on the topic and how limited Abbott's fame seems to be. Having said that, there seems to be a reasonably comprehensive collection or sources in the works cited section. Thank you for working to improve the article! Dugan Murphy (talk) 02:32, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot, Dugan! The comments were much helpful. Let me know if anything else is required. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 05:05, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Rad. I'm happy with the changes made and your responses to my comments. I support this nomination. If you have time to do some reading and commenting yourself, this FAC for an article I wrote is in dire need of comments. Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:37, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot, will try to take a look! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 03:20, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from ErnestKrause

[edit]

In acknowledgment of many of the positive statements above in this FAC, this is a short article about a significant accomplishment by a talented woman athlete. After a top to bottom read through, the article basically seems to cover the revived journalistic accounts of her win comprehensively, and this nomination should be supported. Optionally, I would add that it might be nice to elaborate further on the odd frame of mind that she did not realize that she had won at the Olympics even well after the event had been completed. That's optional however and the article is supported. ErnestKrause (talk) 00:36, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments, much appreciated! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 12:23, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Dwaipayan

[edit]

Short, sweet, easy-to-read, and very interesting. Meets FA criteria, in my opinion. --Dwaipayan (talk) 22:20, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 12:23, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Edwininlondon

[edit]

I reviewed this at GA. The prose looks even better now. The only little thing I could find was:

  • Abbott never realized that she participated and became the first American woman to win an Olympic event. --> should there not be an "in" after participated? Or perhaps a little rephrasing.

Regardless, this meets the criteria. Edwininlondon (talk) 09:08, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Made the sole change! Thanks for both your reviews! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 12:24, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

spotchecks not done. Version reviewed

Thanks a lot, Nikkimaria, for the review. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:39, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nikkimaria, is this GTG?
Nikkimaria: Apologies if this is again, but you may not have received the ping as Gog forgot to sign. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 19:32, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, good to go. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:20, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: Courtesy ping. - Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 01:26, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note to coordinators

[edit]

@FAC coordinators: - (1) Can I nominate another article? (2) How is this one going? Thanks! - Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 03:43, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1. You may. 2. Just waiting on Nikkimaria. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:20, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot, Gog! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 19:27, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 28 July 2022 [11].

Late Registration

[edit]
Nominator(s): K. Peake 07:05, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Late Registration (2005), the second studio album by American rapper Kanye West. The album marked a distinctive change in style for West and was a widespread critical success, which has also received much retrospective acclaim. Five singles were released for promotion, including the international hit "Gold Digger", while the album performed well commercially in countries such as the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom. The GA review of this article came about way back in 2012 before I was even a user of this site, though I have regularly edited it over the past few years. I recently held a FAC for the article that may have failed, but I took on the comments from it and a subsequent peer review for improvement to submit for FAC once more! K. Peake 07:05, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt

[edit]
Resolved comments from Wehwalt
  • "Late Registration was often viewed as a vast progression " the phrase "was often viewed" almost creates an implication that this has changed, and I don't think you mean to imply that. Also, "vast" seems a bit strong. Maybe "Late Registration was seen as a considerable improvement" or similar? You could include "by a number of reviewers" if you deem what I wrote vague.
  • "The album led to West receiving eight nominations at the 48th Annual Grammy Awards, including the award of Best Rap Album, which it won." I would cut "the award of".
  • "while reaching the top 10 in nine other countries, such as Ireland and the United Kingdom." I might change the second half to "including the United Kingdom and Ireland" (mention the country with larger population first
  • "It eventually reached more than 3,000,000 copies sold in the US " I would simplify as "It eventually sold more than 3,000,000 copies in the US"
  • "became highly imitated" maybe "was widely imitated"
  • "The rapper gathered interest in Brion's music while watching the 2004 film Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, reacting positively to his score," Maybe "The rapper heard and liked Brion's score while watching the 2004 film Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind"
  • "after only one afternoon in the studio" I would move this earlier in the sentence, to after "discovered".
  • "recording it in over a year" Over a year sounds indefinite by itself. Will sources support "just over a year"?
  • "fellow Hollywood locations" "fellow" reads oddly when we're talking about places
  • "working in the studio" Are we talking about Sony? If so, I'd say so. If we're talking generally, I'd say "studio work"
  • "and ensuring all being synchronized " maybe "and ensuring all were synchronized"
  • "completely reconfigure the entire song in a manner that its verses are built around the rhythm of his vocals, " maybe substitute "so that" for "in a manner that".
More soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:12, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • What are "raw instruments"? Is there a way the reader can understand what is meant?
  • The source originally uses real instruments, but I replaced with the term authentic in prose since that reads smoother and doesn't sound potentially biased. --K. Peake 07:43, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Kim noticed a clear difference between West's the album and West's previous work, stating, " some problem with the prose here.
  • Can you link "outro" to something?
  • "features the last vocals fading out as various bells and whistles are incorporated, succeeded by the bass synthesizer" Are these really bells and whistles? Given that this can mean something extraneous, I'd try to make it clearer that these actual sounds are meant if so.
  • "all of which initially come in brief staccato bursts and act" I think come should be comes and act should be acts
  • "A University of North Carolina scholar" Why not name the scholar?
  • " In his analysis, the former" it is unclear who is meant.
  • "On the bonus track "Diamonds from Sierra Leone", West links Sierra Leone's civil war to the jewellery trade.[7][51]" This is, I think, the third time you've discussed this track. Can't this sentence be placed with one of the other two?
  • "The rapper was then supposed to support U2's Australian concerts on their Vertigo Tour in March 2006, until the shows were postponed.[72]" I might say "but" instead of "until".
  • "who both served their roles for Partos" What does this mean?
  • Dropout Bear is an animated figure of an animal, and probably should be referred to as "which" rather than "who".
  • "and shows West serving the role of a cab driver in an imaginary city." I might say "taking" rather than "serving"
  • "and what is acheivable within hip hop's appropriate boundaries.[27]" Appropriate?
  • " and assured that West is arrogant, "only that's not why he always samples".[26]" I'm not sure you can use "assured" in that way.
  • "Late Registration appeared on year-end best album lists for 2005 by numerous publications, including being named the best album of the year by Spin,[103] Time,[45] and USA Today.[104] Rolling Stone also gave the album this ranking," Appearing on a year-end album list is not a ranking.
  • "It scored a 107-point lead, standing as the narrowest margin in the poll's history.[108] " Is this going to mean anything to the reader?
  • "Late Registration was West's second consecutive album to be rated "XXL" by XXL, the magazine's highest rank, which has been awarded to only 16 other hip hop albums.[112]" Given that this is a 2005 source you're citing from, "has been" should likely be "had been"
  • "and the staff noted that West's ambition to be "bigger than hip-hop" was correct.[116]" How can an ambition be correct? Do you mean "realized"?
  • "Late Registration was ultimately nominated for the award at the ceremony, " I gather it did not win the Album of the Year and that should be made clearer.
  • "Despite West's previously instated problem of failure to win, he was happy with eight nominations.[130] Both "instated" and "failure to win" sound like odd phrasings.
  • "and gave him nearly double that of The College Dropout's first-week sales." Maybe "and gave him first-week sales nearly double those of The College Dropout."
  • "In the United Kingdom, the album reached number two on the UK Albums Chart for the issue date of September 5, 2005, being prevented from topping the chart by McFly's album Wonderland; however, both albums were new entries that week.[155] " Why the "however"?
That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:51, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from ErnestKrause

[edit]

Following up on my peer review comments on the Peer Review page for this featured article candidate, I'm supporting this article for promotion. Its well-written and has a comprehensively researched bibliography and references. Its also been previously proof-read and edited at its successful GAN by another editor. It should be intereting to see other editors comment on this article during assessment here. Supporting this nomination. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:31, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Media review from Elias.

[edit]
Full media review. All issues have been resolved - passed. ‍ ‍ elias. 🧣 ‍ ‍ 💬reach out to me
📝see my work 06:48, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll take this ‍ ‍ elias. 🧣 ‍ ‍ 💬reach out to me
    📝see my work     03:54, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • File:Late registration cd cover.jpg - cover art. FUR is expansive and the ALT text looks good. Would suggest including an archived version of the source link for posterity
    • File:CAM 4037 (175437630) (cropped).jpg - cropped version of this, which was posted to Flickr under a suitable license. Placement in article is appropriate; ALT text and captions are a-ok
    • File:West performing.jpg - while the ALT text, licensing, and caption are OK, this is causing MOS:SANDWICH issues for me on my screen along with the sample. And frankly it comes across as somewhat decorative, as I don't see how an image of a performance strongly corresponds to the songs' composition. Would suggest removing it
      • The reason for inclusion is because it demonstrates a picture of West with his orchestra, who are mentioned as accompanying him on all the songs listed on the text. Also, I moved to the para above instead since it continues into the one below if this is acceptable now? --K. Peake 06:58, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'll allow this, then
    • File:Heymamakanye.ogg - the FUR can use a little more tweaking: "Respect for commercial opportunities / No" ? Caption is alright.
      • I've added more to this now, does it look alright? --K. Peake 06:58, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • All that changed in the "Respect for commercial opportunities" parameter was that "No" became "Yes", which is still not good to me. Usually I see these filled out with "A short audio sample will not harm the commercial viability of the album in any way", so that should suffice.
          • Done, with a few changes. --K. Peake 09:01, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
            • The FUR for this article should be good to go then. Won't stop me from passing the review, but if you ask me, the FUR for the "Hey Mama" article itself can also use work.
    • File:Kanye West in Portland.jpg - Relevant, licensed appropriately, good captions and ALT text, etc. etc.
    • File:AlphaCabinet.jpg - placement is relevant to the article, as it accompanies lots of commentary on the album's themes and lyricism. ALT text and captions are good, and this is VRT-confirmed.
    • File:Kanye West Portland Vertigo Tour 2005.jpg - no problems other than its alignment in the article (MOS:IMAGELOC). It's pushing the "Artwork and packaging" subheader to the right of my screen; please move it
      • Done; moved to the left. --K. Peake 06:58, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • The same issue is still there, only that the Princeton Uni photo is pushing the "Singles" subheader this time
          • I have removed this photo altogether, finding no size that stops it overlapping. --K. Peake 09:01, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
            • That's good but... you moved the tour photo back to the left, leaving us back with where we started (somewhat).
    • File:Andlinger Center for the Humanities, East Pyne - Princeton University - Princeton, NJ - Princeton University - Princeton, NJ - DSC00970.jpg AND File:Pop Conference 2014 - Robert Christgau 02.jpg - both are properly licensed with good ALT text and captions. The first file is accompanied by a fairly expansive commentary on the packaging, so it's not super decorative; Christgau's picture seems okay to include here given that he's a prominent music critic
    • File:Kanye West at the Brit Awards 2006.jpg - placement in the article makes sense and the caption is OK. Posted to Flickr under appropriate license; ALT text "West performed a song medley at the 26th Brit Awards" seems somewhat ungrammatical to me.
    • Troubled.elias I have changed all the photos as you requested, except the Jon Brion one that I simply removed a photo size for since the first image being on the left goes best. What do you think now? --@K. Peake 07:52, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • @K. Peake - sorry, almost forgot about this. Yeah, we're done here - pass

Support from 100cellsman

[edit]
Resolved comments from 100cellsman

Hi! The only thing I could find from looking through the article is the word "brainstorming" in the Recording section. I can't think of a replacement word at the moment but regardless I won't deduct any points. 웃OO 02:42, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

100cellsman I have used thinking through instead, if this works? --K. Peake 08:47, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Seems fine to me. 웃OO 09:05, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass

[edit]
Resolved comments from Mike Christie

I'll post more tomorrow, but I have an initial question: what's the logic behind when you use the publisher= parameter in {{cite web}}, {{cite news}}, and {{cite magazine}}? Any reasonable rule is fine but it needs to be consistently applied. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:07, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Christie My usage of publisher has to do with whether the sources are italicised or not. As for the actual cites, I have used news for any article that is labelled as such and magazine generally for any sources that are those, but I could go through to make sure I always use the mag template when it is appropriate if you wish? --K. Peake 05:44, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, that's not what I meant to ask. The FAC requirement is consistency, so in a source review I look to see if you are consistent about how you decide to include the publisher and website. In [11] (referring to this version) you have a publisher and no website name; in [28] you have the reverse -- magazine (which is just an alias for the website parameter) but no publisher parameter. As you say, the publisher is not italicized, but the magazine/website/work/newspaper parameter is italicized, so the format of the resulting cites differs and is inconsistent unless you have a rule you're applying that I'm not seeing. For example, some editors always include the work parameter, and only include the publisher parameter where it's not obvious from the work -- so CNN would not get a publisher parameter because the website is CNN so the publisher is obvious, but a cite to Billboard would get both, since the publisher is Nielsen Business Media, Inc. My question is, how are you deciding which way to enter these cites -- when to use publisher, when to use work, and when to use both? It doesn't matter what the rule is so long as you're consistent about applying it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 08:04, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Mike Christie Basically, I am looking at whether the source being cited is italicised or not to decide if I use publisher or a parameter that italicises. Regarding those examples, CNN is not so I used publisher but Billboard is and having publishers for online sources already citing website or a similar parameter would be excess process, also the consistency is in how I decided to use the parameters. --K. Peake 08:17, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK, that sounds reasonable. I'll review on that basis. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 08:33, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for understanding, also I only use both at once for book sources because it would be too cluttered doing this for online pieces. K. Peake 09:08, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Footnote numbers refer to this version. I'll restate what I understand your policy on use of the publisher and work parameters, to make sure I understand it, since I'm going to cite what I think are inconsistencies with it: if a source is usually italicized (e.g. Rolling Stone) it will be given the work parameter and no publisher; if it is not usually italicized it will be given the publisher parameter and no work parameter. Here are a couple of cites that don't comply with that.

  • [166] includes both publisher and work.
    Removed the publisher for consistency with Billboard citations. --K. Peake 06:16, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dazed and Vibe don't seem to typically italicize their names, but you have them cited with work, not publisher -- [47], [80].
    Look at the Dazed and Vibe articles to see that you are clearly incorrect here. --K. Peake 06:16, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    They describe themselves as magazines, so I've struck this since Wikipedia's convention is to italicize magazine titles, but the sites themselves don't appear to use italics. See here -- "Today, Dazed magazine continues to..." and here -- ""VIBE is a leading entertainment and lifestyle brand...". So I'll take it that even if a source doesn't use italics, if the Wikipedia convention is to use italics then you're using work and not publisher. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:27, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • [97] gives "MTV Hive" as the publisher, but that's the name of the website; the publisher is MTV.
    This is not correct; the url is mtvhive.com and MTV Hive is not italicised either, unless you want me to cite one as publisher and the other as via? --K. Peake 06:16, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    What I meant was that the corporate entity publishing the site was MTV, not MTV Hive. MTV Hive is not a publisher; it's the name of the website. As you say "MTV Hive" isn't italicized, so your rule would mean you put the publisher in. You could just make the publisher MTV, which wouldn't make it clear to the reader that this is MTV Hive we're sourcing from; that would work but isn't ideal. Or you could change your rule to allow use of the website parameter instead of publisher where that provides the reader more information -- here that italicizes MTV Hive, which is not italicized by the source, but that's OK -- it's just a citation formatting convention and happens all the time. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:27, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I have changed the publisher to simply MTV now and I'm glad you understand my point about the other publications. --K. Peake 06:53, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll pause there to make sure I haven't misunderstood. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:56, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I think we're on the same page now as to how you're using the cite parameters, so I'll continue with a more thorough review -- probably later today. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:48, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • {{Cite journal}} and {{cite magazine}} format differently, so I would suggest looking through your uses of {{cite journal}} to see if any of them would be better as {{cite magazine}}. For example, Spin magazine ([35]) is more of a magazine than an academic journal. If there's some rule you're using to choose journal vs. magazine, let me know what it is.
    I have changed the citations to format as cite journal only when it is suitable, which I think is for only citations using the via parameter since that is using a source like Google Books to cite an actual journal. I kept it for the Spin one though, as this is citing a journalistic piece on Google Books. --K. Peake 18:02, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, but then presumably [112] should not be cite journal, since it has no via parameter. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:55, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also compare formatting of [103] with [35] and [40].
    Moved Spin in that ref. --K. Peake 18:02, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You have five citations for Spin; here are two.
    • Caramanica, Jon (September 2005). "The Man Who Would Be King". Spin. 21 (9): 99–100. Archived from the original on June 3, 2016. Retrieved November 25, 2015 – via Google Books.
    • McGovern, Kyle; Jenkins, Craig (October 27, 2014). "All 289 Eminem Songs, Ranked". Spin. Archived from the original on April 3, 2015. Retrieved March 10, 2022.
    What I'm saying is that the Caramanica cite should look like the McGovern/Jenkins cite. I understand that you are using the presence of via as your way to choose journal vs. magazine, but that leads to this inconsistency in presentation. I haven't run into someone using this exact style before; I think this runs afoul of WP:FACR 2(c), which requires consistent formatting, but if you disagree we can ping in Nikkimaria or another experienced source reviewer. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:55, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    To achieve consistency, I have removed parameters from this ref and changed it to cite magazine instead. --K. Peake 10:46, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • When are you using the issue parameter? As far as I can tell your intention is to use it for journals and not magazines; if so I would remove it from [129]. The other journal citations without it could add it, but you may also want to change those to magazine citations per my comment above.
    Removed. --K. Peake 18:02, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, but if you're going to keep the cite journal citations above, you would need to add the issue parameter to those. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:55, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Is this really needed for every journal parameter? --K. Peake 10:46, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I had a look at the ones that don't have it and I think it's probably OK. The formatting looks different but those publications probably don't track issue and volume as the academic journals do. I'll ping Nikki about it below. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:43, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • [58] uses the domain name; should be "Amazon", or "Amazon UK" if you prefer.
  • [57] & [70] both cite Beaumont's God & Monster, which is also listed in Further reading. I see you're citing specific chapters, which is presumably why you're not using an sfn link to the bibliography, but I don't think you need the full bibliographic description in both the citation and the Further reading section. I would suggest removing it from Further reading, or you could cut the chapters and use sfn, and list it in the bibliography.
    Done, removing from further reading. --K. Peake 18:02, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • [52], [118], & [129] have the location parameter, but no other cites do.
    Unless I missed something, these are the only sources that list a location. --K. Peake 18:02, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure what you mean. Per this Worldcat record, for example, Colossus Books is located in Phoenix, and looking through the web citations I recognize many of them as having citable locations -- the Los Angeles Times and Washington City Paper, for example. It's rare to use locations in web cites because they can be a pain to figure out, and for web sources it's not a particularly helpful datum, so you might consider just eliminating the location from web cites and news cites. It should be consistent for books -- either included or excluded is fine. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:55, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    No, my point is that I have only listed locations when the citations themselves mention them, not when that is the general location of the publication. --K. Peake 10:46, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Compare formatting of [146] with other Billboard cites. In fact, checking the wikitext, it seems you're using the {{Webarchive}} template for a lot of these; that generates output that is inconsistent with the other style. How do you want to resolve this?
    I have fixed the formatting, but the webarchive template had been added by other users before I edited this; should I replace these instances or keep them? --K. Peake 18:02, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The fact that they say "at the Wayback Machine" isn't an issue; it's the sequence of elements of the cite that is inconsistent, and looking at this again I think it should be easy to fix. Compare [107] to [109]: both are citations to Village Voice articles without authors, so should be identically laid out. The first is "title - archive info - work - retrieval date"; the second is "title - work - archive info - retrieval date". The work is not part of the webarchive template, so I think if you just go through and move the work title to before the webarchive template in each case you'll have a consistent format. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:55, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Mike Christie I think I have formatted all of the wayback machine citations correctly now; please tell me if I missed any! --K. Peake 10:46, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Those all look good now. Can you take a look at [194] though? Looks like there are two separate archive links. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:26, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Will look at reliability and links next. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:10, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've struck a couple of points above; there are several threads left so rather than try to keep them going here's a relisting of them. Nikki, I'd appreciate your take on the second and third points below.

  • [194] has two separate archive links.
  • You are listing locations "only when the citations themselves mention them, not when that is the general location of the publication". I haven't run into this approach before; you have three citations with location parameters, two for cite web and one for cite journal. I would have thought this fails the consistency requirement, but I'll defer to Nikki.
  • I'm not sure I follow - you're not including it for something like NYT which lists a location. Do you mean in the byline? That's not necessarily the publication location. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:26, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging Nikki to make sure I have this right. Kyle, I think the issue is that per the documentation at Template:Cite web, place/location is used for datelined news stories, and publication-place is for the geographic place where the publisher produces their publication. In the link you provide above, Barcelona is the datelined location, which means it should get used for |place=, for which "location" is an alias. When used in that way the result is "Written at Barcelona" before the title. However, if you use place/location and you don't also use |publication-place=, then the place/location parameter is treated as the publication place. The result is that your citation linked above is showing Barcelona as the geographic location of the publisher, but in fact it's the dateline location of the story. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:31, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Correct. You can either have no location at all, or you can add publication place to the dateline place - you cannot just use dateline place as publication place. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:33, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have tried using the place parameter, however this still displays any city directly after the publisher with no written by or similar text, so I have decided to do away with locations altogether. K. Peake 13:17, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK, that addresses the last formatting issue. I will look at links and reliability shortly. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:24, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re adding issue for the cite journals; I can see the issue number might not be available for non-academic sources such as Radio & Records, so the difference in formatting might be unavoidable, once you've decided to use cite journal rather than cite magazine. Nikki, can you comment here as well? K. Peake is using cite journal when there's a "via" parameter, and cite magazine when there is not, so there are non-academic magazines using cite journal, which means in turn the formatting looks a bit different because there might be no issue number available. Is this OK?

That's everything left over from above. Still have to look at reliability and links, which I'll do once these points are settled. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:43, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Links and reliability:

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:29, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pass. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:57, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Damn. Sorry, Kyle, I checked the wrong thing; I did mean this as a pass for the whole source review, but got crossed up when checking the source. I'll take another look now. I've struck the pass but I hope to unstrike it shortly. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:13, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A look in the archives at RS doesn't find anything helpful. I looked through the old archives at WT:CHARTS and found this which says they are licensed to provide these charts, but I can't find anything that shows that. A search in Google Books for discussions of them being cited by other reliable sources (which would help establish their reliability) is rather discouraging as it only shows Wikipedia articles repackaged as books. I also can't find anything about them in news reports. If you can find old discussions that establish their reliability, or find a link that shows they have some form of licensing to do what they do, or find evidence that they have a corporate structure and exercise editorial control over the charts, or show that external reliable sources (e.g. newspapers, or reliable music sources) treat them as reliable, that would help. I understand that they're well-established as reliable by the relevant Wikiprojects, but I have to see the evidence myself to pass the source review. I will keep looking. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:29, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Mike Christie Looking at WP:CHARTS where Hung Medien is listed, you can see that the guideline page clearly has its standards set out for reliability of charts. If this is not sufficient, then see archive 16 where a discussion about how reliable swisscharts.com is came up and remember, it is controlled on IFPI Switzerland's behalf. --K. Peake 13:41, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've started a thread at WT:CHARTS to try to settle this and have also mentioned it on WT:FAC to try to get other music editors to comment. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:51, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Passing this by... here is an archive from the main Swedish charts page that can be used in place of the Hung Medien site. And here is the Swedish charts page archive with Late Registration's charting that can be used in place of HM also. 𝒮𝒾𝓇 𝒯𝑒𝒻𝓁𝑜𝓃 (talk | contribs) 15:41, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but the thread at WP:CHARTS has resolved everything but the Austrian charts -- all the others are reliable, except for the Irish charts, which have been replaced with a better source. So it's only the Austrian charts at issue now. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:15, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pass. The last outstanding question on source reliability has been addressed, so this source review is now a pass. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:13, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SUPPORT(!) from Teflon Peter Christ

[edit]
Resolved comments from Teflon Peter Christ

I would SERIOUSLY reconsider relocating the content about West's Katrina-Bush-blackpeople remarks. It is BOTH out of place in the section it's currently in and faaar more connected to the Legacy paragraph(s). Otherwise, I fall in line with the other supports here! 𝒮𝒾𝓇 𝒯𝑒𝒻𝓁𝑜𝓃 (talk | contribs) 06:07, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Teflon Peter Christ Thanks for your support, however I'm not sure what to do here since a user in the previous candidacy suggested it to be moved from the original legacy position; should I ask another editor since you are making the opposite comments? --K. Peake 06:25, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but what was their reasoning? Which makes most sense to you? And go for it, ask for a second opinion! But, especially in the case of the quotebox, it clearly does NOT fall in with the section's prevailing theme of marketing efforts, nor does the racial commentary of the quotebox embody or illustrate anything in the section it currently rests. I can't see a case for it remaining there. 𝒮𝒾𝓇 𝒯𝑒𝒻𝓁𝑜𝓃 (talk | contribs) 06:28, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's MY take. Obviously, since it hasn't been brought up here, it stands to reason the article can pass in spite of this. BUT, this is also an opportunity to improve an area of the article, IF my reasoning is correct . . . 𝒮𝒾𝓇 𝒯𝑒𝒻𝓁𝑜𝓃 (talk | contribs) 06:30, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You have expanded on your point unlike the user in the first candidacy who suggested to move the incident to release and promotion with no actual reasoning, also the hurricane is mentioned in legacy which furthers the idea to move this there as I have now done! K. Peake 09:12, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from TheAmazingPeanuts

[edit]

Reviewing articles is not my thing at all, but I think the article is well written and everything seems to be sourced correctly. This nomination have my support. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 05:09, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 28 July 2022 [12].

Sayfo

[edit]
Nominator(s): (t · c) buidhe 15:50, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the lesser known sibling of the Armenian genocide. Thanks so much to Ichthyovenator and Hog Farm who reviewed at ACR, Jens Lallensack for the GAN, and Miniapolis for a thorough copyedit. (t · c) buidhe 15:50, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • The shading in the Assyrian percentage map is quite difficult to distinguish - see MOS:COLOUR
  • Suggest scaling up the Paris Peace Conference map
  • File:Syrian_Women_of_the_Kurdistan_Mountains_in_Flight.png: why is Iranian copyright believed relevant? The given source was published in the US and UK. If it is kept, the tag indicates that the description should specify which rationale applies.
  • That comment on Iranian copyright applies to multiple other images
  • File:Assyrian_warriors_from_Tergawar,_Iran.jpg: when and where was this first published?
  • File:Map_of_southeastern_Anatolia_printed_in_The_cradle_of_mankind;_life_in_eastern_Kurdistan_(1922)_(14576929017).jpg: one of the authors listed died less than 70 years ago
  • File:Oramar._Looking_northwards_across_the_gorge_towards_the_crags_of_Supa_Durig_between_Jilu_and_Baz.jpg: can a more specific copyright tag be applied?
  • File:Syriac_Orthodox_family_in_Mardin,_1904.jpg: what is the author's date of death? Ditto File:Map_of_Assyria_Paris_Peace_Conference_1919.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:05, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria I put Iranian tags because the photographs were taken in Iran, so I figured that would be the source country.
Okay - tag requires that the description page identify which rationale listed is believed to apply. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:11, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Assyrian_warriors_from_Tergawar,_Iran.jpg —published in US in 1924, details added to image description.
  • File:Map_of_southeastern_Anatolia_printed_in_The_cradle_of_mankind;_life_in_eastern_Kurdistan_(1922)_(14576929017).jpg As stated in the deletion request, the man who died in 1935 is credited with the illustrations in the book, while the other guy wrote the text
  • File:Oramar._Looking_northwards_across_the_gorge_towards_the_crags_of_Supa_Durig_between_Jilu_and_Baz.jpg Same situation as the previous one, this is PD-old-70-1923, licensing corrected
  • File:Syriac_Orthodox_family_in_Mardin,_1904.jpg I'm not sure about the author's death date, but the French source linked in the image description says the author's works are public domain and I have no reason to doubt it.
  • As for the map, I don't know about the author's death so removed that claim. But it was definitely published in 1919 or 1920. (t · c) buidhe 05:35, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by GGT

I had worked quite a bit on this article a number of years ago, so am quite familiar with the topic in general. Buidhe's important work on this rather under-researched but important part of history has been exciting to follow and I'll be pleased to read through the article and share some of my thoughts - this is my first FAC review on en.wiki so please do bear with me.

  • I'm not too comfortable with the image in the lead. We don't really know where this was taken, we don't know who took it. The only verification we have about the image is the single sentence caption in a 1916 book that seems to have been sponsored by the Assyrian Church. All it shows is a bunch of women wearing the garments of the day and carrying a bunch of bags in a countryside setting. I've just seen too many instances of falsified or out-of-context claimed images of atrocities for this period. Granted, these are mostly from the denialist camp but as the article explains quite well, the Assyrian church had its own reasons for being less than factual. So I'm not comfortable with having this image in the article without a secondary source using it, or at least some attribution.
  • Similarly with the image captioned "Cavalry and slain Assyrians at the mission in Urmia". This image is so low-resolution that it's not even very meaningful. The caption in the primary source from which it's taken raises more questions than it answers.
    • Removed both images
  • "The Syriac Orthodox Church has officially rejected the use of "Assyrian" since 1952, however, but not all Syriac Orthodox reject Assyrian identity." "However, but" sounds a bit clunky.
    • Reworded
  • "David Gaunt has estimated the Assyrian population at between 500,000 and 600,000 just before the outbreak of World War I, significantly higher than Ottoman census figures." This sentence conveys Gaunt's estimate to be much more confident than it actually is. In fact, Gaunt is very tentative in his calculations in the cited work as well as his more detailed account in Massacres, Resistance, Protectors. His bottom line is that there aren't really any reliable figures for the population, and I don't think that this comes across as such in the article. The sentence also begs the question of what the official Ottoman figure was and why it's discounted, which should be easy enough to add to the article.
    • Reworded. There was no official Ottoman figure for Assyrians since they were counted in a fragmentary way by religious denomination; I removed the reference to the census. In his 2006 book, Gaunt says that the 1914 Ottoman census's figures for "non-Muslims were thoroughly misleading and inaccurate. As a token of the confused nature of the official census-taking and the lack of coordination between the local correspondents, the Syriac Orthodox population is shown in three separate categories: Süryaniler, Eski Süryaniler, and Jakobiler"
  • I'm hoping to keep posting comments as I read through the article. --GGT (talk) 17:46, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the improvements! I consider the issues above to be fully resolved. Moving on...
  • "Under the Qudshanis-based Patriarch of the Church of the East, Assyrian tribes ruled farmers in the Hakkari mountains east of Tur Abdin (adjacent to the Ottoman–Persian border) with aşiret status—in theory, with full autonomy." I note that this section, along with a substantial part of the article, relies extensively on Gaunt's work: I won't critique this too much as I'm aware that this is an understudied topic but some of his more general comments should be taken with a pinch of salt, and this is one of those. The sentence doesn't make sense to me as a native Turkish speaker as aşiret isn't really a status. It simply means "tribe" (so the sentence is repetitive) and was integrated into Ottoman administrative hierarchy as such, but it wasn't a status that was bestowed, so to speak, and it also didn't theoretically provide full autonomy. (For a non-Turkish speaker I imagine this sentence also doesn't really clarify what an aşiret is.) This article provides a good overview of what an "aşiret" is its place in Ottoman law. If Assyrian tribes enjoyed full autonomy, that would have been thanks to the remoteness of the region rather than any status.
    • Rephrased
  • "Assyrian efforts to maintain their independence" - this should probably read "autonomy" rather than independence.
    • Done
  • "Historians date mass violence against the Assyrians to the 1830s or earlier" - I'd say that the wording here is a bit too similar to the source. Also Gaunt doesn't really cite any historical works to substantiate this statement.
    • Reworded
  • There is a bit of a chronological confusion here - the Russo-Turkish war precedes the creation of the Hamidiye cavalry; the cavalry should probably be discussed within the context of the Hamidian massacres. --GGT (talk) 12:11, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In particular, the Ottoman Empire wanted to annex Persia's Azerbaijan province to connect with Russia's Muslim subjects in Transcaucasia." I'd say that this is a slight oversimplification of the Ottoman motives, this article provides a better summary than Gaunt for this IMO. At any rate, the aim wasn't necessarily to "annex" to territory but rather to "occupy" it.
    • Removed the sentence. I'm not sure exactly what the academic consensus on this issue is, but I would hesitate to cite that source since as far as I can tell it doesn't say anything about Assyrians.
  • "Historian Donald Bloxham emphasizes the negative influence of interfering foreign powers in the Ottoman Empire (including plots to annex territory) under the pretext of protecting Ottoman Christians." A very important point - I think one or two sentences about the British involvement with the Assyrians prior to the Sayfo is actually essential background.
    • Do you know any good sources on this? I can't find any and Bloxham's book says virtually nothing about Assyrians that's not already covered. I know there were American, French, and British missionaries; is there a reason the British were most important?
  • "According to Gaunt, the Sayfo should be considered among other settler genocides that sought the elimination of the original inhabitants to redistribute land to a different population." I'm unable to verify this I think. It's not in Gaunt's chapter (p. 245 onwards) and it's not on p. 331, which is cited. In general, I find the focus on Turkification and settler colonialism as a motive for Sayfo in this paragraph a bit bizarre and undue. The areas populated by the Assyrians weren't really very "desirable" areas and unlike the properties of the Armenians, they mostly weren't repopulated by Turks. Yalçın (2009) quotes Dündar in a comment that is general about the repopulation of Christian villages with muhacirs, that shouldn't be understood as specifically applying to the Assyrians. And again I don't think Gaunt really substantiates his resettlement argument in the 2015 paper either, the whole paragraph is vague ("The order to resettle the Nestorians of Hakkari was one step within this greater scheme"), and as I said I think the article relies a bit too much on Gaunt's analysis of events already - this might be a good place to cut down on it unless other researchers explicitly agree with him on this.
  • --GGT (talk) 17:03, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • It does show up on page 331 of the version I consulted. The argument is more that they were mostly killed by other locals (not primarily Turks) with less involvement from the government. Although their land wasn't the most desirable, my understanding is it was indeed taken over by other people (although mostly not muhacir) after the Sayfo. Locally driven violence and land appropriation is typical of settler genocides (eg. see Civilian-Driven Violence and the Genocide of Indigenous Peoples in Settler Societies.) However, I don't feel strongly about including this particular language, so removed

Comments by Ovinus

Will get reviewing in a moment. Thanks for your important work as always. Ovinus (talk) 23:44, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • First sentence – I'm pretty sure MOS says to avoid slashes. (Sorry to be the obsessive/pedant.) Is it because of the controversial terminology? I think that's a perfectly valid exception, but just want to make sure
    • Yes, it's because the people may be called either Assyrians or Syriacs
  • "irregulars" (twice) – too technical for a lead. perhaps "guerillas" or "paramilitaries", but I'd even prefer "independent fighters" or something
    • Changed to "Ottoman forces" referring to both soldiers and irregulars
  • "were not part of the genocide" – Clarify whether they were not part of his order specifically or the ensuing genocide in practice
    • The latter, clarified
  • "Local actors played a larger role for local actors than the Ottoman government" – I do not understand this sentence
    • "Local actors played a larger role than the Ottoman government", fixed
  • "this is rejected by Turkey" – Also say that Turkey denies the Armenian genocide, which is quite relevant I think
    • Not sure about this, Armenian genocide denial is only briefly mentioned in the body so seems like it may be UNDUE in the lead. Thanks for reviewing! (t · c) buidhe 02:25, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Understood
  • "collective identity such as the Armenian national movement" – maybe "analogous to" ?
    • "similar to"
  • "There were no accurate estimates of the prewar Assyrian population" – were or are?
    • The source is discussing past estimates
  • "The first mass violence targeting Assyrians was in the 1940s ... killing several thousands during the 1840s" – I assume you mean 1940s, and probably remove the second date
    • 1840s, fixed
  • "During intertribal feuds, most violence was directed at Christian villages under the "protection" of the opposing tribe." – I assumed "most" was considered over Christian villages, so I rephrased, but rv if that's not right
    • Not sure what you mean
      • Never mind, I confused myself
  • "realize Pan-Turanism" – define or remove
    • Removed
  • "Turkify" – I remember this word was used in Armenian genocide, but just to confirm, RS use this word?
    • Cited source says "Talât developed a scheme of demographic engineering that would also enable the Turkification of those refugees who were not already Turkish speaking."

Really sorry to do this, but I'm too tired to get through the rest of the article atm. It's pretty dense stuff for someone who has trouble following key events and people. Back with Armenian genocide there were just a lot less people and places to remember, plus a very helpful map. But I'm not sure if this is something that can be fixed without degrading the encyclopedic quality of the article. Ovinus (talk) 05:15, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ovinus yeah I understand and thanks for reviewing what you did review. Unfortunately the Sayfo is less centralized than the Armenian genocide and therefore more people and places to keep track of. (t · c) buidhe 05:22, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Funk

[edit]
  • Marking my spot. FunkMonk (talk) 16:09, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • At first glance, there are a lot of WP:duplinks throughout, which can be highlighted with this script:[13]
    • Thanks for your review! I've removed many of the duplinks, except where there is a considerable distance between links and I think it helps the reader to keep them in. (t · c) buidhe 18:04, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Terms for Syriac Christians such as Assyrian, Syriac, Aramean, and Chaldean" These names should all be linked here at their first mention, no? Now they are first linked under second mention in the background section.
    • I don't think that would be helpful. The terminology article explains the use of these terms, which are not synonymous with the names or the membership of the churches.
You link all these names not much later, though, so why link them there and not at first mention? FunkMonk (talk) 01:26, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't link any of the terms on their own and as I was trying to say, Syriac ≠ Syriac Orthodox, etc. Some Syriac Orthodox identify as Assyrian, other Syriac Orthodox are not Assyrian. (t · c) buidhe 07:25, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link Ottoman Empire at first mention in article body.
    • Done
  • "speaking of an 'Assyrian Genocide' is anachronistic" I think we need to know what the alternative is here then, a general Christian genocide?
    • Gaunt doesn't propose an immediate alternative and does not buy into the idea of a general Christian genocide. Since the localized killings in different areas occurred for different reasons, one potential argument is that there's more than one Assyrian genocide (although I haven't seen this in RS)
  • "In Neo-Aramaic" Could be explained in parenthesis that is is the language spoken by these ethnicities, now there is no context.
    • done
  • "The people now called Assyrian, Chaldean, or Aramean, who historically spoke Aramaic languages, converted to Christianity in the first centuries CE" Would it be more accurate to say they are descendants of people who converted to Christianity, as their modern supposed self-identities would otherwise be retroactively applied to their ancestors, who we do not know identified as what?
    • Rephrased
  • Perhaps also specify these were people native of West Asia/Near East/Asia Minor/whatever works.
    • Done
  • Link Middle Eastern Christian?
    • Done
  • Link Nestorians
    • Done
  • "Unlike the Syriac population of Tur Abdin, many of these Syriacs spoke other languages." Unclear what is meant by this. What language did those of Tur Abdin speak, and what did the others speak?
    • non-Aramaic languages (eg. Kurdish, Armenian, Arabic)
  • Link World War I at first mention.
    • Done
  • "Although the Kurds and Assyrians were well-integrated" With each other or with the Ottoman Empire?
    • the former, clarified
  • Link Russian Empire.
    • Done
  • "tried to enlist Caucasian" Link to Caucasus or similar to avoid confusion.
    • done
  • Link Persian at first mention.
    • done
  • "confiscated from populations deemed unreliable" Perhaps specify they were unreliable to the empire, I was unsure who the CUP worked under at first read.
    • done
  • Link Turkify.
    • Done
  • "The goals of the population replacement were to Turkify the newcomers" Who are the newcomers, Muslims from other areas? Perhaps state specifically that these were of non-Turkish ethnicities, if that's the case?
    • Some but not all the Balkan Muslims were non-Turkish (ie. Slavic-speaking, Albanian etc.) The source doesn't go into detail here though
  • "expelled from the Lizan valley" To where? And where were Christians generally expelled to?
    • It's not clear where they went, probably other Assyrian areas. There weren't a significant number of other Christians living in the Lizan valley at this time.

Thanks for your comments! (t · c) buidhe 08:13, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Link Sunni Muslim.
    • Done
  • "clearly related to the extermination orders from Constantinople" You don't mention extermination orders earlier, would seem the question of whether there were such orders could be dealt with in more detail, now it seems like a strong claim with little backing in-text.
    • Removed since the source doesn't elaborate and other sources don't specify whether the killings were ordered from Constantinople or decided by local CUP leaders (or lean towards the latter interpretation)
  • "a collection of eyewitness reports" Reports about what?
    • fixed
  • "The CUP government reversed its position on the Hamidiye regiments" Reversed from what? Until now, you have only stated they cooperated with the Ottoman authorities.
    • Done
  • "many Christian men were drowned in the river." The article body doesn't seem to state this anywhere? Image captions should preferably not have unsourced information not covered in the article body.
    • Removed
  • Halfway trough the article, you seem to switch from calling them Assyrians to Syriacs. If there is no particular reason for this, it might be better to be consistent.
    • This because self-identified Assyrian identity is less common for the (descendants of the) mainly Syriac Orthodox population of Diyarbekir.
  • "The killers began separating Armenians and Syriacs in early July, only killing the former" Regardless of their obvious role, it seems a bit blunt and informal to just refer to them as "the killers".
    • Changed to perpetrators
  • "militiamen were caught attempting to plant arms in a Syriac Catholic church in Mardin to justify the planned massacres" I don't understand the logic of this. How does an explosion in a church justify killing Christians?
    • Not bombs, arms as in firearms. although source isn't explicit about the type of weapon. They weren't trying to blow up the church but rather "find" weapons there to "prove" that Christians were plotting a rebellion. Clarified
  • "Those who refused to convert to Islam was murdered" Were murdered.
    • Fixed
  • "The city's Syriac Orthodox made a deal with authorities and were spared" What did the deal entail?
    • It's not known exactly what kind of deal, but it apparently involved payment of a bribe, release of Syriac Orthodox notables and their subsequent declaration of support for the government (Gaunt 2006, pp. 171–172)
  • "Islamicized Syriacs (primarily women) were left behind; their Kurdified (or Arabized)" Link "ized/ified" terms.
    • Done
  • "becoming landless agricultural laborers or (later) and urban underclass" Do you mean "an urban underclass"? Otherwise, it's a kind of odd sentence.
    • Fixed
  • "In 2000, Syriac Orthodox priest Yusuf Akbulut was secretly recorded by journalists saying: "At that time it was not only the Armenians but also the Assyrians [Süryani] who were massacred on the grounds that they were Christians". The journalists gave their recording to Turkish prosecutors" You should specify if he lived in Turkey.
    • Done
  • The intro could mention that the Assyrians fought back in some cases, now it looks like they were just passively exterminated?
    • Done
  • Support - nice work, and while a difficult subject, I hope it will attract more reviewers soon. FunkMonk (talk) 13:13, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Coordinator comment - at over a month in with only a single general support, this nomination is liable to be archived after a couple days without significant further movement towards a consensus to promote. Hog Farm Talk 02:02, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

[edit]
  • "experienced war between Kurdish tribes and their Assyrian allies". This is confusing. It appears to say that allies were fighting each other.
    • Rephrased
  • "The first major schism in Syriac Christianity dates to 410, when Christians in the Sassanid Empire (Persia) formed the Church of the East to distinguish themselves from the official religion of the Roman Empire." This is a bit confusing as you say that the beakaway from the religion of the Roman Empire was a split in Syriac religion. If you mean that the West Syriac church sided with the Romans but later broke away from the Catholics and Orthodox you should say so.
    • Clarified
  • "Assyrian tribes ruled farmers in the Hakkari mountain". I do not think it makes sense to speak of a tribe ruling.
    • Rephrased
  • "interfering foreign powers in the Ottoman Empire" Which foreign powers?
    • European ones
  • "the loss of the Balkan Wars" This is ungrammatical and unclear. Who were the parties to the war and who won?
    • the Ottomans lost the war (clarified this). Who they were fighting against (Serbia, Bulgaria, Greece, Albania) is not important to this article.
  • "deemed unreliable to the empire". This is ungrammatical. Maybe disloyal to the empire?
    • Done
  • "deportation of the Christian population" deportation to where?
    • That's a complex question and it's partly addressed in the remainder of the article. I don't think it would be possible to explain in this paragraph.
  • "Mar Shimun sent Malik Khoshaba and bishop Mar Yalda Yahwallah from Barwari to Tabriz in Persia to request urgent assistance from the Russians" Why to Persia? What was the relationship between Russian and Persia? (If I have not missed your explanation)
    • Mentioned Russian occupation of northeastern Persia, which predated the war, at an earlier point in the article.
  • "There were no missionaries in the Salmas valley to protect Christians" Why should missionaries have been able to protect the Christians?
    • Reordered paragraphs as this question is addressed in the other paragraph (the attackers were reluctant to target missionary compounds)
  • More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:49, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Half of the second convoy, which departed on 12 June, was massacred when messengers from Diyarbekir announced that the non-Armenians had been pardoned by the sultan" This seems a non-sequitur.
    • Clarified timing (the massacre occurred before the arrival of the envoy)
  • "discouraged discussion of the Sayfo in fear of reprisals from the Turkish government". "for fear" would be better.
    • Done
  • This appears to be a sound article so far as a reviewer with no knowledge of the subject can judge. The locations mean nothing to me, but this would apply to any reader who does not have a specialist knowledge of the geography and I doubt whether there is any easy solution.
  • My main query is about the word "Assyrian". This would usually mean the the ancient empire, and I think you should spell out the meaning in a twentieth-century context. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:19, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done
    I'm really sorry for not getting to your comments yet. I should be able to action them by tomorrow. (t · c) buidhe 14:44, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Now done, thanks again for your feedback. (t · c) buidhe 05:47, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by SnowFire

[edit]

Just a few comments. (I read the whole article but my comments are only on the earlier parts.)

  • "There were no accurate estimates of the prewar Assyrian population"
  • I get the gist of this, but if we're being nitpickers - shouldn't this be "precise", or "precise and accurate"? Accurate merely means correct, and somebody's surely made an accurate guess if they are sufficiently vague as well ("between 0 and 3 million"). More generally, I suspect this is really talking about poor Ottoman record-keeping, so maybe "no contemporary estimates" or "no official organized estimates" for other alternatives? Will defer on wording here, I realize that a two-sentence side note explaining that nobody at the time made very good estimates would blunt the focus.
    • "Historian Donald Bloxham emphasizes the negative influence of European powers interfering in the Ottoman Empire under the pretext of protecting Ottoman Christians. This imperialism put the Ottoman Christians at risk of retaliatory attacks. "
  • This doesn't seem to be referenced? I checked Bloxham's book from the sources and can't find him talking about this specifically. Is this in the Gaunt reference (which isn't easily publicly available) where Gaunt is citing some other work by Bloxham? I guess you already mentioned to GGT that Bloxham's book doesn't cover much not already described, but in "Interlude: The Genocide in Context", he has two paragraphs discussing the Assyrian genocide, and in "Interlude: New Minority Questions in the New Near East", he talks about the 1933 Iraqi attacks on Iraqi Assyrians. He doesn't really talk about imperialism in either - he does mention that the Assyrians threw their lot in with the Entente, but also makes clear this was their choice. If it's not clear where Gaunt is citing this from, I'd be careful with this phrasing and attribute it to Gaunt instead. Also, assuming this is indeed claimed by someone, I'm not a fan of the wording. "Pretext" makes it sound like the Entente was led by cynical, secular types who merely used Assyrian Christians as an excuse. Some of the leadership thought this way, but many more seem to have been deadly serious. France thought they were avenging the Crusader states and the Gallic Kingdom, the British had plenty of evangelical true believers, Russia wanted to reclaim Constantinople on religious grounds, and so on. They really did consider the fate of Middle Eastern Christians important, if in a paternalistic way. (This is not exactly a good thing, of course, it explains a lot of the foolish decisions made.. but "neo-crusaders" is different from "it's just an excuse"). Without being able to see the source to know for sure, I suspect a more general "credible fears of invasion worsened inter-religious relations" slant would be better. SnowFire (talk) 18:04, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know the difference between precision and accuracy and picked this wording because I felt it best summarized the source. There are some precise counts of subsets of the prewar population (i.e. "One count of the “Assyrians”—probably referring only to the Nestorians—in the districts of Hakkari, Bohtan, and Iranian Urmia cites 594 villages and hamlets, with 38,148 households.") just not complete or accurate ones of the entire population that concerns us; the numbers that exist "At best... give approximations"
  • Bloxham doesn't say this specifically about Assyrians as much but Ottoman Christians in general, hence the wording. You could probably get this from reading his book overall and it's certainly supported by the cited source: "Another macro-level idea comes from Donald Bloxham, who emphasizes the dangerous interference of Great Power rivalry as a background to genocide. The nineteenth century’s so-called Great Game rivalry between Russia, Britain, Germany, Austria, and France for influence over the declining Ottoman Empire destabilized that empire, even when the intervention was intended as help. The Great Powers became increasingly involved in the condition of the non-Muslim minorities and what is today called their human rights. Their involvement included plans for grabbing territory under the premise of protecting the non-Muslims. With the connivance of Ottoman officials, this interference put the minorities at risk of retribution." I don't want to attribute to Gaunt since he is clear that it's Bloxham's idea. The Western influence on Assyrians is well known and covered in other sources. (t · c) buidhe 01:28, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • On "accurate": If you think there's no other wording that works, fair enough. I stand by my comment before but recognize as noted that explaining in detail everything would dull the focus and hurt concision.
  • On Bloxham: I couldn't see Gaunt's source, but if that's what he writes, fair enough. I would suggest changing "pretext" to "premise" to match the source, though, since "pretext" has a somewhat different implication here. SnowFire (talk) 13:50, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks good on the whole - expect to support, just waiting on the library to deliver one of the books on so I can sanely comment on the Diyarbekir section. (As the Gaunt discussion showed, it's easier when reading the source material...) SnowFire (talk) 03:31, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Kaiser's book is pretty good although hard to get. I actually have (low quality) scans of the relevant chapters and could email them if desired. I also have a pdf of Ungor's chapters and could send those as well if that would help you SnowFire (t · c) buidhe 04:22, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was Kaiser's 2014 book on Diabekir that I'd requested, yes. Didn't read all of it, but read a decent amount, the cited pages from the article, and the whole Conclusion chapter, and the references check out. (Okay, with one minor question: why is "Reshid also replaced Midyat governor Nuri Bey with the hardline Edib Bey in July 1915" citing page 290 as well? It's cited in the other page range, though, so it's not really a big deal. Did that sentence used to also talk about economic damage, which is what is discussed in p. 290?)
    • Sometimes I cite multiple pages if the content is confirmed in different places.
  • I will make an optional suggestion: yes, they're wikilinked, but I would consider glossing some of the Ottoman-specific terms for the benefit of a broad audience the first time they're used outside the lede. So vilayet (province), sanjak (district), etc. I also might suggest optionally that "district governor" be used by default in text and glossed as "mutasarrif" on introduction rather than the other way around (Kaiser simply uses "governor" and it doesn't seem like the Ottoman office is particularly different than "governor"?). Might make the article a bit less "dense" as Ovinus put it above, no need to use untranslated terms.
    • Done
      • As a minor clarification - I suspect the term "vilayet" is important enough to still include directly, even if potentially glossed more aggressively (would be hypocritical for me to say otherwise, as I've been recently editing some articles that use "vilayet" myself). It was more mutasarrif and maybe sanjak that just replacing is better. Of course, as stated before, up to you, but don't feel obligated to hide "vilayet" on my account. SnowFire (talk) 07:35, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • One other nit, although unrelated to Kaiser's book: In "Exile in Iraq", there's the line "They worked for the British as mercenaries in Mandatory Iraq". I don't have access to Gaunt 2020 but "mercenaries" is a misleading phrasing that suggests soldiers of fortune looking to make a buck or the like. "Soldiers" is fine. (The Assyrians, like many minorities the British Empire recruited, thought they'd be safer by openly allying with the British and thus having the right of carrying arms just in case. Didn't work in the long-term, of course.)
    • Done
  • Support (although please still consider the remaining nitpicks).SnowFire (talk) 19:31, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

Footnote numbers refer to this version.

  • In a handful of cases there's no "p." or "pp." in the citation: [3], [212], [220], [221], [228], [236], [239], [240] & [270].
  • Some of the chapters are missing page ranges: Gaunt (2013), Tamcke, Yalcin, and Yuhanon.
  • Hellot-Bellier is missing issue information. So is Gaunt, but there I see you're using cite web, which seems reasonable for that one.

That's everything I can see -- sources are reliable, and all links work. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:23, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Christie The openedition journals open access mode doesn't display page number, but they do show paragraph number. I use the loc= parameter for the paragraph number which actually is more verifiable than the page since paragraphs are shorter.
Added pp.
For Hellot-Bellier, there is no volume number, only an issue number.

Two struck. For the remaining point, I don't understand how that works. E.g. footnotes [3] and [5] both refer to Gaunt 2010; the latter has a "pp." indication and the former does not. When I go to the external link for that article, I don't get taken to a particular paragraph or page. I can see there's no page number, so I take your point there, but how do I find the paragraph number and what am I looking for? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:57, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Right, the Gaunt article unlike Hellot-Bellier doesn't have paragraph numbers either. At one point I was able to access the pages for this source, but then I needed to cite it again and forgot how to access the page numbers. Now added. (t · c) buidhe 16:36, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK -- looks good. I might suggest using "para." where one would otherwise put "p." in those cases, to help the reader understand what to look for, but that's optional. Pass. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:16, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 28 July 2022 [14].

Carlton Town F.C.

[edit]
Nominator(s): Curlymanjaro (talk) 21:45, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Carlton Town Football Club, a small Nottinghamshire team competing at the eighth tier of the English football pyramid. I've long wanted to write-up a local team (in-part inspired by the Stocksbridge Park Steels F.C. entry), and I hope I've done this one justice. The article passed GA requirements last month and has since featured on DYK. After re-reading (again), I think the article's ready for FAC comments. Thanks! Curlymanjaro (talk) 21:45, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Comments Support by Eem dik doun in toene

[edit]

Interesting article and it's great to see "lesser-known" football clubs being nominated at FAC.

  • "Sneinton Football Club, the club's" ==> Club ... club's is a bit repetitive
    • Replaced with "its".
  • Is the ref in the lead really needed, since it's supposed to be a summary of what's said in the article?
    • Removed.
  • "It was most recently promoted in 2006–07 from" ==> maybe: "It most recently won promotion in 2006–07 from"?
    • Done.
  • "The team enjoyed success in its first season. Finishing" ==> it's quite a short sentence, so it might better to merge it with the following one.
    • Done.
  • The team is plural, so "they" should be used instead of "it". (e.g. "The team enjoyed success in its" ==> "The team enjoyed success in their")
    • Done.
  • Did anything noteworthy happen between 1950 and 1965?
  • a valid promotion, it duly topped, comfortable League, unimpressive League ==> all sound a bit too journalistic to me.
    • Fair comment. "Valid promotion" is included since Carlton finished in a promotion spot at the end of the previous season but had it denied to them because of a technicality. "Duly" because they rebounded from this, after a big investment, so that they could achieve what they had actually earned in the previous season. I realise I might be digging myself into a bigger journalistic hole here, but I've deleted "comfortable" and replaced "unimpressive" with "poor". Hope that suits.
  • "Improved year on year" ==> who stated this?
    • The club, I think. Deleted!
  • "establishing a record" ==> establishing a club record?
    • Done.
  • Perhaps mention Vardy's stature when talking about the 2008–09 playoff semi-final? E.g. "future England international Jamie Vardy"
    • Done.
  • I believe there's a bit of recentism in the history section as the last 20 years cover about as much text as the previous 75 yrs.
    • This is a very valid criticism, one which I've wrestled with quite a bit. The truth is that the club spent the years between 1947, after the second reformation, and the football-pyramid-entering 1995–96 season in massive obscurity, even locally speaking. Looking through contemporaneous articles on the British Newspaper Archive, Sneinton very rarely gets a bespoke mention week-to-week. We're talking the most parochial of the parochial divisions for the most part. There are entries I've found which chart its league position on a given week, along with all the other teams, but that indicates very little about general performance and might lead to mischaracterisations. My other defence is that more recent events tend to have better coverage online, although with a small club such as Carlton, even this can sometimes be tricky.
  • "Central Midlands Football League", "Northern Counties East Football League", et cetera ==> which tiers do these leagues belong to?
    • Clarified (I hope).
  • Why are the honours and tournament tables collapsed?
    • Just my preference, I'm open to reversing that if you prefer.
  • I'm missing info/sections about Carlton's crest/colours, supporters/rivalries, records. Eem dik doun in toene (talk) 17:44, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Alas, me too. I can describe the crest and colours but sadly have no historical background with which to buttress it, so the section would just be a restatement of the infobox (which is fine - let me know). According to my sources, I've virtually nothing on fans and rivalries, which is a shame (I'm questioning whether sources even exist on these). Tournament records are in a (collapsed) box at the bottom, and the record attendance is described in the section covering the ground at which it happened.

Really appreciate you looking at this @Eem dik doun in toene: I'm glad you enjoyed the read. Curlymanjaro (talk) 22:51, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Curlymanjaro, no problem and thanks for the clear explanations. I understand it can be quite a task to find enough/the necessary info. I still think the history section from 2002 can be trimmed down a bit to make it all more balanced. About the collapsed tables, I would uncollapse them as most people will check out the club's honours, and it will save a click. I would also make a crest/colours section then, even if it'll be short. Eem dik doun in toene (talk) 08:11, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I think the article looks better now! I'm not sure if the FM Save ref is "acceptable" but that'll come up at the source review I reckon. Good luck with this nom. Eem dik doun in toene (talk) 21:12, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from ChrisTheDude

[edit]
  • "its early years were [...] described by the Manchester Courier in 1909 as "the leading amateur football club"" - that doesn't work grammatically, Suggest "its early years were marked by considerable local success, leading to the club being described by the Manchester Courier in 1909 as "the leading amateur football club""
    • Done.
  • "Its reputation declined for several decades afterwards, participating" - again, it wasn't the reputation that participated. Suggest "Its reputation declined for several decades afterwards, with the team participating"
    • Done.
  • "Carlton has played its home games" - it's the team rather than the club as a singular entity that plays games, so here it should be treated as plural
    • Done.
  • "Sneinton moved to sign more “promising amateurs of the city”" - why is that last part in quote marks? Who is it a quote from?
    • A nameless newspaperman. Since I've cited the source I might as well shorten the sentence and remove quote marks.
  • "Sneinton, "by no manner of means", insisted" - literally no idea what this means, can you clarify?
    • It means they weren't wealthy. Reworded.
  • "paid for the team's travel to Stockton, where it was defeated 7–2" - the team is plural, not singular
    • Done.
  • Refs after "annual profit" are not in numerical order
    • Fair enough, happy to change that. Previously, I've been instructed to order according to where the cited info is placed within the sentence.
  • Remove the redlink on Trent Rangers as this club is not notable and never going to have an article
    • Done.
  • "returning to the Sneinton district after a season away" - why? Where did they play the previous season?
    • Its unclear in my source. I suppose its connected to general disruption after Carlton dissolved because of the war, but I can't say for sure.
  • "being noted as "much-improved"" - by whom?
    • Clarified.
  • "Eager "to progress beyond the confines of local parks football"" - again, who is this is a quote from?
    • The NPL. Easier just to change into straight prose.
  • "joined the Central Midlands Football League at the twelfth tier of the league system" - the CML Premier Division was level 11 back in 1995, not 12
    • Help me understand this, please. At which point did Carlton's tier change without promotion or relegation?
      • With the creation of the Conference North in 2004. Prior to that, the divisions below the Football League went Conference > NPL Premier > NPL 1 > NCEL Premier > NCEL 1 > CML Supreme > CML Premier, so in 1995 the CML Premier (the level at which Carlton entered) was level 11. Similarly in 2001 when they were in the CML Supreme, that was at level 10 as per the above. So, when the Conference North was formed in 2004, the NCEL Div One shifted down from level 9 to 10, so by staying in the same division Carlton went down a tier. Hope that makes sense..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:51, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Notwithstanding a "reasonable" first season" - reasonable according to whom
    • Removed quote marks.
  • ""In a desperate quandary"," - again, who is this quote from?
    • NPL again. Bit journalistic so replaced.
  • "Sneinton's third-place finish in the eleventh tier in 2000–01" - tenth tier at that point
    • See other CML comment.
  • "if not for "ground grading issues" negating this opportunity." - ground grading issues is a perfectly standard term, so no reason to present it as a quote
    • Wasn't aware of this before. Removed.
  • "guarantee a valid promotion should it be achieved" - really weird wording. Maybe "make the team eligible for promotion if they finished in an appropriate league position"
    • Done.
  • "establishing a club record in the FA Vase by entering its third round" => "establishing a club record in the FA Vase by reaching its third round" as otherwise it sounds like they just went straight in at the third round
    • Done.
  • "playoff semi-final, losing 5–2 to Stocksbridge Park Steels" => "playoff semi-final, Carlton losing 5–2 to Stocksbridge Park Steels"
    • Done.
  • "Finishing ninth in 2009–10, Brookbanks" - it wasn't Brookbanks who finished ninth
    • Done.
  • Refs after "red and white mix for 2021–22" in wrong order
    • Done.
  • Same after "before its collapse in 2011, Gedling Town"
    • Done.
  • "Located on the Colwick Lawn Estate [...] he led" - it wasn't the ground that led this
    • Done.
  • "becoming the home of Parliament Street Methodists" - again, this non-notable team is never going to have an article so remove redlink
    • Done.
  • Refs after "requiring a relocation of the pitch within the premises" again in wrong order
    • Done.
  • "30 carparking spaces" - I don't think "carparking" is a single word
    • Done.
  • I can't see any reason to have a References heading and then a Footnotes subheading right after it when there are no other sub-sections in that section
  • That's what I got -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:47, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi ChrisTheDude, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:21, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Any improvements I can make to persuade you to support, ChrisTheDude? Curlymanjaro (talk) 18:06, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, I forgot all about this. I don't have time to do a proper re-review tonight but will try to do so tomorrow....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:44, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose (on 1a) Comments from BigDom

[edit]

Sorry, but I felt I had to be honest. It's good to see a substantial article about a smaller club, but I think there are quite a few prose issues and it isn't at the required "professional standard" yet. Some of the word choices strike me as a bit strange (that's not necessarily a problem, everyone has their own style), but some bits I found a little confusing and had to read two or three times before I could work out what was meant. Here are a few things I've picked out (not exhaustive):

  • "The Football Association (FA)" - the acronym "FA" is already used a sentence earlier. It only appears in competition names throughout the article anyway, so not convinced it is needed.
    • Deleted.
  • "the club became frustrated" - the players, the board, the supporters?
    • Prose changed.
  • "In 1948, the team vacated to a pitch at Colwick Wood Park, returning to the Sneinton district after a season away." - I see this sentence has been mentioned above but reading the article as a newcomer it's not clear at all what is meant. Is it trying to say that the team had played elsewhere for a season (presumably 1947–48 and if so, where was it?), or that Colwick Wood Park is somewhere outside Sneinton (if so, where is it?)?
    • The former. The problem is, my source doesn't say. We're talking about a local parks team in the late 1940s; quoting directly: "The Sneinton F.C. have secured new playing headquarters for the coming season. A return, after one season's absence, being made to the district of the club's origin ...". I wish I had more for you. I've changed the existing prose, anyhow.
  • "finishing seventh in 1949–50 but with steady finances." - why "but"? Would a team finishing 7th not expect to have "steady" finances?
    • Changed.
  • "Avoiding relegation,[30] the club again transferred leagues ahead of 1969–70 to rejoin the Notts Alliance in its Division Two, being noted as "much-improved" by the Nottingham Football Post in 1976–77." - did avoiding relegation have anything to do with transferring leagues? Also, what happened in the years leading up to the improvement?
    • I'm not sure on the first point, largely since the sources aren't very helpful. However, on the second, I've uncovered that Sneinton's first season in the division was a stinker. This could explain the "improvement" comment.
  • "Sneinton eventually won the 1984–85 campaign" - "eventually" sounds like it took them a long time to win that particular season
    • Removed.
  • "satisfied both activities" => "met the needs of both"
    • Changed.
  • "leading to the appointment of a deputation in protest." - presumably it was the club protesting, not the Improvement Committee? Also, it reads as if "deputation in protest" is a single noun phrase.
    • Correct. Changed.
  • "contesting a season remotely" sounds rather odd - I would change this whole sentence to be honest. How about: After reforming in 1947, the club relocated to one of two public pitches at Colwick Wood Park in 1948, having played its matches in the intervening year at an alternative venue."?
    • Changed.
  • "In the early 1990s, the team moved to their current location on Stoke Lane in Gedling, dovetailing with Sneinton's competitive ambition to progress through the English league system." - dovetailing?
    • Was probably better to remove the entire third clause of that sentence, to be honest.
  • "That said" - not really encyclopedic tone.
    • Changed.
  • Source issue: what makes CBJStar a reliable source? It seems to be a student newspaper.
    • It is. My only defence would be that, apparently, it was a story too insignificant for the bigger local papers; I see no reason or opportunity for the writer, even if they're a student, to get the presence of a youth academy suite wrong.

I really wanted to support this so would be happy to come back and reconsider once some work has been done on the prose. Good luck! BigDom (talk) 21:29, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for checking this over, @BigDom: doing an article like this is a poison chalice in some respects. The need is clearly there for better articles on smaller clubs, but finding information is often a flipping nightmare! Curlymanjaro (talk) 21:50, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I understand it can be tough to get the information when it's an obscure topic like this. Thanks for addressing the points above, I still think the article needs a thorough copy-edit to meet 1a though as well as some specific concerns:
      • "Mixed fortunes followed as key players Arthur Clamp and Andrew Mosley joined Notts County, despite new tram infrastructure in the area promising improved attendance." is a bit of a non-sequitur to me. What's the connection between the players leaving and the trams arriving? Did the players leaving affect performances on the pitch? Did the improved tram infrastructure have any effect on attendances?
        • I see what you mean. My sources are from when these events were unfolding, so it's hard to discern their actual impact beyond the immediate outlook for the club during the 1907–08 season. Any suggestions on rewording? I'm a bit stuck.
      • "playing form suffered [...], losing several players" - the playing form didn't lose several players
        • Fixed.
      • "the club reformed on 29 April 1919" - there is no mention of the club disbanding so it's confusing to read that it reformed.
        • Fixed.
      • "finishing seventh in 1949–50 and with steady finances.[27] By 1965–66" - any information about the intervening 15 years? That paragraph in general is very sparse, covering around 45 years in under 200 words.
        • Added a fair bit after some serious trawling. You'll no doubt want to look at the prose.
      • "Notwithstanding a reasonable first season" - Chris mentioned this above too. Removing the quotes doesn't make it not an opinion, so again, reasonable according to whom?
        • The NPL; I was trying to avoid mentioning it since Carlton hadn't been promoted to that tier yet. I could just delete that bit? Doesn't tell us terribly much anyway.
      • "Runners-up and playoff semi-finalists in the division's 2011–12 contest,[36] League form dipped in the following seasons, finishing twelfth, tenth and eighteenth respectively." - I don't think this sentence is grammatical at all, there's no subject.
        • Fixed.
      • "Combined with poor tournament results in 2014–15 [...] McJannet resigned." - McJannet wasn't combined with poor results
        • Fixed.
      • "narrowly missing out on playoffs" - "[...] on the playoffs"
        • Fixed.
      • Club identity - this section is incomplete, there's no details about the club colours until "recent"ly (when?). When was the club crest introduced and has the club used any others before this one?
        • I'll need a day or two to search the Wayback Machine on this point and the next. A very tricky section!
      • Green's mill - nice, but where is the link between it and the club? (the "About Green's windmill" page linked doesn't mention the club as far as I can see)
      • Maybe worth giving inflation figures (e.g. how much is £300 in 1905 worth today)
        • Fixed.
      • "Conversely, 1935 saw the addition of another pitch" - why "conversely"? It doesn't disagree with the previous sentence.
        • Fixed.
          • Better, but note that MOS:NUMNOTES says to avoid starting a sentence with figures.
      • Most of the article is written about the club in the third-person singular but a couple of times it drifts to third-person plural, e.g. in the lead "Carlton have played their home games" and in the Grounds section "moved to their current location". There may be others I missed.
        • Good spot. The team/club distinction was brought up by "Eem dik doun in toene" above. I've tried to go "it/its" for club and "they/their" for team. What do you reckon?
      • Refs: #35 - what makes Non-League Football Matters a reliable source (it might be, I haven't come across it before but I haven't written much about non-league). #47 is a fan blog, which I don't think would count as reliable.
        • The league tables on it follow pretty seamlessly from those found on the British Newspaper Archive. Also, I'd say its self-identification as an "independent football history information site" is about equivalent to the status of the Football Club History Database. Fan blog deleted and rival team replaced.
    • Hope these are useful. BigDom (talk) 06:23, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks again, @BigDom: quite a lot to be getting on with here but I hope we're getting closer. I'll do some more digging on the "club identity" section before reporting back. Curlymanjaro (talk) 22:33, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • Right, @BigDom: I've done my best with the "club identity" section after some further research. Alas, I still can't prove the Green's Mill connection in writing (despite, annoyingly, knowing it to be true in real life). Curlymanjaro (talk) 18:00, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • @Curlymanjaro: You've put some great effort into improving the article, really impressive. I've struck my explicit opposition although I can't quite bring myself to support. I'm still not convinced the prose is quite of a "professional standard" per WP:FA?#1a and it still feels a little incomplete (for example, no information about club colours/kits before 2003) for #1b. I understand though that this may just be the nature of writing about such an obscure topic and am not sure whether it could ever be overcome. Good work overall, though! BigDom (talk) 06:11, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment - as this nomination has been open for well over a month and is not close to a consensus to promote, it will have to be archived in a couple days unless significant movement towards a consensus to promote occurs. Hog Farm Talk 04:08, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Hog Farm: of the three reviewers, we've got two supporting and one having reversed their opposition. How many more until you can pass? Curlymanjaro (talk) 16:04, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A minimum of three supports is expected, although the coordinators have the ability to consider more than three needed. Formal source and image reviews are also required. Hog Farm Talk 01:59, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, @Hog Farm: I'm hopefully close to getting the image review passed. I believe I've satisfied every reviewer's specific qualms; I suppose it's just a case waiting for another user if three really is the bare minimum. Curlymanjaro (talk) 14:16, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just noting that I'm looking at closing this but have some reservations about the way the promotion in 2006-07 is worded in the second para of the lead. Might sleep on it and revisit tomorrow... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:32, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Some more comments from ChrisTheDude

[edit]
Hi ChrisTheDude, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:16, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Gog the Mild - I supported about three weeks ago. I seem to have put it in a rather non-intuitive place TBF so apologies for that........... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:58, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah - spotted it. Thanks CTD. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:05, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

Footnote numbers refer to this version. One minor inconsistency:

  • You use publisher= in almost all your web citations; the omission is [53].
    • Fixed.

Formatting looks good. One link to look at:

  • The Pitchfinder archive link, [67], is not coming up for me.
    • Fixed (hopefully).

One reliability question:

  • [52] is a Pitchero site; as far as I can tell Pitchero is not inherently unreliable, but I can't tell if the page you're citing is written by a Pitchero writer or if this is a platform that Carlton Town fans use to write their own content, or something in between. If the writer is a Pitchero employee this is fine; is there evidence of that?
    • Switched to a better source.

That's everything I can see. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:38, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pass. Fixes look good. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:11, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie

[edit]

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

  • Is the Notts Alliance League worth a redlink? How about the Notts Spartan League? The Notts Amateur League? The Nottingham Football Post?
  • Aren't the sentences starting "In May 1905..." and "The team enjoyed success..." out of order? The success was achieved over the 1904-1905 season, wasn't it?
  • "Sneinton regained the League championship in 1907–08...": we haven't said they didn't win in 1906-07, so I think this would be better as "Sneinton won the League championship again in 1907–08...".
  • "reaching the first round of the Notts Alliance Cup and the third round of the FA Amateur Cup, losing to Oxford City": this makes it sound as though Oxford eliminated them from both competitions. Assuming that's not the case, I suggest making this "reaching the first round of the Notts Alliance Cup and losing to Oxford City in the third round of the FA Amateur Cup".
  • "Conversely, the 1922–23 season returned mediocre form and poor finances, a trend repeated in subsequent years, sparing the team's joint-holding of the 1925–26 Notts Alliance Cup": at this point the article is listing significant seasons, not every season; what makes the 1922-23 season notable enough to mention? Is it the start of the downward trend? What happened during the 1921-22 season? And I don't think you can say the trend repeated; a trend starts and continues or stops; "repeated" implies another later trend. What does "poor finances" mean?
    • I'm hesitant to delete this sentence outright as I'd rather avoid creating a decade-long hole in the article; I've switched some words around nevertheless.
  • When the merged with Trent Rangers, what was the merged club's name?
    • Sorry, the prose might be a little confusing here. The old Sneinton club reformed and essentially absorbed Trent Rangers, whose name ceased to exist. I've changed the wording a little, but let me know if it's still unclear.
  • "In 1948, the team vacated to a pitch at Colwick Wood Park": we haven't said where they played the previous season (Trent Rangers's ground?) so we can't say "vacated".
  • "During the 1951–52 campaign, Sneinton's lack of teamwork came under scrutiny from the Nottingham Football Post": I can't see the source, but it looks like this is a single article, whereas our article text makes it sounds like the criticism was kept up throughout the season. What does the source actually say?
    • "Bakersfield easily accounted for Sneinton who appear to be too individualistic".
  • "The club had achieved promotion to Division Two by 1956–57": so we don't know exactly when the promotion happened? Are there offline sources that cover this sort of thing?
    • Alas, I looked deep into the British Newspaper Archive for a precise season but that was the best I could do.
  • "Bill Stokeld, appointed former players Tommy Brookbanks and Neil Cooper into management": business management? Team co-managers?
  • I would move the content of note [a] into the body; it's necessary detail to explain the name change.

I'm going to pause there. I think the prose is not as good as it needs to be. Normally I'd oppose on prose, but I've done a copyedit of rather more substance than I would normally do at FAC; let me know if you think the changes are OK. If so I'll make another copyediting pass. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:19, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, @Mike Christie: I understand your concerns. Apart from specific difficulties (detailed above), I've implemented all of your suggestions. Curlymanjaro (talk) 14:24, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The changes are definitely improvements. I'll make another pass through. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:36, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

More:

  • Still thinking about "During the 1951–52 campaign, Sneinton's lack of teamwork came under scrutiny from the Nottingham Football Post". You say the supporting cite is "Bakersfield easily accounted for Sneinton who appear to be too individualistic". That sounds like it applies to a single game. If so, I'd make this something like "After a loss to Bakersfield in the 1951-52 campaign, the Nottingham Football Post commented that the team "appeared to be too individualistic".
    • Implemented.
  • "expiring after the 2006–07 season, Carlton's first logo comprised a blue and white football on which black text with a yellow shadow, reading "Carlton Town FC", was wrapped diagonally": what exactly happened with the logo? They decided they didn't like it? Or are we just deducing it was abandoning because it's no longer on the kit or on club publications?
Fair comment. Now reflected. Curlymanjaro (talk) 16:02, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Though the club sought away matches as early as October 1904, May 1905 saw Sneinton reside at the Sneinton Cricket Club and Ground on Colwick Road": This doesn't make it clear exactly what happened, though I'm aware that may be because you're relying on fragmentary sources. Is May 1905 just the date of their first home match? Or is there other evidence that that's when they gained use of the ground?
    • May 1905 is when they gained use of the ground. Made this clear now.

That's it for a second pass. I did more copyediting; let me know if anything looks wrong as a result. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:38, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reading through again:

  • "In 1957–58, the team's goal-scoring record led to an undefeated run lasting almost three months." This is a bit vaguely phrased. I can't see the source, but would it support "In 1957–58, the team's prolific goal-scoring led to an undefeated run lasting almost three months."? That would be more direct.
  • "Division reorganised and renamed; reprieved from relegation due to ground grading issues at A.F.C. Mansfield" is only in the table: might be worth mentioning this in the body of the article.

This is getting close now; just these two points this time. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:07, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again. Suggestions adopted. Curlymanjaro (talk) 18:15, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:30, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 23 July 2022 [15].

Mick Jagger

[edit]
Nominator(s): TheSandDoctor Talk 19:23, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]


This article is about Sir Michael Philip Jagger -- most commonly known by his stage name Mick Jagger. While studying to become an economist, he found success in a little known band he co-founded called the Rolling Stones in '62, which went on to be the most commercially successful band in history...with him at the helm. AllMusic and MSN have called him "one of the most popular and influential frontmen in the history of rock & roll" and Billboard has called him "the rock and roll frontman". He is best known for being the trailblazing lead singer of the Rolling Stones and half of the Jagger–Richards songwriting team, one of the most successful songwriting partnerships in history. According to Steven Van Zandt, Jagger's acceptance on pop radio "was a turning point in rock & roll. He broke open the door for everyone else."

He received a knighthood in 2003, has been inducted into two music halls of fame (Rock and Roll Hall of Fame and UK Music Hall of Fame), and even had a 19-million-year-old species of water nymph named after him. Jagger's style has been studied by academics and his vocal delivery and his sense of pitch and melody have baffled other singers. He has either directly or indirectly (through the Stones) served as inspiration for many artists, including Taylor Swift, Jack White, Steven Tyler, and Iggy Pop; in 2011, Maroon 5 released "Moves like Jagger", a song inspired by his unique dancing style. Despite all this (there is much more I didn't cover) and the immense success he has achieved in life, he didn't let the fame get to his head; the late Charlie Watts described him as "the least egotistical person" who would "do what's right for the band". I believe that this article is ready to be considered for featured article status and hope that you will support it along with me. Seeing as I am too late with this nomination for this year, I hope to have this on the main page to commemorate his 80th birthday in July 2023. TheSandDoctor Talk 19:23, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
Pass. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:37, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from ErnestKrause

[edit]

Several comments to start this assessment.

(1) On my 13 inch screen there are several problems with image sandwiches; these should be dealt with and addressed.

  • For the left-right image pairs in your article, that is, when you have a left aligned image immediately follwed by a right aligned image, there appear to be image sandwiches in the 1960s section, in the 2000s section flowing into the 2010s section, and the Popular culture section. Let me know if it needs more pinpointing on your screen. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:18, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Going to 'all on the right side' format does not always work, since it sometimes leads to image 'bunching' on the right side; that is, when a sequence of several images carry-over into the next section where they don't really belong. The approach which other editors sometimes find successful is to deal with the left-right image pairs by trying to separate them by an extra paragraph of narrative text if the section is large enough to do this. Its sometimes possible to simply move one of the images in the image pairs down one paragraph in the section or up one paragraph in the section, in order to remove the image sandwich. In some cases, sometimes you may need to prune some images out. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:39, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I moved them around a bit for the 1960s section as a test. Does that help any? I might try replacing both of those with another (singular) image from the '60s if I can find a suitable one. I wonder if we should remove the photos from the personal life section? --TheSandDoctor Talk 18:39, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @ErnestKrause: I have removed an image from the 1960s section and replaced the other per the above image review section. Do you think we should remove the photos from the personal life section? They aren't adding that much to the article and that would also help with the crowding. As for the 2000s image overflowing, I do see what you mean. Hmm...I think that both images are important to keep...would reducing the size of that image potentially help you figure? --TheSandDoctor Talk 23:27, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The image sandwiches on my size screen seem better now; you might want to double check with Nikkimaria on how it looks on her screen. Regarding your use of multiple image formats, did you try the Bianca and Jerry Hall image in landscape mode for comparison; seeing the two of them side by side might be an interesting feature to see. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:49, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @ErnestKrause: I have now done that. How does it look to you now? @Nikkimaria: do you still see the image sandwiching on your display or has that been resolved? TheSandDoctor Talk 18:38, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding Nikkimaria on the image in the 2010s, I'm agreeing with her and it should be pushed down one paragraph lower in that section on the left side. Regarding the landscape mode for Bianca and Jerry Hall, it looks improved over the portait mode version. It would be nice to see some comment on his wealth added into the article; if he is supporting philantrophies and charities as you state in the article, then readers will want to see how much money he is using to support them. See this article [16] and see this book [17] for Jagger's wealth. I'll try to have something done by way of a source analysis for your article by early next week if that is useful. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:19, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @ErnestKrause: I moved the image down a bit and found some better references than an illustration book (The Times, namely) and added 2021 wealth estimates. How does that look for you now? The downside is that neither of the sources you had or the two I found specify how much he gives to charity. He is very much a private individual offstage. TheSandDoctor Talk 14:53, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(2) The lead section could use a little more summary from this fairly long article. Possibly some more about the distinction of his solo career and of his career as lead singer of The Rolling Stones.

(3) Business career profits and commercial success numbers would be nice to see more of in this article. How profitable were his mechandising attempts over the years? How profitable was his solo career? How profitable was it in comparison to his career and profits from The Rolling Stones? Is it known just how large his commercial success has been when royalties and everything else is taken in account?

  • Some of the individual album articles on Wikipedia and concert articles on Wikipedia do speak about profitability, marketing, promotion, etc.; also, are you saying that there is no information about what percentage of his wealth comes from his efforts with The Rolling Stones as opposed to everything else he does? ErnestKrause (talk) 16:20, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article used to mention a networth of $360 million, if I recall correctly, but it was removed as being not exactly relevant during the peer review. The only net worth mention that I have seen is that number by The Richest and other sites of questionable reliability for an FA. I have never seen a breakdown of percentages. --TheSandDoctor Talk 17:19, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I need to retract part of that. The Richest now includes a breakdown, but it stops at 2016 (there have been tours in the last 6 years) and the intro appears to have been written when A Bigger Bang was their last tour, meaning it is closing in on 20 years out of date. That said, I am not confident about The Richest's reliability for an FA and neither was Aoba47. --TheSandDoctor Talk 17:32, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm actually going to confirm reading that his wealth in over $300 million, and that its useful to the article to include this. It means that he is not on the verge of bankruptcy, that he is actually very wealthy, and that he is not suffering from insolvency in any way. Aoba can of course offer his views on this as you have pinged him above. It looks like useful data to know about Jagger. Regarding profits from individual concert tours and individual album sales, this is also useful; Wikipedia has many articles on this subject such as the 3 articles about Bridges to Babylon and the related tour. Where did his money come from questions seem relevant to an article about a person like Jagger who has accumulated this much wealth. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:49, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(4) Private life and progeny. My understanding is that Jagger's family of children and grand-children is rather large, exceeding 2-3 dozen at this point and prominently discussed in the press. Could some more be added in this article? How many children does he recognize as his own? How may grand-children does he recognize? Also, how many children have been alleged to be his? There were several high profile court cases which disputed these facts; can they be added to the article here?

  • We don't typically name minors. From what I've found he only has one great-grandchild and I don't see why he wouldn't recognize grandchildren etc. "Two or three dozen", based on reliable sources, is also a massive overstatement; I count 14 total kids (great/grand/otherwise included). Do you have any specific examples of court cases? Of grandchildren he doesn't recognize? This section is already fairly long and complicated and this seems a tad excessive. --TheSandDoctor Talk 15:51, 26 June 2022 (UTC); updated with realization 16:05, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    What I have found on illegitimate kids is a single article in The Globe and Mail about a theatre(?) performance of a parody of Jagger with a fictitious "Jack" who is a "member of that ever-expanding, worldwide club made up of Mick Jagger's illegitimate children." That article isn't about real life and I haven't so far found any (real life) mentions in reliable sources. --TheSandDoctor Talk 16:02, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's useful to read here. The reliable sources I've just searched using the Google engine seem fairly consistent that he recognizes: "Mick Jagger has eight children with five different women, five grandchildren, and is a great-grandfather." For example here: [18]. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:21, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Following RS is always important at Wikipedia. If there are reliable sources for a rock star's life and his girlfriends then it should be included in this article. From his various book-length biographers, Jagger is not portrayed as an innocent touring the world. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:49, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Following RS is indeed important, I never said that it wasn't. The article mentions his adultery already in the personal life section. If you have any specific examples in mind that pass WP:DUE, I am all ears and you are welcome to add them. Going back to my actual question, I added mention of the parody to the "In popular culture" section and the number of grandchildren/great-grandchildren to the relationships section. I was also asking about if you had sources for ones he (allegedly) doesn't recognize, not the ones he does; it is already established well in reliable sources and in the article already for the ones he does recognize. --TheSandDoctor Talk 18:39, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(5) Adding #5 by way of Source review. There appears to be an issue of whether the Bibliography and References sections are comprehensive for FAC when they are compared to the article and Bibliography in the GA for The Rolling Stones. Much of the biography of Mick Jagger is covered in the many published books about The Rolling Stones, though the list of books in this article for Mick Jagger is not matching up with the sources used in The Rolling Stones Wikipedia article. Has a check been done to ensure that the comments and information about Mick Jagger covered in the Rolling Stones Wikipedia article are also adequately covered in this Mick Jagger article along with the sources and citations which appear in the group's separate Wikipedia article? For example, in the Early History section of The Rolling Stones article it is stated that "In the mid-1950s, Jagger formed a garage band with his friend Dick Taylor; the group mainly played material by Muddy Waters, Chuck Berry...", while giving credit to the book by Nelson which does not appear in this Mick Jagger article. The same for the other sections of The Rolling Stones article and the many citations and sources there which deal with Mick Jagger directly by name. Have you done this check of sources and citations in the group's article and compared them to this Mick Jagger article? ErnestKrause (talk) 22:28, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ErnestKrause: I have looked through The Rolling Stones and ported some sources and content over. My concern, though, is that we don't want to essentially clone that article entirely (there is a reason there are two articles and {{main}} is in use). They don't need to match up for those sections by sources or verbatim, at the very least, and can be more shallow versions. That said, I have added a few thousand more bytes of content from the main Stones article. Does that look any better to you? Any areas that jump out as needing more? Willing to work with you on this. TheSandDoctor Talk 04:51, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've been watching you add the materials over the last day or two with your positive results. The main insight for doing that, I think, is to single out the material which focuses on Mick Jagger when using the books about The Rolling Stones. It looks like you've been adding sfn sources to supplement your previous list and it looks more complete now. Nikkimaria looks like she is ok with your images and passing based on images, and I think I'm ok with your upgrades to the sources and cites in the article and am now going to support the promotion of the article. ErnestKrause (talk) 13:44, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@ErnestKrause: Thank you for the review! It is greatly appreciated. You might want to make the support vote in bold so that it better leaps out at coordinators? TheSandDoctor Talk 16:00, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47

[edit]

I am posting this as a placeholder. I will post a review once ErnestKrause is done with their comments. Aoba47 (talk) 13:48, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47 It looks like Nikkimaria is answering the part about image sandwiching, and I'm planning to switch over to look at the source review sometime early next week if all goes well. If you have any FAC comments then you can add them at this time without waiting if that works for you. ErnestKrause (talk) 00:16, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the ping. I will look through the article tomorrow. Unfortunately, it is too late for me to do a review today, but I will try to do it tomorrow. Aoba47 (talk) 02:03, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I hope this review is helpful. Once everything has been addressed, I will read through the article one more time to make sure that I catch everything. Aoba47 (talk) 03:39, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: Thank you so much! It is very helpful, as always. Please see the above where I've either addressed all points or asked for clarification. --TheSandDoctor Talk 04:17, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt

[edit]
  • "Jagger has had two genera named after him, Jaggermeryx naida and Aegrotocatellus jaggeri. "If I understand this correctly, only one is a genus, the other being a species.
@Wehwalt: Good catch. Corrected. --TheSandDoctor Talk 18:07, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we need the birthdays of Jagger's parents and brother?
Probably not. Removed. --TheSandDoctor Talk 18:07, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would suggest the RS's first number one UK singles are significant enough to cover in main text, rather than just a footnote.
I agree. Where would you recommend putting that in the prose?
Maybe start a new paragraph with "The group played songs by American rhythm and blues artists like Chuck Berry and Bo Diddley, " and then describe the two covers that became #1. Then pick up again with how they were urged to write their own songs in a new paragraph.--Wehwalt (talk)
That worked, thank you! --TheSandDoctor Talk 20:43, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "There, he learned to play guitar" I assume after going back two sentences that we are talking about the south of France. But given I had to go back two sentences to figure out what was meant, some better formulation might do.
Changed. How does it look now? --TheSandDoctor Talk 18:07, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Director Alejandro Jodorowsky approached him in the same year to play the role of Feyd-Rautha[148] " This had no connection with the version in the 1980s with Sting in that role?
Based on the LA Times writing "Herbert's book would eventually be broguht to the screen in 1984 by David Lynch" and the surrounding context, no, no relation. Jodorowsky's project fizzled. --TheSandDoctor Talk 18:07, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "McCarthy predicted the film would fare better once released to video than in its limited theatrical runs. (Unnecessary detail imo)[164] " Some commentary here? If I could put my oar in, I'd say I'd agree unless you tie up whether it did in fact do better on video.
I thought that that was your commentary, but then saw it in the article. Wow. Not sure how that ended up there and it wasn't mine. Huh. Anyhow, based on data from The-numbers.com, that estimate was well off the mark. Do you think that that should be referenced in the article or just drop the sentence? I've already cut the parenthesis bit. --TheSandDoctor Talk 18:07, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Jagger has been married and divorced once,[170][171] and has had other relationships, resulting in eight children with five women, five grandchildren, and one great-grandchild.[172]" This could be read to say that his children were with the aid of his descendants. I might also toss in an "as of 2016" as the statistics might have changed by now.
How would you propose clarifying it? I've tossed in an "as of 2016". --TheSandDoctor Talk 18:07, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe "... five women. He also has, as of 2016, five grandchildren ..."--Wehwalt (talk) 18:55, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That works! Implemented. TheSandDoctor Talk 20:41, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it a good idea to give exact birthdates for non-notable people?
Probably not. Do you think a year by itself would be appropriate for timeline sake? --TheSandDoctor Talk 18:07, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds fine.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:03, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done. TheSandDoctor Talk 20:41, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Jagger's father and daughters Karis and Elizabeth were in attendance." Since you can be "in attendance" on royalty, I might say "present" instead.
Changed. --TheSandDoctor Talk 18:07, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The 2000 film Almost Famous, set in 1973, refers to Jagger: "Because if you think Mick Jagger'll still be out there, trying to be a rock star at age 50 ... you're sadly, sadly mistaken."[221]" I'm a little dubious about this, cute as that line is, and as much as I love that movie, if it's only a "mentioned in" and there's no explanation of why it's relevant that he's mentioned.
He has similarly shared this view in the past, though he said 45 and said it two years after the year the show was set in. Source. I've added a bit more, but would also be okay cutting it or tweaking further. What do you think? --TheSandDoctor Talk 18:07, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd leave it in but it's among my favorite films so I'm biased.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:55, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • CNN should be linked and I don't think it should be italicised.
Done. --TheSandDoctor Talk 18:07, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:30, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. Support.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:55, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the review, Wehwalt! Could you please take a look at the theatrical vs video release point again? Otherwise I think I've covered everything. --TheSandDoctor Talk 20:43, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from zmbro

[edit]

Staking my place here as you requested. I should get to this in no time but if I don't say anything by the end of the week please ping me. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 02:04, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Zmbro: I don't mean to bug, but just following up as requested. TheSandDoctor Talk 00:16, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Damn glad you did. Give me half an hour – zmbro (talk) (cont) 00:24, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aren't direct quotes always supposed to be sourced, even in the lead? Also, who said "one of the most popular and influential frontmen in the history of rock & roll", cuz I think by now that's more like a common statement
    I would agree with you on that. I was rather confused, as I distinctly remember seeing it, to find that that direct quote wasn't in either of the sources. I've removed it from quotation marks and restructured it in the body as it is still supported. --TheSandDoctor Talk 16:39, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you mention some films in the lead shouldn't you mention something like Freejack?
    What is your vision on how that would be included?
  • "and in 2004 into the UK Music Hall of Fame with the Rolling Stones" → "and into the UK Music Hall of Fame with the Rolling Stones in 2004."
    Done. --TheSandDoctor Talk 16:39, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure about the Van Zandt quote ending the lead. As it stands it'd need to have a source behind it but to me it seems off to end on a quote. Shouldn't it be more of a summary of his influence on pop culture as a whole?
    Changed it around. How does it look now? --TheSandDoctor Talk 16:39, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Imo I'd add this: "When asked if he felt guilty about Jones's death, Mick Jagger told Rolling Stone in 1995: "No, I don't really. I do feel that I behaved in a very childish way, but we were very young, and in some ways we picked on him. But, unfortunately, he made himself a target for it; he was very, very jealous, very difficult, very manipulative, and if you do that in this kind of a group of people you get back as good as you give, to be honest. I wasn't understanding enough about his drug addiction. No one seemed to know much about drug addiction. Things like LSD were all new. No one knew the harm. People thought cocaine was good for you." here. Found on Brian Jones
    Added. --TheSandDoctor Talk 16:39, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why no mention of GHS, It's Only RnR and BaB? Surely Jagger's role in those warrants some mention. Also, the second para in 1970s seems out of order; in fact, all the 1970s section seems to bounce around chronologically
    @Zmbro: What is GHS? BaB? A lot of films were removed with this edit fairly recently by the user YouCanDoBetter. I'll work at re-ordering the section. --TheSandDoctor Talk 16:39, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That should be a good start. Hope this helps :-) – zmbro (talk) (cont) 00:57, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Zmbro: I believe that I have now addressed (or at least responded to) everything you mentioned. I think it's ready for you to take another look. TheSandDoctor Talk 01:00, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I will this weekend when I have time to spare :-) – zmbro (talk) (cont) 01:08, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said in one of my recent edits, maintain consistency between number formats (several No. # vs number ##) – zmbro (talk) (cont) 23:28, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Addressed. I believe that this is ready for another look. TheSandDoctor Talk 19:56, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Zmbro, how's this looking? No pressure to support or oppose, just checking you're all done... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:33, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies I've had a pretty busy week. Looked it over and happy to support. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 15:09, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the review, zmbro! It is greatly appreciated. Courtesy ping to Ian Rose. TheSandDoctor Talk 15:38, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi SandDoctor, I think we're about ready to close but the sentence Jagger and Richards lost contact with each other when they went to different schools should be cited. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:49, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ian Rose: Resolved. TheSandDoctor Talk 18:09, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SatDis

[edit]

Apologies that I don't have a lot of time for reviews, but I have left some feedback below.

Just a few notes, hopefully some help. SatDis (talk) 06:26, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SatDis: I've responded to everything above. Thank you so much for your review! --TheSandDoctor Talk 16:34, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@TheSandDoctor: Thanks for addressing those comments. The fact that I struggle to find any more suggestions for improvements within the article mean that it is excellently written, researched and sourced. I will support the nomination. SatDis (talk) 04:31, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@SatDis: Thank you for your review! It is greatly appreciated. TheSandDoctor Talk 05:05, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

Footnote numbers refer to this version.

Pausing there; will resume once these are resolved. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:01, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie: I appreciate the review so far. I believe that it is ready for you to continue. --TheSandDoctor Talk 00:57, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A couple of minor issues remaining above. I'll have a look at reliability and links shortly. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:36, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that all of the above has now been addressed. TheSandDoctor Talk 01:55, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Footnote numbers now refer to this version.

That's everything. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:24, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie: I think it's now ready for another look. --TheSandDoctor Talk 19:46, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fixes all look good. Pass. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:05, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie: Thank you for the review and for taking the time to do this! It is very greatly appreciated. --TheSandDoctor Talk 20:07, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome! You might consider doing a FAC review or two in return -- you're a good writer and we always need good writers to review. Or even do a source review. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:13, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

TheSandDoctor, looks like you have a citation error -- see [50]. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:24, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch, Mike Christie. Fixed. The casing was wrong in one of the ref name calls. TheSandDoctor Talk 14:20, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Hog Farm via FACBot (talk) 23 July 2022 [19].

Galeb-class minelayer

[edit]
Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:27, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This hardy class of mine warfare vessels were made by Imperial Germany in the last throes of and immediately after WWI. Disarmed, they were sold to the fledgling Yugoslav navy as "tugs", but were quickly re-armed and used initially as training ships and for "show the flag" cruises to introduce the populace to the new navy. They laid mines in the immediate lead-up to the Axis invasion of Yugoslavia, resulting an a couple of "own goals" with friendly merchant ships. Captured by the Italians, they were put into commission as submarine chasers, and escorted merchant ships supplying the forces in North Africa. Subjected to air and submarine attacks, the six had been whittled down to one by the end of the war. The survivor was used to help clear the thousands of mines that had been laid in Yugoslav waters during the war, and wasn't disposed of until 1962. Good to be back at FAC. Have at it! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:27, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review licensing looks ok but the claim "virtually identical to the Galeb class" needs citation (t · c) buidhe 08:35, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I tweaked the caption and added a cited sentence to the body to support the new caption wording. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:49, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

[edit]

Recusing to review.

  • "The M 1 class comprised 137 ships built between 1914 and 1918". Should "1918" → '1919'?
Yep, fixed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:32, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Regia Marina (Italian Royal Navy) also acquired two M 1 class M1916 sub-class ships in 1921. These sister ships were M 120 and M 121" M 121 is shown in the list immediately after this as being the Yugoslav Kobac.
Doh, typo. Fixed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:32, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "to drive two three-cylinder vertical triple expansion engines driving two propeller shafts". "... drive ... driving ...". Optional: "to drive" → 'to power'.
Sure, fixed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:32, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In RM service". In full at first mention.
Fixed, actually KM... Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:32, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I thought it might be.
  • "In Yugoslav service" section: suggest moving the third sentence to the end of the paragraph, so all the information on armament is together. Optionally move the first sentence up to the information on design speed, so all of that is together.
It is intentionally in chronological order, so that the first para is "as they were initially set up" in 1921, the second reflects the armament changes in 1931, and the last reflects the post-war changes to the remaining ship. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:32, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a maximum range of 12,300 km (7,600 mi)". Extraordinary!!
LOL! Yep. Fixed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:32, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "They were renamed ... respectively." Why "respectively"?
Good point, a "pre-table" hangover. Deleted. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:32, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild (talk) 19:52, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look, Gog! I think I've got them all. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:32, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Indy beetle

[edit]

Let me know when you're done with Gog's comments, then I'll review. -Indy beetle (talk) 17:52, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GTG, Indy beetle. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:33, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • For "Description and construction" part, it might be worth qualifying the first part with an "Original configuration" subheading. For the part of the "Service history" section where you delve into each ship, it might be worth to qualify this as "Italian service history", and the first half as "Yugoslav service history".
Good idea, have done some re-organising of the structure. See what you think? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:59, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 1938–39 Jastreb was refitted for oil-firing only. I presume you mean oil-fired boilers? Would be good to specify.
Yes, done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:59, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The part about the two ships attempting to join the NDH Navy is not represented at Navy of the Independent State of Croatia. Not cirtical for this article, obviously, but I think should be mentioned there.
Sure, I have to go through all Yugo/NDH navy articles and add material from Freivogel. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:59, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • She was renamed Zelengora in 1955, and was finally disposed of in 1962. Is the nature of the disposal known, or was it simply struck from the register?
Checked and clarified. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:59, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • When the Italians withdrew from Benghazi on 18 November 1942, they scuttled her wreck in an attempt to block the entrance to the harbour. Was the wreck ever raised?
I can't find a reference to it, but it seems likely. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:59, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

-Indy beetle (talk) 09:12, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All done I reckon, Indy beetle. See what you think? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:59, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Seems good here. -Indy beetle (talk) 02:16, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]
  • Conway's is actually an anthology; if you page to the front of the book, you can see who wrote which chapter. And yes, there are thousands of these entries that we need to correct.
Can you throw me a bone here, Sturm? I only have scans of the Yugo chapter and they don't mention the author. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:24, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Tsk, tsk! Done, but I'll let you change the cites in the article.
Thanks! Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:49, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link Friedman and add the subtitle of the book
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:24, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link Gröner. German Warships 1815–1945 is the title of the book, volume 2 has the title that you're listing first
I think I've fixed this. Perhaps there is a better way of doing this? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:24, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've fixed this one as well. Best thing to do is to put the volume subtitle in the volume field since the book is a two-volume set, not a series.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:46, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Partly done, just need a hand with one thing above. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:24, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Supporting--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:46, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Pendright

[edit]

Lead:

  • The Galeb class were minelayers originally built as minesweepers for the Imperial German Navy between 1918 and 1919, and were also known as the Orao class.
and [they] were also known as the Orao class.
  • Re-armed with two Škoda 90 mm (3.5 in) guns and two anti-aircraft machine guns, they could [also] carry 24 or 30 naval mines.
Your call!
  • In the lead-up to the April 1941 Axis invasion of Yugoslavia several ships of the class laid minefields off the Yugoslav coast, which probably resulted in the sinking of two Yugoslav merchant ships.
Add a comma between Yugoslavia & several
  • The remaining vessel escaped being captured by the Germans during the Italian surrender in September 1943, and was handed back to the Royal Yugoslav Navy-in-exile at Malta in December.
and [it] was handed back to the Royal Yugoslav Navy-in-exile...
  • This surviving ship was handed back to the Yugoslav Navy after the war and immediately employed to help clear the thousands of mines laid in Yugoslav waters during the war.
handed back -> returned
All done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:28, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Description and construction:

  • The M 1 class comprised 137 ships built between 1914 and 1919, divided into three sub-classes, M1914, M1915 and M1916, each with progressive improvements.
each with progressive improvements-> such as?
  • These sister ships were [the] M 119 and M 120.[3]
AFAIK the convention is to drop the definite article. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:51, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest "the" above addition?
No, I would rather not. The approach I've used is very common in sources. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:09, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The ship hulls were of transverse steel frame construction with a box keel.[5]
Do you mean the hulls of the ships?
  • With their minesweeping gear extended, they could maintain a maximum speed of 12.5–13 knots (23.2–24.1 km/h; 14.4–15.0 mph). They were equipped with two yawls as ship's boats.[8] They were armed with two 105 mm (4.1 in) SK L/45 naval guns[a], and carried 120 rounds for each gun. They could carry 30 naval mines.
In this series of sentences the pronoun "they" is used three times?
All done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:51, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In Yugoslav service:

  • In Royal Yugoslav Navy (Serbo-Croatian Latin: Kraljevska mornarica; Serbo-Croatian Cyrillic: Краљевска морнарица; КМ) service, the highest recorded speed of any of the ships was 15 knots (28 km/h; 17 mph).
In "the" Royal
I don't think so, AFAIK it should be either the way it is, or "In the service of the Royal Yugoslav Navy...", but I much prefer it this way. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:04, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • When [the ships] they were acquired by the KM as "tugs" in 1921, their original armament had been removed.[10][11]
Suggest the above?
Sure. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:04, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • In KM service , their official crew numbered 19, but as they were training ships , this was supplemented with instructors and students, and shortly before the Axis invasion in April 1941 the complement was increased to 40.[10]
Can you live with these Changes?
Much better, thanks. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:04, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • These were surplus Austro-Hungarian Navy guns, [and they were] intended for mounting on ships that were incomplete at the end of World War I.
  • They [The guns] had been sent to Pula and the Bay of Kotor as coastal artillery, and [they] were seized by the Serbian Army as the war ended, and thus avoided being acquired by the occupying French forces.[10
Both done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:04, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • These guns weighed 1,180 kg (2,600 lb) each, and together with the mount, [weighed] 3,910 kg (8,620 lb).
Suggest the above changes
Went for something like that. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:04, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The shells weighed 10.2 kg (22 lb), and [they] could be fired at a rate of between three and eleven per minute to [for] a maximum range of 12,300 m (40,400 ft).
Partially done. I think shells are fired "to" a maximum range, not "for" it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:04, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • In [the] Yugoslav Navy service following World War II, the engines of the surviving ship were rated at 1,600 indicated horsepower (1,200 kW) and her top speed remained 15 kn.
No, the definite article is not used in this situation AFAIK. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:04, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Her crew was increased to 68. Her [The ship's] armament was replaced by two Vickers QF 2-pounder naval guns, one twin German 20 mm (0.79 in) Flak 38 and two twin Browning 12.7 mm (0.50 in) machine guns.
See above changes
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:04, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Service history: Yugoslav service:

  • The six minesweepers were bought by the government of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes (later Yugoslavia) on 20 July 1921, for 1,400,000 marks each.
Drop the comma after 1921.
  • They were used as training ships for the fledgling navy, and engaged in "show the flag" cruises along the Adriatic coast and islands, introducing the navy to the populace.
Who engaged?
Both addressed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 12:36, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 1932, the British naval attaché reported that Yugoslav ships were engaging in little gunnery training, and few exercises or manoeuvres, due to reduced budgets.[17]
  • the British -> "a" British?
No, there was only one at any given time. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 12:36, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • add "the crews of" between that & Yugoslav
  • Drop the comma after gunnery training
These done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 12:36, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the weeks prior to the April 1941 German-led Axis invasion of Yugoslavia, the ships of the class laid several protective minefields along the coast.
Which coast?
Adriatic (Yugoslavia only had one coast, but that is assumed knowledge), added. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 12:36, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kobac's crew defected with their ship to the newly-created fascist puppet state [called or referred to as] the Independent State of Croatia (Serbo-Croatian: Nezavisna Država Hrvatska, NDH) at Šibenik on 10 April, but she was soon after seized by the Italian navy.
See the above change
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 12:36, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The crews of Galeb and Labud also sailed to Šibenik in an attempt to join the NDH navy, but [they] were intercepted and captured by the Italians on 17 and 21 April respectively.
See the above change
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 12:36, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • All six ships were re-commissioned as submarine chasers, and used as escorts on the supply routes between Italy and North Africa and along the North African coast.
and "they were" used
Sure, done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 12:36, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Selve:

  • From 1 to 4 August, Selve, Eso, and the Rosolino Pilo-class torpedo boat Giuseppe Dezza escorted the steamer Istria from Tripoli to Benghazi, and on 7 and 8 August, Selve and her sister Oriole escorted the steamer Iseo from Benghazi to Tobruk – also in Italian Libya.
Why the conma after August?
Because it follows a dependent introductory phrase and it indicates a pause. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 12:36, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Selve, along with the torpedo boat Sagittario, escorted the steamers Sibilla and Albachiara from Tobruk to Benghazi between 11 and 13 August.
Why the comma after Sagittario
there are commas both before and after the parenthetical element about Sagittario also being involved in the escort because the parenthetical element could be removed without changing the meaning of the sentence, as the subject is Selve, not Sagittario. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 12:36, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • On 31 August and 1 September, Selve escorted the steamer Alato from Tobruk to Derna in Italian Libya, and [she] was quickly joined by two German submarine chasers escorting Olympos to the same port.
See above changes
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 12:36, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • From 14 to 20 September, Selve escorted the steamer Sportivo from Benghazi to Tripoli, and on the [her] return voyage between 29 September and 1 October escorted the steamers Amba Alagi and Anna Maria.[27]
See the above chaanges
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 12:36, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Zuri then Oriole:

  • Brook was attacked and slightly damaged by Allied aircraft on 14 January, but [she] made it to Palermo under her own power.[29]
See the above change
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 12:36, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • After repairs following the collision with Eso, on 8 July[,] Oriole replaced the La Masa-class torpedo boat Enrico Cosenz, which, along with the Turbine-class destroyer Turbine was escorting the tanker Pici Fassio from Trapani to Tripoli.
See above changes
No, that would change the meaning of the sentence. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 12:36, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • She was scuttled by her crew on 10 July 1943 at Augusta, Sicily, in the face of advancing British troops,[16] following damage [she] sustained in an air attack south of Messina.
See above changes
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 12:36, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Zirona[edit]

  • Zirona had a short career in Italian service, as she was damaged and beached near Benghazi on 24–25 November 1941 after a British air raid, and [she] was partially blown up by the Italians on 28 November.
See above changes
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 12:41, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • When the Italians withdrew from Benghazi on 18 November 1942, they scuttled the wreck[age] in an attempt to block the entrance to the harbour.[27]
See above changes
The source refers to her as a wreck at that stage. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 12:41, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Eso:

  • Eso escorted the steamer Ascianghi from Benghazi to Tobruk between 15 and 19 September, and [she did it] between Tobruk and Tripoli [and again] between 27 September and 2 October.[27]
See the above chsnges
Did something similar. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 12:41, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All done, Pendright! Thanks for taking a look, see what you think of my responses. Regards, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 12:41, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Supporting - regards - Pendright (talk) 17:03, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

G'day @FAC coordinators: , this looks GTG. Could I have a dispensation for a fresh nom please? Ta, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:59, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Hog Farm Talk 13:55, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Hog Farm via FACBot (talk) 23 July 2022 [20].

Old Head coinage

[edit]
Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 16:38, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about... the last issue of coins of Queen Victoria, with the well-known portrait of her as an elderly woman. It received mixed to positive reviews at the time, which was an improvement from the previous Jubilee coinage anyway.Wehwalt (talk) 16:38, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Suggest adding alt text
  • File:Queen_Victoria_proof_double_sovereign_MET_DP100383_(cropped).jpg: where is that licensing coming from and what does it cover? Ditto File:The_Ashantee_Medal,_granted_by_the_Queen_for_the_Expedition_of_1873–74_MET_DP-180-162.jpg, File:Queen_Victoria's_Diamond_Jubilee,_1897_MET_DP-180-010.jpg
  • File:Victoria_1837-1901_coin_pic12.JPG is missing a tag for the original work. Ditto File:British_threepence_1899.jpg, File:Victoria_1837-1901_coin_pic19.JPG
  • File:1893_half_crown_obverse.jpeg: are the duplicate tags meant to cover the photo and the coin? If so, could that be clarified? If no, what's the status of the image? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:20, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
With the exception of the 1893 half crowns, those things are done. It looks like OTRS messed things up and thought they were purely PD. I will resubmit them tomorrow.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:00, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OTRS has now acted. That's everything.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:13, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

[edit]

Recusing to review.

  • "was immediately gilded to make it appear to be the more valuable coin". By whom?
  • "attributes suggests that". ?
  • "the committee recommended that the double florin not be further struck". Is it known why?
  • "using a different portraits". Delete "a".
  • Link mantle.

These fiddling suggestions are all I have. Great work. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:57, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review and support.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:55, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from ChrisTheDude

[edit]
  • "coins struck dated between 1893 and 1901" - the two participles together read a bit oddly. Should it be "struck and dated"?
  • "The crown, or five-shilling piece, was struck for circulation for the first time since the 1840s." - source?
  • "The committee was chaired by the Liberal MP" - link Liberal?
  • "The government agreed (minting of the double florin had been suspended in August 1890)." - three words plus a parenthical aside reads oddly - any chance this sentence could be combined with another one?
No, but I've opened the parens.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:17, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The competition had a deadline of 31 October 1891, and on 27 November, the committee met at the Bank of England to consider them" - doesn't work grammatically, you need something earlier in the sentence to which "them" can then refer back
  • "The sculptors had been directed to include on their designs, Victoria's name and titles" - that comma should not be there
  • "Victoria had been lobbying since 1888 for her title as empress of India, granted by the Royal Titles Act 1876 to be" - you need a comma after 1876 to close off the subordinate clause
  • "The motto [...] were added" - motto is singular
  • "with the pattern continuing through 1900" - the article is presumably written in British English, and we don't say "through [date]" in the UK
  • "they would be restored in 1937" - source?
  • The last paragraphs of the circulation section are all extremely short - suggest combining some or even all of them
The thing is, they are each different in subject matter and hard to combine.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:17, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Except for as noted, all done.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:17, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review and support.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:56, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Tim riley

[edit]

Three comments, none of which affect my support, but which you may like to consider:

  • "a portrait of an aged Queen Victoria wearing a diadem partially hidden by a widow's veil, designed by Thomas Brock" – although few, if any, will mistake your meaning, it might still be as well to make it crystal clear that Brock designed the portrait and not just the veil. Shifting "designed by T B" up to follow "portrait" would do the job.
  • "the chancellor of the Exchequer, George Goschen" – I'm blest if I can see why this dignitary is deprived of his capital C when lesser mortals such as the Deputy Governor of the Bank of England, the Chairman of the National Provincial Bank and the President of the Royal Academy get the full ulc treatment. (Looking at our article on the C of the E, it seems that the form is to capitalise "Chancellor of the Exchequer" but not "the chancellor".)
  • "Deputy Governor … deputy master" – further in-and-out running in capitalisation. I won't go on about "prime minister", "empress of India" or "Star of the Garter" or we'll end up sticking straws in our hair.

The article is clear, the prose is good, the illustrations are impressive and the sources, old and new, are many and varied. I'm happy to support promotion to FA. Tim riley talk 06:39, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review and support. I've made that slight change in the lead and capitalised where it seems appropriate.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:04, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

Pass. I can't find anything to complain about. Not a source issue, but I did notice that Steer 'felt that the Queen's necklace, earring and orders gave the new obverse "a certain tawdry look"' and not knowing what was meant by "orders" I had a look through the article and was unable to find an explanation. Can you clarify? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:42, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've piped to Order (distinction). Two of her orders Garter and Star of. India are mentioned as visible.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:01, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That does it. I figured it had to be that, but couldn't imagine that the orders would be visible on the coin; the link makes it quite clear that's what is meant. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:51, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Many thinks for that.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:02, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 22 July 2022 [21].

Nadezhda Alliluyeva

[edit]
Nominator(s): Kaiser matias (talk) 16:35, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The second wife of Joseph Stalin, Nadezhda Alliluyeva had a tragic life. Though quite a driven person in her own right, she was forced to temper her goals to appease Stalin, leading to an unhappy life. She died at an early age, and while she likely committed suicide there is some questions about that. Her death had a profound effect on Stalin, who once again lost a wife at a relatively young age. The article went through GA some time ago, and a peer review, and now I think it's ready for here. Kaiser matias (talk) 16:35, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Stalin_in_exile_1915.jpg: the given tag relies on "known author" for Russian copyright and pre-1927 publication for US - is there evidence for either of those?
  • Is there no image of the subject available? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:35, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For the Stalin image, nothing I can reliably confirm at this time. And honestly with the lack of an image for the subject, I feel it may be better to not have one of him only (I feel it diminishes Alliluyeva's standing as an individual, rather than just being someone's wife). As for Alliluyeva herself, there was one image used previously but it's since been deleted on Commons as it's availability has not been confirmed (I've certainly tried). Kaiser matias (talk) 04:18, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have added an image. It is non-free, but it should satisfy all license requirements. MarcusTraianus (talk) 14:19, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This will need a more expansive FUR, and suggest using {{non-free biog-pic}} instead of the current tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:54, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: It is done.
The tag change is done - the FUR still needs work. And what was the decision around the Stalin image? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:50, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(outdent) Sorry missed the comment about the Stalin image. The source image lists a 1940 publication, so that doesn't match the tag (unknown photographer, so no proof they died before 1942). Kaiser matias (talk) 18:46, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps we could use File:Doctored Stalin-Lenin (cropped)(b).jpg or the similar File:Doctored Stalin-Lenin (cropped).jpg? This image is from the time they were married and has much better free use tagging, with a known author and known date of publication. --RL0919 (talk) 20:34, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks that should definitely work. Kaiser matias (talk) 23:26, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like the FUR is still pending here. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:42, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@MarcusTraianus: seeing how you added the image, are you able to assist here? Kaiser matias (talk) 16:07, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Kaiser matias: okay, I will add what is needed. Would be glad to see an example how to properly do it in order not to rework it thousand times. MarcusTraianus (talk) 16:10, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Kaiser matias: I did it. If it is still needs to be reworked, ping me, I will answer. MarcusTraianus (talk) 16:27, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your help, I do appreciate it. Kaiser matias (talk) 01:48, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

[edit]
  • "Alliluyeva had several health issues, which combined with her suspicions that her husband was unfaithful led to frequent arguments with him." This seems a non-sequitur. Why should her health issues have led to arguments?
My understanding is it exacerbated a strained relationship, but I broke the sentence into two to make it more separate.
  • "shot herself the night of 9 November 1932" Below you say early in the morning of.
Fixed the lead. It was the night of 8–9 November, but consensus is she died on the 9th.
  • "born in 1907 to Stalin's first wife, Kato Svanidze, who died of typhus in 1907" Perhaps "died of typhus later in the same year" to avoid repeating 1907.
Fixed
  • "moved to Moscow, joining other Bolshevik leaders as the capital was transferred there". Maybe add from St Petersberg.
Good point, and added note to clarify the changing name of the city.
  • "Zhemchuzhina trailed after her". Trailed is not a good word here. It means to trudge wearily, which I assume is not what you mean.
Is "followed" better you think
@Dudley Miles: Thanks for taking a look. Addressed everything here, but if you think of anything else just let me know. Kaiser matias (talk) 02:55, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:01, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Borsoka

[edit]

I peer reviewed the article a couple of weeks ago. I think it almost fully met FA criteria and it has been improved since then. My only concern is about sourcing. Can we accept Svetlana Alliluyeva's work as a reliable source of her mother's life? Sorry, for not raising this issue during the peer review. Borsoka (talk) 11:35, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Her book has been cited by other scholars (and I think is cited in nearly every biography of Stalin used here), but that is a fair question, and if it is considered too much of a primary source I am happy to go through and replace/remove it as need be. Kaiser matias (talk) 00:03, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be in line with our sourcing policy if the references to her daughter's work would be strengthened by references to independent sources. Borsoka (talk) 04:52, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point. I will need a couple days to get a few books that I don't personally have, but the local university library has, to get additional citations, but should have that done by the weekend. Kaiser matias (talk) 00:57, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Borsoka: I replaced all but one reference to Svetlana's memoir (one about Nadezhda's father's languages growing up), but I added a qualifier in the article that it comes from the memoir. That should hopefully be enough to address any primary source concerns. Kaiser matias (talk) 01:48, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Now I support this FAC. Borsoka (talk) 01:53, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Much appreciated, thank you. Kaiser matias (talk) 23:15, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Edwininlondon

[edit]

I made a few minor edits. Please revert if I made a mistake. I just have a few comments and questions on prose:

  • Questions about her name: some sources also refer to her as Nadia. Should Nadia not appear somewhere in the article? The book "Stalin’s Daughter" says "Jospeh and Nadezhda ("Nadya") Stalin", suggesting she took his name. Perhaps this should be mentioned somwhere?
Good point, I made a note in the lead
  • escaped Russia (August 1917) --> perhaps "escaped Russia in August"
Done
  • reportedly once having saved her from drowning when she was 2 years old --> do we need that "once"?
No, removed
  • over the course of the summer --> even if they met 1 August, that's already halfway through the summer
True, and while the source has similar wording, I modified it to be more reflective of the reality.
  • Life and career --> not sure this is the best section name, it doesn't sit nicely next to Early life
How about "Later life and career"? If not I'm open to any suggestions, certainly not set on anything.
Yes, that's better
  • expelled from the Party --> I think this is too cryptic, the name of the party should be given, probably earlier on, perhaps where you mention the Soviet Union is established and lenin is the leader
Clarified the Party, should be enough no?
OK
  • In 1921, the family also took in Artyom Sergeyev --> too similar in structure to previous sentence, try to combine or rephrase
Done
  • and though his mother was still alive the boy was raised --> comma after alive
Done
  • the smiles disappears --> singular or plural?
Singular, fixed.
  • "terrible depressions," --> "terrible depressions",
Fixed
  • "couple of abortions which were never attended to." --> ". as per MOS:INOROUT
Fixed
  • Pravda, the Communist Party newspaper --> I find it odd that now, after so many instances of referring to the Communist Part with just Party, here is the fuller name. Consistency would be better. I;'m no expert but as a layman I would expect Communist Party to be used throughout, not Party.
There is a tendency to simply refer to it as "the Party" in the literature, as it was the only one. I dropped the "Communist" applier here, both because of your point and as the name of the Party officially changed in 1925, it just causes confusion. I hope that is good though
OK
  • some isbn are 10, some are 13. I'm afraid they should be in consistent format. [tool] can help.
I used what the books themselves have, and far as I can tell there's no requirement to change them all over to 13, no? If not I think it would be best to keep the originals, no?
At half my FACs I have been asked to do this, but I believe you are right that there is no requirement. (WP:MOS-BIBLIO probably only by accident uses only isbn-10 in their examples)

Interesting article. Thank you. Edwininlondon (talk) 11:40, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review, I've addressed everything (with two queries above), but if you have anything else please let me know. Kaiser matias (talk) 00:31, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Al. fine. I Support on prose. Edwininlondon (talk) 06:15, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your review, and support. Kaiser matias (talk) 00:53, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by caeciliusinhorto

[edit]

I read this when it was at peer review and it looked good then. A couple further comments from me:

  • Do we know anything more about Alliluyeva's expulsion from the party in 1921? It seems extraordinary that Stalin's wife and Lenin's secretary would be expelled from the party at this point – was it part of an internal power struggle, or Stalin's attempt to further control her, or what?
I added context from the Khlevniuk book, which notes a possible issue.
  • "In 1921, the family also took in Stalin's first son, Yakov Dzhugashvili" – can we quickly mention where Yakov had been since his mother died?
Added that as well.

That's all that I have – otherwise looking very good. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 08:00, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I made adjustments for both things here. Kaiser matias (talk) 23:14, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment

[edit]

Nearly four weeks in and just the single general support. Unless this nomination attracts further interest over the next two or three days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:37, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Mike Christie and Tim riley. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:54, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I can't promise being able to look at this soon -- I am trying to resolve a technical issue with my Wikimedia developer account with what little time I have for Wikipedia at the moment. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:58, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'll look in over the weekend. Tim riley talk 18:39, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for dereliction. I'll look in as soon as I can, but typing is going to be difficult for some days while I have my right hand in plaster, dammit. I hope the coordinators will allow a bit of extra time in this case. Tim riley talk 16:25, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All good, and hope the hand gets better. As I noted above, I may need to get into the weekend to modify some sources anyways, so Coords can you keep this open to allow that? Kaiser matias (talk) 00:58, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]
  • The edition of Twenty Letters... cited is probably too early for an ISBN; did you use a reprint?

Sources all look reliable; no formatting errors. The above is the only issue I can see. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:22, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Correct on the "Twenty Letters"; I updated it to the version used. Also note I'm currently trying to reduce/remove reference to that: as per the discussion above it was written by the daughter of Alliluyeva so may be too much of a :primary source. I'm waiting on one final book to be ready, hoping it will be done by the end of the weekend. Kaiser matias (talk) 04:16, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'll hold off on marking this as a pass until you make that change; ping me when the book is added and I'll sign off on the source review. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 07:50, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Mike Christie: I've finished now. One new source was added (the Ebon book) for reference. Kaiser matias (talk) 01:48, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Source review passes. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:35, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Tim riley

[edit]

Not much from me. My first impression was this was on the short side for a biographical FA, but after three perusals I find it looks pretty comprehensive. The lead, too, struck me as on the short side, but, again, after careful rereading I can't find anything that should be in there and isn't.

Just a handful of minor drafting points:

  • Olga's father initially wanted her to marry one of his friend's sons, however she refused to accept the arrangement – if you must have "however" you need a stronger stop than a comma. It would flow better if you used "but" instead, in my view.
Changed
  • Bolsheviks, a Russian revolutionary group at their home – needs a comma after group
Done
  • Her family frequently hosted Party members – not sure about the capital P. The MoS is not big on capital letters for common nouns.
I changed that and all other uses to lowercase
  • Stalin's involvement in the Civil War meant he was rarely around – around where?
Cleared up to mean he wasn't home often
  • Stalin would holiday along the Black Sea – unexpected preposition – one might expect "by" or some such.
Cleared up to be the coast.

That's all from me. This article seems to me full, informative and well written. I look forward to supporting its promotion to FA. – Tim riley talk 15:03, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks made the necessary adjustments. Kaiser matias (talk) 00:10, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

From a final rereading I can find nothing to prevent my supporting the promotion of the article to FA. It shows every sign of being comprehensive, as far as I can see, is a good read, seems balanced and neutral, and has good sourcing and citation. Happy to support. Tim riley talk 08:53, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 22 July 2022 [22].

Cliff Thorburn

[edit]
Nominator(s): BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 13:26, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the 1980 World Snooker Champion, known as "The Grinder", who is generally recognised as the first champion from outside the the United Kingdom. (Sorry, Horace Lindrum!) I've tried to keep the playing career part of the article quite focused on the main points as discussed in sources, rather than provide lots of tournament-by-tournament detail. I can provide relevant extracts from offline sources on request. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 13:26, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from ChrisTheDude

[edit]
  • Does ref 3 source everything from "he left school" onwards?
  • "The 1977 World Snooker Championship was the first to be held at the Crucible Theatre." - probably worth specifying where in the world this is
  • "Ian Morrison called "unfounded."" - full stop should be outside the quote marks I think
Not if it was there in the original. See MOS:INOROUT. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:17, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@ChrisTheDude: Amended back, as the full sentence in the source is "The complaint was unfounded." Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 13:07, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the explosive break-building of Higgins."" - same here
  • That's all I got as far as the end of the "1983 world championship maximum break" section. I'll look at the rest later -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:27, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the "team finals" table, you have notes saying who was in the Rest of the World and Ireland A teams, but not the others (eg Canada) - any reason?
  • Note b to k are complete sentences so need full stops
  • Any reason why notes m and q are the only ones not to start with a capital letter?

Support from Lee Vilenski

[edit]
  • Sources just say pool, as far as I can see.
  • Spencer recommended Thorburn to the World Professional Billiards and Snooker Association,[3] and he was accepted as a member in 1972 - this should probably be reworded to say that he'd be a professional player, not just a member of the organisation Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:15, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • He played for Canada in the 1996 World Cup, where his team reached the quarter-finals.[55] He won over one million pounds in prize money during the course of his career - seems like a long/weird jump! Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:15, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, Lee Vilenski. There are a couple of points I need to refer to a few sources on - I should be able to do this in the next day or so. Let me know if there's anything else. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:23, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Lee Vilenski: I've now responeded to all the points above. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:01, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]

Image use and licence seem OK to me. ALT text passable. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:02, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

Spotchecks not done.

Pass. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:35, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He was the second player, after Davis, to make a televised maximum break in professional competition" - source?
  • "One of his most celebrated moments" - source?
  • Be consistent in whether you include publication locations, and if so how these are formatted
  • The two Morrison works have the same publisher but different formatting and different locations - why?
  • What makes Rose Villa a high-quality reliable source?
  • They seem to be still publishing some local news outlets (website) but really, in my opinion, the credibility of the source derives from the authors. Hayton was the managing editor of CueSport magazine (at least for part of its history), which was nationally distributed in the UK from 2000 to 2009. John Dee, who was also associated with CueSport and contributed to the book, was the snooker editor of The Daily Telegraph. Terry Smith, another Telegraph correspondent, and author/editor of a few snooker books, was also a contributor to the magazine. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 23:25, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is there a 1985b but no 1985a? Ditto 1981b
*(I need to sort out how to do this with a mix of years. eg. 1985, and days, e.g. 14 January 1985 BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:46, 26 June 2022 (UTC))[reply]
  • Fn4: page?
  • FN15 is missing pages, but why is this not in Books?
  • Be consistent in whether you include publishers for periodicals
  • Technically the children's names shouldn't be cited to the subject - not sure they need to be included anyways
  • What makes Chris Turner a high-quality reliable source? If this is included, check that these citations are consistently formatted
  • FN112 is missing pages. Ditto FN113, check throughout

Many thanks, Nikkimaria. Could you please let me know if anything needs to be done on the Rose Villa, 1985b/1981b, and Turner questions (or anything else)? the Sunday Times page number issue is pending but I'd like to know if there's more to do apart from that. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 23:40, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for not making all the amendments properly first time round, Nikkimaria. Let me know about anything else required. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:43, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Mike Christie

[edit]

I've copyedited, but there wasn't much to do. A straightforward article, which I'm happy to support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:39, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 21 July 2022 [23].

It's That Man Again

[edit]
Nominator(s): Tim riley talk 14:57, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Some while ago, together with a cherished and respected but now-retired colleague, I brought a celebrated BBC radio comedy series – Round the Horne – to FAC, where, I am pleased to say, it was successful. Before my collaborator retired we worked together on the article of an earlier BBC radio show, ITMA, which was a much-loved feature of British life during the Second World War, and did quite a bit to keep people's morale up during the darker years of the war. Looking at it again I think the article is of similar thoroughness and readability to our earlier effort, and I present it for FAC. Tim riley talk 14:57, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt

[edit]

Only a few quibbles thus far:

  • "government departments and the ostensibly petty wartime regulations" it's a bit jarring to recognise exact phrasings from the lead in the body.
  • "Foster and Furst observe that averages a laugh every eleven seconds" Do we need inline attribution for mathematics?
  • "Worsley began experimenting with the size of the audience to see which worked best" I'm sure it's an EngVar thing, but I would say "what" for "which".
  • "The premise of the show changed again with Handley now dismissed as the mayor of Foaming-in-the-Mouth, and now the manager of a munitions factory." Are both "now"s necessary?
  • "Before the sixth series began recording, a film version It's That Man Again was released." should there be an "of" after "version"?
  • "Handley's health was beginning to decline by the end of the 38-week series, and it was suggested that series 12 was delayed." Again likely engvar but I would conclude "be delayed".
  • It is indeed an EngVar thing, and in my younger days we thought the subjunctive was dying out in such constructions. But now, rather to my regret, it seems to be making a comeback, no doubt under the influence of American English. Nonetheless "suggested that series 12 be delayed" strikes an inappropriately ultra-formal note here, to my ear. I have made it "suggested that series 12 should be delayed".
Remainder soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:29, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All excellent so far; looking forward to the rest at your leisure. Tim riley talk 17:13, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A prototype of the character appeared in the third series:" perhaps "unnamed" before "prototype"?
  • I might move up the wiktionary definition of twerp to the first referent of Handley's office.
  • "The phrase "It's That Man Again" was originally used by members of the American Republican Party when referring to President Franklin D. Roosevelt as he introduced another element of the New Deal," the source no doubt says what it says but FDR was more likely to be called "That Man in the White House". (probably no action required)
That's it. There's so little that I'll Support now. I'm glad to have made my acquaintance with this.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:07, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Wehwalt, for your support and helpful comments. I'm so pleased you enjoyed making the acquaintance of ITMA. My collaborator and I certainly enjoyed researching it and writing it up. TTFN. Tim riley talk 20:29, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

[edit]

Recusing to review. It looks as if you and you retiring collaborator had fun.

  • "around whom all the other characters orbited." Is the "all" necessary?
  • Strictly no, I admit, but I feel the "all" emphasises Handley's centrality with everyone else revolving round him. I'll remove the "all" if you insist, but I'd rather keep it. Tim riley talk 17:21, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't insist. I merely pose the question.
  • "Parts of the shows were re-written in the hour before the broadcast, to ensure its topicality." "shows" → 'show'. (Or "its" → their".)
  • The singular pronoun relates to "broadcast"; the syntax stands up and I think I'm happy with the wording, but if you press the point we could go full-on plural: "Parts of the shows were re-written in the hour before the broadcast, to ensure their topicality" (or perhaps, though I don't think it flows well, just "to ensure topicality".)
It reads a little oddly to me, but if you are content with it after further consideration, then fine.
On further pondering I think just "to ensure topicality" is probably the best phrasing. Thanks for this point. Tim riley talk 18:47, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Parts of the shows were re-written in the hour before the broadcast, to ensure its topicality. The show broke away from the conventions of previous radio comedies, and from the humour of the music halls. The shows used numerous sound effects in a novel manner, which, alongside a wide range of voices and accents, created the programme's atmosphere. The show presented more than". "... the shows ... The show ... The shows ... The show ..."
  • Good point. Duly tweaked. (The show must go on, but not necessarily on and on.)

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:36, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looking forward to it, and thank you for what we have so far. Tim riley talk 17:21, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "was recorded at the Criterion". Is it known where the Criterion was located?
  • Well, yes: at Piccadilly Circus, as we say in the text.
  • "but the show failed". In what way?
  • Worsley's phrase (p. 45) was "a near-'flop' ... it simply did not come off". He doesn't enlarge on the reasons. Should we perhaps say "the show was not well received", do you think? Tim riley talk 19:53, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To my mind that would be much better.
Done. Tim riley talk 21:26, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Sources - Books: I don't think Gaye (1967) is cited to.

Priceless. Such a gem of an article that I shall IAR a couple of MoS points. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:55, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Gog, for your review and kind comment. It's so pleasing when other editors give the thumbs-up to an article one has worked on and is fond of. Just wondering if in your current FAC for the Second Punic War you can find room for a mention of Radio Cunctator's show Hic Est Homo Iterum? Tim riley talk 21:26, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
  • Suggest adding alt text
  • Looks like IWM linking has changed - all images except File:Sam_Costa_2_radio_personality121.jpg include a dead first source link
  • So it does. Thank goodness the second source links are all fine. Should I delete the first links in the Commons pages of all those images?
  • File:Sam_Costa_2_radio_personality121.jpg has a warning template - is there any evidence to support that the image was released by the copyright holder under the given license? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:31, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you (as ever), Nikkimaria. Where would FAC be without your indefatigable image reviewing! We are in your debt. I'll follow your advice on both outstanding points. Tim riley talk 12:04, 30 June 2022 (UTC) Afterthought: if I may further impose on you, may I ask for your thoughts on the sizing of the three images remaining in the article? I'd rather like to make them a bit bigger, but I don't want to overdo it, and your comments would be most welcome. Tim riley talk 12:14, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Could go up to 1.3 or even 1.4 on the images in the body; for the lead image suggest switching over to upright scaling instead of using fixed px size. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:42, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done, with grateful thanks for the steer. Tim riley talk 18:47, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from BennyOnTheLoose

[edit]

Looks good. I might not have much in the way of comments. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 01:17, 30 June 2022 (UTC) Broadcasts[reply]

  • "The writer and comedian Barry Took writes..." - shouldn't this be "The writer and comedian Barry Took wrote..."?

Leading characters

  • "Some of the best known are described below, in order of first appearance in the show." - not directly sourced. How do we know that they are some of the best-known, and, for example, that Cecil and Claude did not appear before The Diver?
  • We're following the main sources here: these are the ones particularly mentioned in Foster and Furst, Kavanagh, Took, and Gifford. Citations added after the end of the introductory para of the section. Tim riley talk 11:57, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Catchphrases

  • "These are among the best known of the catchphrases from the show. Some became common currency among the general public for many years; others were more ephemeral." - not supported by the cited source, as far as I can see.
  • "It's being so cheerful that keeps me going" also remains in use, seen in British newspapers more than 100 times in the first two decades of the 21st century." - isn't this WP:OR?
  • I only get 70 results since 1990 for "It's being so cheerful that keeps me going", which includes some duplicates. I think you used a different search term, or perhaps the sources indexed vary depending on who the NewsBank provider is. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:13, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aha! You have the advantage of me here, as my access to Newsbank went phut not long after we wrote the present text. 100 was right enough then, but from what you say, perhaps we should change "more than 100 times" to "on numerous occasions"? Tim riley talk 12:20, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I think that proposed wording is safer. I had a quick look in the British Newspaper Archive, which has limitations of scope (e.g. very few national papers) and often-appallling OCR transcriptions, and found only 38 instances since 1950. By coincidence, PressReader also gave me 38 results, all since 2008. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 13:18, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reputation

  • "In the show's early days critical response was not enthusiastic." - this seems to be based only on a single review.

Infobox & Lead

  • "more than seventy regular characters" - I make the count of Leading characters and Other characters mentioned less than 70.
  • "half-hour show"/"30 minutes" doesn't seem to be explicitly cited in the body, although there is "... between 8.30 and 9 p.m. on a Thursday night..."
  • Whats the support for "305, plus 5 specials"
  • Took, p. 29 and Foster and & Furst p. 27 (total) and pp. 28–39 (stats per series). I've added this in the main text, avoiding having citations in the i-box, which I think looks clunky.

Sources

  • "Eric Egan". British Film Institute seems to be unused.
  • Indeed. An editor added some excellent information about Egan in November 2021, and removed my somewhat despairing statement "he is not mentioned in Who's Who in the Theatre or on the British Film Institute's website", but he/she omitted to remove either Who's Who or the BFI site from the sources. Both now removed. Tim riley talk 11:57, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I could see for now, Tim riley. I enjoyed reading the article, thank you. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 09:41, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

BennyOnTheLoose, Thank you very much for these really excellent points. I think I've attended to them all – satisfactorily, I hope. And I'm so glad you enjoyed the article. – Tim riley talk 11:57, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. TTFN. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 14:39, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, BennyOnTheLoose for your suggestions and your support. The article is decidedly improved and I'm most grateful. Tim riley talk 17:38, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment

[edit]

I'll try to do a full review in due course, but one thing that jumped out at me is that in the "catchphrases" section, there is absolutely no reason to have a full stop after each character's name in the second column...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:49, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

By a curious coincidence the same thought struck me earlier this morning when looking again at the article. I blush to say I thought "Oh, the Hell with it!", but your comment has spurred me to action. Thank you, and I hope to see further suggestions if you have time. Tim riley talk 12:00, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments and support from Gerda

[edit]

Thank you for the detailed article about a subject I know nothing about. Curious. I'll write as I read, leaving the lead for last. At the moment I could only say that it works well as an introduction, but not if a good mirror of the article. I insert comments hear, to leave Tense to general attention. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:26, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tense I didn't know the guideline, and it makes no sense to me. It reads like recommending: "ABC is a comedian who lived from then to then." Why not indicate by the tense that we talk about something that doesn't exist anymore. It's not like a book, read again, or a sonata, played again.

For a show from a later decade, Round the Horne, we used the customary formula - the present tense - which seemed sensible for a programme of which every show is preserved on record and is frequently re-broadcast even now, but for ITMA, of which only a few shows survive and even they are seldom heard, I agree with you that the past tense is more helpful to the reader. The discussion on this point is inconclusive, I think, and unless there is a further drive to use the present tense I'll leave it as it is. Tim riley talk 13:59, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

  • I wonder why Bristol and Manchester are not linked.

TOC

  • brief and efficient

Background

  • I'd have a comma after London, but am never sure about UK commas (nor others). Actually, instead, I'd probably say "in London".
  • "Ministry of Universal Gratification" tells me nothing, - does that matter?
  • I think it might help to add when (which year) the phrase was used for Hitler in the English press.
    • The book sources don't, as far as I can find, give a firm date beyond "the late 1930s" (Rees). I'll add it to my to-do list for my next trip to the British Library where I can search the press archive. Tim riley talk 13:59, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Format

  • "... their own catchphrase or phrases. The catchphrases ..." - I'm sure that can be said with less repetition.

S 2

  • "The writer and comedian Barry Took writes ..." - another repetition, and how about past tense for this also?
    • I don't see a repetition - am I overlooking something? The use of the present tense for reporting an author's words is a long-standing convention, vouched for by Fowler. Tim riley talk 13:59, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • I see: "The writer writes" but it's fine as explained. --GA

S 3 and 4

  • "George VI and his queen" - I'd prefer to be fair and call her by name
    • I think it's clearer this way: to write "George VI and Queen Elizabeth" presumes that the reader knows the latter was the former's wife. "The King and Queen" would be a possibility, if preferred, though possibly a touch anglocentric. I have no strong views either way. Tim riley talk 13:59, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

S 5 and 6

  • "but thought Forde "manages his difficult task extremely well"" - I feel a tense clash here and believe it's not an unusual wording requiring exact quotation.

Mrs. Mopp

  • TFN puzzled me until I read the dialogue. Extra thanks for all that entertainment!
  • General for Characters: Do we have to repeat the word Catchphrase in each box?
    • I have just experimented with omitting the word, and I think it looks v. confusing. The reader might well be puzzled by e.g.
      Funf
      Played by Jack Train
      Series 2–6
      This is Funf speaking       – Tim riley talk 13:59, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I think it would be clear by italics or quotation marks, but it's fine. --GA

Need a break. - I have to tend to a FAR, Duino Elegies, - all help wanted. The author of the 2013 article is gone, and we need to track down the mostly offline sources. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:27, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for fixing my mistake of a comma. - Yesterday I was too busy - Percy Grainger was born OTD, and I heard a great concert conducted by the new Thomaskantor. Back here:

Performers

  • That's an amazing table, thank you. - I'd not have the names bold, because they stand out enough by position, but install the links right in the first column, instead of having to turn eyes rather far to the right to see if a person has an article. I think the second column would be better right-aligned. I find a bit strange that some are singer and others Singer, and found no explanation. In the fourth column, some have their names repeated, some not, some just the surname, some the name with a link, some with added "further information" and another link.
    • I've added forenames to surnames where missing in the fourth column. In general we have only added "further information" where there is no WP article for the performer. The only exception, I think, is Maurice Denham, where I was keen to add the information about the two charladies, which would perhaps be WP:UNDUE in Denham's own article. Tim riley talk 13:59, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Catchphrases

Reputation

Thank you for these points. I shall work through them tomorrow, I hope, and reply here. Tim riley talk 15:33, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Behind schedule, I'm afraid, but will get to this as soon as I can. Tim riley talk 18:49, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Further apologies for delay: typing is going to be difficult for some days while I have my right hand in plaster, dammit. I hope reviewers will forgive a delay in this case. Tim riley talk 16:27, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No rush whatsoever, and best wishes for your hand. RMF in full swing (just returned from Voces8, and a FAR in (slow) progress: little time on my side as well. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:10, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
With apologies for the delay, replies above. Tim riley talk 13:59, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for changes and detailed explanations. Support. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:07, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Past tense

[edit]

An IP has objected to our use of the past tense for the show. For our earlier FAC, Round the Horne, we used the present tense, because the series was recorded in its entirety and is regularly rebroadcast to this day. Few recordings of ITMA survive and those that do are not often heard, for reasons we explain in the text, and so from the outset we thought it sensible to use the past tense. If any editors have views on this I'd be glad to hear them. Tim riley talk 16:50, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant guideline is MOS:TENSE, which would seem to support use of present tense for that situation. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:54, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, as always, Nikkimaria. I hope the other editors who have also commented in the review will feel able to comment too. Pinging Wehwalt, Gog the Mild and BennyOnTheLoose. Tim riley talk 17:57, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
When I read the article, going just on my vague memory of the guideline, past tense seemed appropriate. Rereading it, it still does - "use past tense only for past events, for subjects that are dead or no longer meaningfully exist". I can see how either view could be argued, but past tense seems both most naturally appropriate and the best binary-choice fit to the guideline. I write this in opposition to Nikkimaria's view with some trepidation. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:19, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, I don't have a personal preference, and if writing off-wiki may have made the same choice. But the guideline as written - "By default, write articles in the present tense, including those covering...works that have been discontinued" and the example of Earth: Final Conflict - IMO more supports present. (I don't know the background of why the peculiar division of print vs non-print media was set up, so that might be worth looking into or revisiting). Nikkimaria (talk) 19:29, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Mmm. That's a good point. I am tempted to reverse course. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:32, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • For works that still exist (including Round the Horne, which is still broadcast on occasion and which can still be purchased) “is” is appropriate. There is only a little left of ITMA, it’s never broadcast and I think I’m right in saying that it’s not available for purchase any more. As the guideline says to use past tense when subjects “no longer meaningfully exist”, “was” seems far more appropriate in this case. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9801:E160:3432:925D:975C (talk) 19:50, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Technically, present tense seems correct, but your use of past tense makes sense, especially since the work no longer exists in its entirety. If I were reading the entry, I would have no problem either way. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:55, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd prefer the use of the past tense being retained, but would still support if the tense is changed. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:41, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for this. I too prefer the past tense, but would be OK with the present if the consensus interpretation of the MoS were to go that way. No clear verdict either way, so far, I think. Tim riley talk 18:47, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review – Pass

[edit]

Will do soon. Aza24 (talk) 21:35, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting
  • The formatting is generally excellent.
  • I do find the linking of The Canberra Times odd, when no other news publications are linked
  • A very minor nitpick, but 'and' is used in refs 130 and 160, when otherwise there are only commas used. Suggest sticking with the latter for consistency's sake.
Reliability
Verifiability
Repeating my apologies, above, for the delay in responding: typing is going to be difficult for some days while I have my right hand in plaster, alas. I hope reviewers will forgive a delay in this case. Tim riley talk 16:29, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've attended to the outstanding points above. My grateful thanks to you and your fellow reviewer, above, who have waited patiently while I was temporarily out of action. Tim riley talk 14:11, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Tim, and no worries at all for the delay, I hope your hand is doing better! I've gone through the sources again for the sake of thoroughness, and found no issues of reliabillity. Pass for source review. Aza24 (talk) 17:12, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am very much obliged for your careful review. Source reviewing seems to me a hard slog and I am all the more grateful to colleagues who are willing to do it. Thank you! Tim riley talk 17:20, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 21 July 2022 [24].

Battle of Van Buren

[edit]
Nominator(s): Hog Farm Talk 16:23, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

After Battle of St. Charles and Marmaduke-Walker duel, here is another Confederate failure in Arkansas. Of the three primary Southern figures at Van Buren, you have department commander Holmes who was kicked upstairs for incompetence elsewhere, army commander Hindman who has managed to completely alienate the state where he was once a popular politician, and outpost commander Crump who drew guard duty despite past poor performances in that area. Hog Farm Talk 16:23, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

[edit]

Recusing to review.

As I supported this at ACR less than ten days ago I imagine that I will be doing the same here. But I will have another read through to see if I can find anything to pick at. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:41, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Maybe "Disease, lack of supplies, and desertion had forced Hindman to previously begin withdrawing" → 'Disease, lack of supplies, and desertion had previously forced Hindman to begin withdrawing'?
    • Done
  • "the Union troops struck at an outlying Confederate cavalry unit". Consider deleting "at".
    • Done
  • "He was then replaced by Major General Theophilus Holmes". I'm not sure that "then" is necessary.
    • Done
  • "Hindman decided that it would be impractical to keep most of his force north of the Arkansas River in Van Buren given the condition of his army, and pulled most of his men south of the Arkansas to Fort Smith". "... most of his ... most of his ..."
    • Rephrased the first one
  • "had to travel through cold weather". Can one travel through weather?
    • Went with "during"; the other is a bit of a midwesternism (Missouri's half south and half midwest, so the English is a bit on the sketchy end)
  • Is there anything to link "commissary" to?
    • No great one unless it's well hidden. A specific military function in US armies at the time (the Confederates copied large swathes of the US Army structure)
  • "One of the Union mountain howitzers fired on the ferry at Van Buren, killing the horse powering it". The horse was on the ferry?

And that trivia is all I have. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:29, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Funk

[edit]
  • Will have a look soon. FunkMonk (talk) 02:02, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • A bit of a nitpick, but I wonder if it would look better if the James G. Blunt photo was right aligned, and the cannon photo left aligned? So that they would both turn towards the text instead of away from it?
    • swapper facing
  • No image for the infobox?
  • The Van Buren area doesn't seem to be linked in the article body.
    • Oops, fixed
  • Link Indian Territory at first instead of second mention.
    • Moved link
  • The name of R. P. Crump isn't spelled out like other names, which sticks out a bit.
    • Added (he's borderline notable, but not redlinked as an article on him doesn't seem likely in the near future)
  • "the river 2 miles below Van Buren" You give metric conversions elsewhere, but not here.
    • Converted
  • Some places you abbreviate to mi, other places you write out miles, could be consistent.
    • It should now only be miles on the first usage, which I think is reasonable
  • "crossed the river, apparently so that Blunt, Herron, and Huston could claim that they were the first Union officers to cross the Arkansas River" Could say something like "crossed the Arkansas River, apparently so that Blunt, Herron, and Huston could claim that they were the first Union officers to cross it", to avoid repetition of river and keep it concise?
    • Done
  • Link Parrott rifle and Fort Smith in image captions.
    • Done
  • "had previously forced Hindman to previously begin" Do we need the double "previously"?
    • Removed the second one

@FunkMonk: - I've implemented all of these except the infobox image. Any thoughts on using the map? Hog Farm Talk 01:59, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the map could hurt at least. FunkMonk (talk) 10:59, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

Footnote numbers refer to this version.

  • You have two cites to the Encyclopedia of Arkansas ([1] and [51]), one as {{cite encyclopedia...}} and one as {{cite web...}}. I can see either one being appropriate, but they should be consistent. If you go with {{cite encyclopedia...}} I would add the publisher for consistency with the book citations. Also, those entries have "last updated" dates at the bottom; I think you could use those as the publication date for the page.

Sources are all reliable, and there are no other formatting issues. Links all work. The above is the only thing I can find to complain about. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:54, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    • @Mike Christie: - I've gotten these cites formatted consistently now. I was using the last updated date as the publication date, it's just that the Dougan cite had been updated after I'd used it. (I've updated the date and accessdate for the Dougan web cite after verifying that the content is still supported). Hog Farm Talk 18:45, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good; pass. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:52, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM

[edit]

This looks good on a first read through, HF. A few comments:

  • in the lead, suggest replacing "goods" with "supplies"
    • Done
  • the para beginning "After significant military activity in Missouri throughout 1861" doesn't clearly place the activities described in the state of Arkansas. For example, I couldn't deduce that the Battle of Pea Ridge was in Arkansas and had to go to the link. Can you work in "Arkansas" somewhere in the first or second sentence?
    • Done, as the location where Van Dorn formed his army
  • "moved most of the Confederate soldiers and supplies in Arkansas east of the Mississippi River and out of the state, leaving very little military organization in the state" the state...the state. Could you go with "east of the Mississippi River into <insert state(s) here>, leaving very little military organization in Arkansas."?
    • Added that they were initially moved into Tennessee (they were in Corinth, MS not much later but I don't think that's a rabbit hole that needs be entered here)
  • perhaps mention that Colonel Douglas H. Cooper commanded the Confederate troops at the First Battle of Newtonia as he crops up later? Was he commanding in Hindman's absence, or just one of a number of subordinate commanders?
    • Mentioned Cooper for Newtonia, and noted that overall command in Hindman's absence was given to a militia officer
  • It isn't clear from the initial mention that Schofield was in overall command, given he later withdraws all but Blunt's troops
    • I've tried to clarify this by noting when Schofield combined the various troops into his army
  • It might help the reader to picture the troop movements if cardinal directions were used a bit more (ie north across the Boston Mountains etc)
    • Working
  • the description of the Boston Mountains should probably be moved up to when they are first mentioned
    • Done
  • did Shaler command a brigade or just the 27th Arkansas Infantry Regiment?
  • Why did the Key West surrender at Strain's Landing? Were Union troops stationed there? If so, which units?
    • It just stopped there for unknown reasons and was caught up to. Added
  • what was Frost's command?
    • Frost commanded a division. Noted
  • "whothat had been sent there by Frost"
    • Done
  • "When Cloud arrived"? But hadn't he just sent the guns and cavalry? Did he go as well?
    • This was a very rough way of saying that the guns and cavalry arrived; clarified
  • "burned wharves and warehouses" in Van Buren or Fort Smith?
    • Fort Smith. Clarified
  • Bacon? That is a crying shame... But seriously, why single out out bacon though?
    • I've removed the reference to bacon.

That's it. Nice work. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:14, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, looks good. For what it's worth, my view (formed from reviewing quite a few of these ACW articles) is that the Background section is about right. Context is needed, and the situation in the Trans-Mississippi was more complex than most. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:29, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Dugan Murphy

[edit]

I'll add something in a bit. Dugan Murphy (talk) 00:16, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • The sentence that starts "The bombardment of Fort Sumter" is a bit much for one sentence and the phrase "Confederate troops forcing the surrender" doesn't read well to me. Rather than split it up, I recommend shortening and splitting to something like "The successful Confederate bombardment of Fort Sumter in seceded territory on April 12 swung political opinion toward secession. The convention reconvened on May 6 and voted to secede later that day."
    • Done
  • The first instance of "Confederate States of America" is Wikilinked, but "Confederate" is used earlier in the article. Shouldn't the single-word use be Wikilinked and the other not, per MOS:DUPLINK,because it is the first occurrence?
  • "the historian" – "the" doesn't seem necessary.
    • Not sure where the MOS stands on this, but it's frequently been suggested to me to do this to avoid the false title
  • The Background section is about the same length as the section on the battle itself. That strikes me as overly weighted toward background, though I don't read many battle articles, so I'm not familiar with the standards. What are your thoughts?
    • It was originally shorter see version that passed GA but additional material was added per reviewer request at A-Class and a little bit in the FAC. Is there anything specific you view as unnecessary? I'm open to cutting if there's a general consensus to do so
      • I'm looking for opportunities to summarize minutiae with sweeping statements. For instance, the play-by-play of the political conventions doesn't seem necessary for explaining a battle. It seems sufficient to me to offer that first sentence of the background section, then offer when Arkansas seceded, perhaps stating public opinion was initially anti-secessionist, but was swayed by Fort Sumter. Also, everything between "While Hindman was successful" and "constitutional rights'." seems extraneous to me. Dugan Murphy (talk) 00:52, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've trimmed the detail about secession conventions and Arkansas politics significantly. I think it's important to state why Hindman was sacked, but I have gotten rid of the quote by Shea about fanaticism and constitutional rights. Not sure if ~60 words gone overall makes a huge difference, but it's a start
  • Wikilink and fully capitalize Arkansas River Valley?
    • Done. I didn't realize we had an article on that
  • "The Arkansas River provided a key communication pathway in a state largely devoid of infrastructure, was used for transportation, and" seems a little confusing and wordy to me. How about this: "The Arkansas River provided a key communication and transportation pathway in a state largely devoid of infrastructure and"
    • Done
  • Maybe this is too nitpicky, but "was an important agricultural area feeding the Confederate army" feels wrong. How about this: "was an agricultural area important for feeding the Confederate army"
    • Done
  • The sentence that starts "One infantry regiment" is way too long, so it is difficult to read. And maybe it's just me, but I recommend eliminating the past passive voice by changing "One infantry regiment and some artillery were left" to something like "Hindman left one infantry regiment and some artillery".
    • Removed the past voice and split the sentence
  • Rather than Native Americans in the United States, it would be more helpful to Wikilink Choctaw in the American Civil War or even Choctaw in the American Civil War#Trans-Mississippi Theater. If I'm right in identifying this article as the relevant one, then "Cooper's Native Americans" could be better described as "the First Choctaw and Chickasaw Mounted Rifles" or "Choctaw and Chickasaw troops under Cooper's command".
    • Well, his brigade also included Cherokee and Creek (note: the Texas units were taken away from his command per Shea), so the more general link is probably better than listing off four tribes
      • If it was more than a disambiguation page, I'd recommend Wikilinking Native Americans in the American Civil War. Failing that, I still take issue with the wording "Cooper's Native Americans", which doesn't acknowledge their military status. Perhaps change to "Cooper's Native American troops" or something like that. Dugan Murphy (talk) 00:52, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • Went with "Cooper's Native American troops"; I found it greatly annoying when the old Native Americans in the American Civil War article was deleted as a copyvio; I don't have the sourcing to resurrect it in a very good shape
  • Another nitpick: Is "had to travel" more appropriate than "traveled"?
    • I truly don't know. Changed.
  • "A halt was called" – another passive voice moment that I think would be more informative if the sentence states who called the halt. Must have been Blunt, right? Or whoever was in charge of the cavalry?
    • Unclear who called it, but I've rephrased to the simpler "The cavalry halted at Oliver's Store"
  • "By the time that the Union" – I think "that" is extraneous here.
    • Done
  • "Shaler's" should be "Shaver's", right?
    • No, this is correct. Shaver commanded the brigade, but one of the brigade's component regiments was named for it's commander, Colonel James R. Shaler
  • I think "Hunter's Missouri Infantry Regiment who had been sent there" should have a comma before "who". What do you think?
    • Added
  • "Several hundred slaves were also freed." – One: It's probably worth Wikilinking Slavery in the United States. Two: The way this sentence follows the preceding two sentences, it seems to me to really minimize the likely monumental experience of those who were freed from bondage that day. Worse, those enslaved Arkansans are described in the same light as the inanimate objects that were destroyed and plundered. I'd really like to see a rewrite here that centers the humanity of those being freed that day. Not necessarily more detail. Could be a simple rephrasing and reordering of the information in those sentences.
    • Linked, and I've moved the people before the inanimate objects. I'm open to ways of rephrasing, the sources don't say what happened to them after they were freed, so I can't really add much more detail. (I really really hope the answer to "what did they do next" isn't "The Union troops abandoned them in an area with no food and prowling Confederates", which happened a few times, but the sources don't say)
  • Maybe it's just my preoccupation with passive voice again, but "Significant military intelligence was garnered when Union troops found a number of Confederate messages in a telegraph office" could instead be "Union troops found a number of Confederate messages in a telegraph office, amounting to a significant amount of military intelligence" or something like that.
    • Done
  • "estimates them as about a dozen killed" is a little clunky to me, compared with "estimates about a dozen were killed".
    • Done

And that's what I see! I think the lede section does a good job of summarizing the main points and overall, the body seems sufficiently comprehensive without being overly detailed, except maybe for my comment above about the length of the background section. The article is generally well written in an appropriate voice and appears to be well cited with reliable sources, though I did not review the citations or the sources thoroughly. Thank you for your work on this article! Dugan Murphy (talk) 02:43, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Dugan Murphy: - Thanks for the review! I've tried to address everything above. Hog Farm Talk 20:41, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sure thing. I've responded to three of your responses. Two of them are lingering but minor issues. The third is the larger issue of the level of detail in the background section. I added some suggestions on trimming that down, but feel free to push back on that, especially where my comments conflict with consensus gained in previous reviews. I like American history, but military history is a little out of my wheelhouse. Dugan Murphy (talk) 00:52, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 18 July 2022 [25].

Royal necropolis of Byblos

[edit]
Nominator(s): el.ziade (talkallam) 11:04, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a group of shaft and chamber tombs that housed the remains of Bronze Age Gebalite Kings. A chance landslide in the early 1920s uncovered the first of the underground tombs. Some of the burial chambers that escaped looting contained a great number of funerary goods; among these were ornate royal Egyptian gifts bearing the names of Twelfth Dynasty pharaohs. Inscriptions found in the tombs allowed the identification of some of the buried Kings. The most important of these finds was the famed Ahiram sarcophagus. The story of the re-emergence of the ancient city of Byblos/Gebal, and the subsequent discovery of the royal tombs, is reminiscent of Indiana Jones movies.

I have spent long hours searching archives and drafting this piece, and I have covered good ground so that it not only informative, but also compelling. The article underwent a thorough GA review, which made it significantly better, and I am very grateful for AirshipJungleman29's time and effort. I am hopeful, with your guidance, to drive the article to 'featured' status.el.ziade (talkallam) 11:04, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note -- Hi Elias, I don't think you've been to FAC before, in which case welcome! Some house-keeping... It looks like you have a peer review open for this article, and you need to close that now that the FAC has been opened. Also, as a fresh nominator, we'll want a spotcheck of sources for accurate use and avoidance of close paraphrasing, a hoop we as all newbies to jump through, as well as the regular source review for reliability and formatting; that can take place in the course of the overall review here. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:27, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Ian Rose , it is true that I edit sporadically, but I have 4 FAs under my belt already. Some guidelines may escape me since I am not here often. I welcome any feedback that will help improve the article. I will try to close the peer review, I haven't had many comments there. el.ziade (talkallam) 14:32, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, changed the name too... Okay the spotcheck is not a necessity. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:41, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the name change is confusing, it seemed liked a good idea then 😅. I had the pleasure of working under your guidance before, and I am looking forward to this review too. el.ziade (talkallam) 15:04, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
  • File:Byblos View.jpg, File:Ahiram Sarcophagus.jpg probably not freely licensed, nominated for deletion on Commons
  • File:Cimetiere royal.png what's the source for the info on the map?
  • The Montet maps and photograph; according to Internet Archive's scan these publications were in 1928 and 1929, after 1927 as indicated by the tag. Since it was published in France it would also need to be public domain in France to be kosher on Commons, which it does not seem to be if Montet created these sketches since he died in 1966

Other images look ok (t · c) buidhe 08:24, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi el.ziade, have all of these been addressed. If yes, could you ping Buidhe and ask if they are happy to pass the review? Gog the Mild (talk) 12:05, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I have addressed them in the below section. @Buidhe, can you please take a look at my input? el.ziade (talkallam) 12:09, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Not a source review
  • Article is well structured and length is reasonable. However, I noticed a majority of the citations are from the 1920s. Are there more recent sources that could be cited instead? I realize stuff like "The longer inscription is carved on the font (typo for front?), long edge of the lid" are not likely to change over time, making the datedness less of an issue, but, for example, it would be best to cite a more recent source for the number of grave goods recovered.
  • akg-images is not a high-quality reliable source in my view

(t · c) buidhe 08:33, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your usual meticulous work Buidhe below are my comments.
  • Concerning File:Byblos View.jpg, it's a real shame to see it go. There are no replacements. As for File:Ahiram Sarcophagus.jpg I am not oppose it's deletion, I have already replaced it in the article.
  • File:Cimetiere royal.png: it's derived from the map in the early 1920s letters from Montet to Cagnat a copy of the Image on JSTOR. Shall I add this bit of info on commons?
  • Montet's maps and photographs are sourced from the Internet Archive open source library, IA states that it respects the intellectual property rights and other proprietary rights of others. The Internet Archive may remove certain content or disable access to content that appears to infringe the copyright or other intellectual property rights of others. I believe we are safe in this regard, is there something else we can do? These images are fundamental to the understanding of the article. I can upload them here under a fair use label if this prevents them from being lost. Please advise. The copyright term in France was +50 years after the death of the author at the time of the publication of the above-mentioned works.
  • I will try to find more recent sources to add to the early 20th century ones. But mind you these are seminal works and are still authoritative. el.ziade (talkallam) 13:27, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Currently the copyright term in france is life + 70 years, including works that were published before the change came into effect. I agree that Internet Archive usually only shows full text for out of copyright works, but I don't think that's something we can rely on to determine copyright status. I've expanded the image description for File:Cimetiere royal.png. (t · c) buidhe 19:40, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I’m quoting a legal website pertaining to intellectual rights protection of sketches: «  Si le “dessinateur” a effectué quelque chose de visuellement très simple : par exemple un fond de carte faisant apparaître les frontières et le réseau hydrographique d’un pays. Ce “contenu” ne peut pas prétendre à la protection par le droit d’auteur. Il n’est qu’une information (plus exactement, une somme d’informations), donnant une représentation rudimentaire de la réalité. Le fond de carte nu n’est pas une œuvre originale, il n’a pas d’auteur. Ce fond de carte n’entre pas dans le champ du droit d’auteur ; il peut donc être repris sans problème. »
[ If the “dessinateur” has done something very simple visually: for example, a base map showing the borders and the hydrographic network of a country.  This “content” does not qualify for copyright protection.  It is only information (more exactly, a sum of information), giving a rudimentary representation of reality.  The bare basemap is not an original work, it has no author.  This base map does not fall within the scope of copyright;  it can therefore be resumed without any problem. ]
In archeology
«  En élaborant ces dessins, ces relevés de fouilles, ce rapport de fouilles, l’auteur du dessin élabore des archives de recherche qui sont des archives publiques…  À l’instar des règles applicables à un fond de carte très simple et à une carte originale protégée (le fond de carte peut être utilisé sans demander d’autorisation mais il convient d’en indiquer la source par honnêteté intellectuelle ; la carte originale ne peut être reproduite ou réutilisée qu’avec l’accord de l’auteur), on peut appliquer le même raisonnement à un histogramme ou à un graphique. Si le graphique est très simple et fait apparaître quelques données en abscisse et en ordonnées, il constitue une représentation brute, non protégée par le droit d’auteur. Si l’histogramme ou le graphique sont très élaborés (ombre, couleurs, bref, de l’infographie qui donne à la représentation un caractère créatif original), ils sont originaux, donc protégés par le droit d’auteur. »
[ By developing these drawings, these excavation records, this excavation report, the author of the drawing develops research archives which are public archives… Like the rules applicable to a very simple background map and a protected original map (the background map can be used without asking permission, but the source should be indicated for intellectual honesty; the original map  can be reproduced or reused only with the agreement of the author), the same reasoning can be applied to a histogram or a graph.  If the graph is very simple and shows some data in abscissa and ordinate, it constitutes a raw representation, not protected by copyright.  If the histogram or the graph are very elaborate (shadow, colors, in short, computer graphics that give the representation an original creative character), they are original, therefore protected by copyright. ]
source el.ziade (talkallam) 00:47, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I had to google translate because I didn't have the time, but you guys get the picture. el.ziade (talkallam) 16:09, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Buidhe Your decision please el.ziade (talkallam) 06:41, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The map does have details like shading though that show independent authorship. It's far above the threshold of originality in the US which tends to be higher than other countries. Hard to imagine this map is not copyrightable in France. (t · c) buidhe 07:11, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

UTC)

@Buidhe: According to legal definition these do not represent an “oeuvre d’esprit”. Also Commons is replete to similar images from the same period.el.ziade (talkallam) 21:32, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Funk

[edit]
It's the template Wallah it's not me lol. Fixed it.
  • You mention an acropolis only once, in an image caption, could be mentioned and linked in the article body if it's important?
Linked it in the infobox, I think it's enough there.
Well, the main point is, why is it important enough to mention in the caption, but not in the article body? If it's not important for the article body, it's just confusing to introduce a new term just in a caption. Otherwise, it could be elaborated on in the text, or removed. FunkMonk (talk) 00:17, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Last unaddressed issue. FunkMonk (talk) 17:57, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Main article: Byblos" followed by "Byblos (modern Jubayl)", is the "main article" really necessary when you can just link the first word of the paragraph?
No problem
  • "derived from the Canaanite Gubal" Link Canaanite.
Done
  • Link more unlinked terms in the infobox and first mentions in image captions?
Sure, done
  • "that has been inhabited, and continuously used" Why not just say "that has been continuously inhabited", means the same?
yes *smh*
  • Link Bronze Age?
done
done
  • Link Ramses II.
done
  • Link Phoenicia.
done
  • Images are a bit clogged up in the lower right of the article, perhaps use some horizontal multiple image templates instead, like in for example quagga?
All done except for the images, will get to these later. el.ziade (talkallam) 14:22, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
On second thought, do you mind if I don't change the layout? I am not fond of large blocks either, they are disruptive in an article where all the images are of the same size. Please don't ask me to alternate right and left too :( el.ziade (talkallam) 14:50, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It appears the "problem" would still be there with the images below, so not easy to solve. But I think much of the cramming is caused by the huge image "Gold oenochoe from Tomb IV in Mycenae.", which I don't really think is even necessary to show here, as it is not from this necropolis, and the caption doesn't explain the connection. FunkMonk (talk) 00:17, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done, you're right, the Mycenae image doesn't really belong. I linked it for comparison. el.ziade (talkallam) 07:01, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Renan had relied on Strabo's writing" Strabo and other people could be presented like you do with other people, by nationality and occupation, for consistence.
done el.ziade (talkallam) 15:21, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Now Byblus, the royal residence of Cinyras,​ is sacred to Adonis; but Pompey freed it from tyranny by beheading its tyrant with an axe; and it is situated on a height only a slight distance from the sea." Is this a quote? If so, it would remove ambiguity if you added quotation marks.
done el.ziade (talkallam) 15:21, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Byblos is a much later Greek exonym, possibly a corruption of Gebal." I think it's important to add this at the beginning of the main text (Historical background) too instead of just in a footnote, because now it's a but confusing that you jump between using the terms Gebal and Byblos seemingly at random, for example: "Ancient texts and manuscripts hinted to the location of Gebal... Strabo identified Byblos as a city situated on a hill some distance away from the sea."
  • "Renan correctly posited that the Ancient Byblos must have been located atop the circular hill dominated by the Crusader citadel of Jbeil." What was his reasoning?
done el.ziade (talkallam) 15:21, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Byblos (modern Jubayl)" Elsewhere you spell it Jbeil.
done el.ziade (talkallam) 15:21, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • You seem be using British spelling (archaeology) some places, but others US (metres). Should be consistent.
On the other hand, you also say " work on the archeological tell" and "kilometres", So decide on one English variation and check throughout for consistency. FunkMonk (talk) 00:17, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
archaeology works both ways, but I changed it. Sticking to US english. el.ziade (talkallam) 15:21, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I actually don't think you need to change archaeology then, but up to you, as long as the rest sticks to US English. FunkMonk (talk) 20:28, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "During the period of French Mandate" Usually it would be "the French Mandate", definite.
done el.ziade (talkallam) 15:21, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "landslide in the seaside cliff of Jbeil" Wouldn't this be "on"?
done el.ziade (talkallam) 15:21, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The next day the administrative advisor of Mount-Lebanon" Mount Lebanon hasn't been introduced at this point, I don't think all readers would know what this refers to.
done el.ziade (talkallam) 15:21, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link hypogeum and sarcophagus in the article body.
done el.ziade (talkallam) 15:21, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the excavation of Ancient Byblos" Why capital A?
done el.ziade (talkallam) 15:21, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Maurice Dunand succeeded Montet" Again no introduction of this person, check for consistency throughout.
done el.ziade (talkallam) 15:21, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "had been emptied from their contents" Emptied of?
oops el.ziade (talkallam) 15:21, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "instead of rock at a later period of time" Do we know how much later?
This is detailed in the dating section. I'd rather not repeat it here if you don't mind it el.ziade (talkallam) 15:21, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "was closer to that the northern group" That of?
yep el.ziade (talkallam) 15:21, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • You use the name "Abi Chemu" in captions, but "Abishemu" in the article body.
Yeah, depending on the sources. Older French sources use Abi Chemu. el.ziade (talkallam) 15:21, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, as long as you're consistent within the article about which version you use, I see you changed one caption, but there is still "Sarcophagus of Abi Chemu featuring lengthwise fluting on its lid". FunkMonk (talk) 20:28, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "on Tomb I chamber's north wall" A bit oddly worded, perhaps "on the north wall of tomb I's chamber?
done el.ziade (talkallam) 15:21, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A coarsely built wall separated the chamber of Tomb I from its well." Why is this past tense when the previous description is present? There are other cases of this too where it seems pretty random.
The walls and other structures were dismantled during excavation, this is why. el.ziade (talkallam) 15:21, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The two conduits did not communicate." Connect?
Right el.ziade (talkallam) 15:21, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It was also the only tomb to have an inscription within its shaft." State in which language.
I did in the following sentence, or else it could have been understood as "the only Phoenician inscription as opposed to "only inscription" . el.ziade (talkallam) 15:21, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The semicircular shape of Tomb V, known as "Ahiram's tomb"" I think it would be less confusing if you state already here it was a king.
done el.ziade (talkallam) 15:21, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Especially since you have this section without having mentioned a king before: "According to Montet, the builders of the tomb did not consider that the king's corpse was". FunkMonk (talk) 01:33, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "at the center" If you use British English, should be "centre".
I haven't even given it a thought. I will consider this from now on. el.ziade (talkallam) 15:21, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "on their down to the royal grave" way down?
Right thanks, el.ziade (talkallam) 15:21, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "All of the three chamber sarcophagi were looted and only contained human bones" Do we know of who?
No we don't have any surviving clues el.ziade (talkallam) 15:21, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did other sarcophagi contain bodies or bones?
no bodies we recovered. The environment is too wet to preserve soft tissue. el.ziade (talkallam) 15:21, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is enough known about any of these interred people to warrant articles, or just short descriptions of who they were here in this article?
I will look into this, Good idea el.ziade (talkallam) 15:21, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link sedimentary.
done el.ziade (talkallam) 15:21, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think ashlar could be linked.
done el.ziade (talkallam) 15:21, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • ", without any masonry retaining walls" The walls?
Done el.ziade (talkallam) 15:21, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you @FunkMonk for the review. I could have read and re-read the article a hundred times and not have picked up the areas of improvement you suggested. el.ziade (talkallam) 15:23, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Review of the rest of the article below. FunkMonk (talk) 20:28, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and an entire corner section of the lid have broken off" Has broken (singular).
"the lug at the northwestern corner and an entire corner section..."
  • "body of the sarcophagus IV is" I don't think definite "the" is needed here.
Fixed the sentence
  • "Montet ascertains that" Why present tense?
Fixed
  • "while the rest of the lions' bodies appears in bas-relief on the long sides" I think it should be "appear", because bodies is plural.
Right
  • "Two scene of a funerary procession of four mourning women occupies the" Scenes, as it's plural? And "occupy" because it's plural.
Fixed
  • Do we have any images of these scenes?
Added
  • "Tomb I contained a 12 centimeters (4.7 in) obsidian vase" I think it could be specified if this is the height?
Indeed it is
  • "Tomb II had two royal Egyptian gifts, 45 centimeters (18 in) long obsidian box" Missing "a" in front of the measurement?
Done
  • Link the two Amenemhat names in the article body too.
Done
  • "which French art history expert Edmond Pottier likened its spiral decorative patterns to that of the gold oenochoe from Tomb IV" I think the grammar is a bit odd here, could be "the spiral decorative patterns of which the French art history expert Edmond Pottier likened to that of the gold oenochoe from Tomb IV".
Thank you, done
  • Link Mycenae and Aegean in article body.
Done
  • "which divide the body of the receptacles in into several parts" First "in" seems superfluous.
Done
  • "A funerary inscription written in Phoenician identify the names" Identifies, singular.
Done
  • "triggered a landslide in the seaside cliff of Jbeil" By this point in the intro, you have not connected the name Byblos to Jbeil, so unfamiliar readers will not know its the same.
Clarification in the lead.

Thanks @FunkMonk el.ziade (talkallam) 15:31, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good, I've marked one unaddressed issue left above. FunkMonk (talk) 17:57, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@FunkMonk Solved, thanks for pointing that out. I left an explanation in the edit summary. el.ziade (talkallam) 10:22, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you buddy, I know I could have made your review much smoother had I given the article a few more reads. Truth is I find it very hard to catch my own typos and grammar mistakes. This review gave me a much needed boost to step up my game. el.ziade (talkallam) 18:23, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That kind of stuff is ok for me as long as the content itself is good. But it may scare other reviewers off, so hopefully we've addressed most of it. FunkMonk (talk) 19:18, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note

[edit]

After nearly five weeks this nomination has only attracted one general support. Unless further attention is forthcoming over the next two or three days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:45, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps tagging editors who have reviewed your earlier FACs could be an idea. FunkMonk (talk) 15:57, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea Monk, I’m not good at making connections here. I already left a message on WP:PHO for more input. 🤞🏼el.ziade (talkallam) 19:18, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Gog the Mild, I know you're coordinating this discussion but can I ask you for your own input? What do you think I should do to make this one better? el.ziade (talkallam) 11:56, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to get too involved in suggesting improvements at this stage, or I will have to recuse. If Buidhe, Nikkimaria, Anarchyte and A. Parrot all feel that their concerns have been addressed I will have a look at it myself with a view to closing. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:12, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My sole concern has been addressed, and I doubt yet another prose review this far in to the FAC would be useful. I have very little experience at FA so if the other commenters support this nomination, I will definitely not stand in its way. Anarchyte (talk) 13:06, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jens

[edit]

Marking my spot, will review as soon as possible. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:28, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • but was rediscovered in the late 19th century by the French biblical scholar and orientalist Ernest Renan. – Not sure if the scholar is relevant here (because he discovered the city, not the necropolis). But in any case I would add where Byblos was rediscovered; a reader without any knowledge might be confused otherwise because the previous sentence talked about a "continuously populated city". Maybe add where in modern Byblos it was discovered?
Right! Thanks. ^^^
  • Byblos (modern Jbeil) – that seemingly indicates that "Byblos" only refers to the ancient city, but according to Byblos it is the most common name of the modern city?
Well... Yes and no, the official name and the common name locally is Jbeil (Jubeil, Gebeil) which derives from the ancient Semitic roots "GBL". Byblos is a Greek corruption of the city's name, and it used in the scientific literature, and in the touristic context. Road sings use both names btw. I cleared the confusion now I think. Good call ^^^
  • The whole first paragraph of the lead is just background information, and I'm not sure if all details are relevant there, for example the meaning of the word Byblos. I am not sure if the article should try to focus more on the topic, which is the Royal necropolis.
I take a holistic approach to keep the reader interested. I believe information like this provide more insight and spice up the article without going off-topic. ^^^ el.ziade (talkallam) 14:40, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • making precise dating problematic, however – I think this needs a ; instead of ,
It can go both ways ^^
I am not sure it can: As it is now, it is not clear if the "however" goes with the previous or the following part of the sentence. The ; would make this clear. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:30, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • the temple of Baalat Gebal complex – is this correct? Or should it be "the temple of Baalat Gebal" or the "temple complex of Baalat Gebal"?
Done ^^
  • The grave goods were not affected by the landslide; inside the burial chamber the excavators discovered several pottery jars floating in damp clay, and a large white limestone sarcophagus with three protruding lugs on its lid by which it could be manipulated. – Source?
Fixed ^^
  • Sarcophagus of Abishemu (Tomb I) in situ – Is that tomb still in situ (which would be an information to add to the article), or is that picture taken after discovery (then, please add "after discovery in 19xx")
This is a recent image. Most of the sarcophagi were moved above ground. This one is kept in place. I modified the caption, I think it is clear now. ^^
  • Section "The search for the ancient city" goes a bit off-topic, as it is not about the necropolis. Under "excavation history", I would expect the excavation history of the necropolis. Maybe better placed in another article, or move to a background section (which could have two headings, "History of ancient Byblos" and "The search for the ancient city")?
I am trying to keep the article interesting, and encyclopedic at the same time. The subject, if approached from a narrow scope, would be too dry. The story of Renan (much like Schliemann's) provides some nice insight, and an interesting backdrop for the following sections. I would rather not move the part related to Renan to the historical background; I want to keep all the excavation stuff together. ^^
  • In the "Historical background" section, maybe mention those tombs that could be dated when talking about that particular time, to make the connection with the necropolis? That would help the reader I think.
I would, except the chronology is patchy, and I don't believe it helps with the flow of the article. But I will keep this in mind when I fall on some peer-reviewed source that could help clear this up without affecting the flow of the narrative. ^^
^^ Thanks Jens, waiting for more from you el.ziade (talkallam) 14:19, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • kept in siture – in situ? Link to in situ?
Done el.ziade (talkallam) 13:28, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sandstone sarcophagus of Ahiram was found in Tomb V and is so called for its bas-relief carvings – Why is the "Ahiram sarcophagus" referring to the bas-relief carvings? I can't follow here.
The sarcophagus features a funerary inscription naming the occupant, Ahiram, who is shown seated on a throne in the bas-relief. el.ziade (talkallam) 13:28, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • it represents the terminus post quem of the transmission of the alphabet to the west. – Without context this is very hard to understand.
I modified the punctuation as the previous sentence provides context el.ziade (talkallam) 13:28, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • link lotus flowers
Done
  • of the main sarcophagus bas-relief scenery – I am irritated by the "sarcophagus" here. Are their sarcophagi other than the main one? Or should this mean "the main bas-relief scenery"? (I think it is very clear from the context that these are on the sarcophagus)
Good point. el.ziade (talkallam) 13:28, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The longer inscription is carved on the front, long edge of the lid. – Maybe add a sentence stating the content of these inscriptions?
Okay, done. el.ziade (talkallam) 13:28, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • link obsidian
done. el.ziade (talkallam) 13:28, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • lid set with gold; the rectangular box rests on four legs; it has at the center – I think this needs reformulation or better interpunctation.
done el.ziade (talkallam) 18:30, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • One difference however, – I think this needs a comma behind "difference"
done el.ziade (talkallam) 18:30, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two grand silver hand mirrors, were recovered in tombs I and II – comma too much
done el.ziade (talkallam) 18:30, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some signs point to a range spanning from the end of the Middle Bronze Age to the Late Bronze Age for others – I don't understand the "for others" here.
must be a remnant of a deleted passage el.ziade (talkallam) 21:46, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • French priest and archeologist Father Louis-Hugues Vincent, Pierre Montet, and other early scholars believed – But the section "dating" does only contain the interpretations of the early scholars. The sentence, however, reads as if this would be no longer accepted. Is it a widely accepted fact, or are there simply no newer studies available?
The dating of the tombs by early scholars still holds. The dating of the Ahiram sarcophagus however, is now widely accepted to fall between the 11th and the mid-ninth century BC. Scholars advanced this date based on rubble material suggesting that Tomb V was reused in the Iron Age to bury Ahiram. In short, the sarcophagus of Ahiram was introduced to the preexisting shaft tomb. This is detailed in the Ahiram sarcophagus article. Should I include this here or it would be going off topic ? el.ziade (talkallam) 19:18, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Cas Liber

[edit]

Been super busy IRL...will look soon Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:46, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'd link exonym
Done ^
  • Foreign words are generally italicised not in quotation marks.
mudir, mastaba, serdab, khopesh, italicized ^
  • link Middle Bronze Age
Done ^
  • The Historical background is a bit choppy. I would combine some small into larger paragraphs
Neater I guess ^
  • Relation with Egypt dwindled again.... "Relations"?
Right ^
  • He based his assumption on an ancient coin depicting a representation of the city... - "ancient" is a bit general. Can the coin be described in a bit more exacting way?
I wanted to add the description, but I was hesitant to go off topic. I am glad you find including these details helpful. ^

Rest of it looks pretty good. Will have another look later Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:44, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

^ Thank you, will be waiting for more.el.ziade (talkallam) 12:24, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Casliber:, do you have more feedback? el.ziade (talkallam) 15:40, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No. It's a thumbs up from me, though as a neophyte on hte topic area I will defer to others more familiar with the field Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:41, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mirokado

[edit]

General impression so far: the article is well written, thorough and will be a valuable addition to our featured articles if accepted.

  • lead
    • "Byblos (also called Jbeil) ... "Gabal" ...": just reading the lead, why does the article use the "also called" name Jbeil rather than Byblos which appears in the title? I'm not suggesting a change, but would like to see the motivation expressed a little more clearly in the lead. Subsequent content does clarify.
      yes, and Jens had the same question. It is quite like the case of Troy/Ilium/Hisarlik. Byblos is a Greek exonym that was apparently favored by 19th century scholars because of hellenocentrism. Most of what was know about the city was sourced from classical writers. The local name has always names Jbeil which directly derives from the Canaanite root ‘GBL’ (Gebal). Even in crusader times the city was known as. Gibelet. Ancient Gebal and modern Jbeil are one and the same. The ancient city was forgotten on a hill directly under the medieval castle and skirting the medieval city walls from the outside. The medieval city was moved closer to a shallow natural harbor used for fishing. The medieval city, was enclosed by a defensive wall, and the Harbour is still guarded by a medieval tower. The names Byblos and Jbeil are both corruptions of Gebal, and are now used interchangeably on road signs in Lebanon mostly for touristic reasons, especially that the exonym took root because of European scholars. If I could rewrite the literature, I’d revert back to the old, pre classical exonym, but unfortunately this is the common name of the necropolis in literature. el.ziade (talkallam) 15:54, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • "the sarcophagi of several kings of the city." I would link thus: "the sarcophagi of several kings of the city." so that the link text more accurately matches the contents of the link.
      done el.ziade (talkallam) 15:54, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The city established major trade links with Egypt during the Bronze Age, leading to the latter heavily influencing local culture and funerary practices." This is not clear on first reading, although subsequent content is clearer. I suggest rephrase to avoid using "the latter".
      Done el.ziade (talkallam) 19:40, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Discovery of the royal necropolis
    • "he uncovered eight other tombs, bringing the total number to nine." Nine does not include the original sarcophagus, whereas the previous "A second tomb" did. Unless the eight includes the second in which case "other" is confusing. Subsequent content in §Description shows that Montet numbered the tombs I–IX, implying that he was not including the original sarcophagus as one of the tombs. In that case "A second tomb" needs to change somehow.
      OMG good eye! and math :/ el.ziade (talkallam) 19:40, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • wl tell: I had never seen this term before.
      Done el.ziade (talkallam) 19:40, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I will continue in detail with the individual tombs later. ---- Mirokado (talk) 00:31, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Tombs III and IV
    • "Another, similarly sized and shaped conduit": lose the comma here (if you want "similarly sized and shaped" to be more parenthetical, you can place a second comma after "shaped", but I don't think this is necessary.
      Done. el.ziade (talkallam) 19:40, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

More later. ---- Mirokado (talk) 21:34, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Tombs VI, VII, VIII, and IX
    • "The burial chamber of wells VI, VII, VIII, and IX are completely dug in muddy soil." I think "chambers" should be plural here.
    • wl lozenge, I was imagining something different until I checked.
      It is borrowed from French and you're right, it might be confusing. Replaced it with 'rhombus'.el.ziade (talkallam) 20:13, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Ahiram sarcophagus
    • "The Phoenician inscription is composed of two parts": wl (section link) The Phoenician inscription.
      Done el.ziade (talkallam) 19:40, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps expand this paragraph a bit to summarise the contents of both parts of the inscription (see the section link). Also please consider whether we should be describing this as two parts or two inscriptions: the positions described here and different contents described in the section link imply two inscriptions.
      I have added an abridged summary of the contents of the inscription. I specified that the inscription is broken in two parts, not two distinct inscriptions. Please let me know if you think i should add more detail about the contents of the inscription. el.ziade (talkallam) 20:13, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      <I'm afraid I don't agree with this. Montet (1928, pp. 236–237) clearly refers to two inscriptions: "Les Inscriptions ... La plus courte des deux inscriptions ... La seconde inscription, beaucoup plus longue, ...". I don't have access to Lehmann (2005), but the title has "Die Inschrift(en) des Ahirom-Sarkophags ...", where "Die" can be either singular or plural and the "(en)" also implies either. Looking elsewhere, "Les cités Phéniciennes: Byblos" shows one reason why both usages may occur: "... la première inscription en alphabet Phénicien a été constatée ..." (concentration on "here you can find the earliest Phoenician inscription") and (next sentence) "Les inscriptions sur son tombeau sont les plus anciens textes Phéniciens connus." (describing the inscriptions themselves). Please change the content accordingly or, of course, provide a good reason why not.
      I am citing another one of Lehmann's works where he indeed mentions two inscriptions: The sarcophagus inscription, and the second, the tomb shaft inscription "Around eighty years ago, in the course of the French excavations in Jbeil, the site of ancient Gubla, or Byblos, Pierre Montet unearthed the famous Aìîrôm sarcophagus.1 The discovery was due to a landslide in autumn 1923 and revealed a series of royal tombs dating back to the late second millennium b.c.e. situated under the cliffs of ancient Byblos, the ifth of which was ten meters deep, the now famous Aìîrôm burial.2 Two older cofins lanked the richly decorated sarcophagus3 of an alleged Old Byblian king named Aìîrôm.4 The latter is inscribed with a Phoenician text that is generally estimated to be the oldest Phoenician inscription of considerable length known at present. Following preliminary reports by the excavator himself in several French magazines, newspapers and journals early in 1924,5 the scholarly editio princeps of this important new inscription was made as early as 1924 by the French scholar René Dussaud.6 In subsequent years, numerous discussions took place about the script, the reading, and the translation of the inscription, especially of the last few words. In summer 2003, I carried out a thorough re-investigation of the famous Aìîrôm inscriptions, both of the short inscription, which was found on the wall of tomb V at Byblos, and of the longer sarcophagusinscription in the National Museum of Beirut. The results of this research are published in my 2005 book Die Inschrift(en) des Aìîrôm-Sarkophags und die Schachtinschrift des Grabes V in Jbeil (Byblos).7" _ Lehmann, Reinhard G. (2008). "Calligraphy and Craftsmanship in the Ahirom inscription. Considerations on skilled linear flat writing in early first millennium Byblos".
      He then goes on to address the exact issue we are addressing: "The Aìîrôm sarcophagus inscription, which in the following is simply referred to as the Aìîrôm inscription, can be divided into two parts that are carved in two different places. It starts at the small southern” upper rim of the cofin, and continues on its “western” lid.8 In spite of suggestions in the past that these might be two separate inscriptions, there is actually one inscription only, and for convenience’s sake those two parts can be labelled as partition A and partition B.9" _ ^Idem.\
      I hope this settles the above. el.ziade (talkallam) 14:44, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      With Lehmann (2008) I think this is OK, you are going with the most recent scholarly analysis. Please add a callout to Lehmann (2008) to this final paragraph (I suggest after "distributed in two parts,") to make that clear. ---- Mirokado (talk) 23:06, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      @Mirokado Done. Thank you so much for your very thorough review. el.ziade (talkallam) 11:04, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Since the subject matter for the two lines is different, I think you need to summarise both.
      Explained above. el.ziade (talkallam) 16:47, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I now see that the first line is summarised in §Attribution. ---- Mirokado (talk) 23:06, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Please provide page numbers for Lehmann (2005). ---- Mirokado (talk) 21:14, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

More later. ---- Mirokado (talk) 22:38, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Working on these, Thanks a lot​! el.ziade (talkallam) 19:40, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Egyptian royal gifts
    • "This type of vase is known from representations ...": Does this mean that the vase found here is the only actual example of what has been illustrated elsewhere? If so I would mention that more explicitly.
      Hi again, sorry for the late reply I am still recovering from a bad flu. No, the vase in question is not the only example. There are many specimens uneartched in Egypt and elsewhere. Please let me know if you would like me to rephrase. el.ziade (talkallam) 12:00, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, please rephrase. By "representations of Egyptian sarcophagi" I had understood reliefs or other illustrations of the vases, not actual finds of that type of vase. ---- Mirokado (talk) 21:03, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      The mentioned vessel is an obsidian ointment vase and lid that was commonly used in ancient Egyptian funerary practices. There's no added value to keeping the sentence as it is mentioned earlier that it is of Egyptian origin.el.ziade (talkallam) 16:47, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      OK, thanks. ---- Mirokado (talk) 21:47, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Attribution
    • "Scholars have noted the similarity of the spiral decorative patterns of which the French art history expert Edmond Pottier likened to that of the gold Oenochoe found in Tomb IV in Mycenae." Needs to be rephrased, perhaps: "Scholars, following the French art history expert Edmond Pottier, have noted the similarity of the spiral decorative patterns found in Tomb I to those of the gold oenochoe found in Tomb IV in Mycenae." (a bit of context for "the ... patterns", correct "of which ... likened to ...", no capital O for oenochoe). At the same time, please remove the space before [compare].
      Fine now, thanks. ---- Mirokado (talk) 21:12, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the fixes so far, I will check and start striking over the next day or so. I've finished a first read through, I will read it again, probably during next week. ---- Mirokado (talk) 21:40, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mirokado: Thanks! I'll be here :) el.ziade (talkallam) 12:00, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Mirokado do you have any additional input? el.ziade (talkallam) 15:41, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, a few interspersed comments while you were fighting the dreaded lurgi. I've now marked them with PENDING so they are easier to see. ---- Mirokado (talk) 00:26, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hey @Mirokado: can you please recheck? el.ziade (talkallam) 16:47, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
One new PENDING response above, I look forward to supporting once that is dealt with. ---- Mirokado (talk) 23:06, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Thank you for your clear and detailed responses to some of the questions. ---- Mirokado (talk) 14:08, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from A. Parrot

[edit]
  • I agree with Jens Lallensack that the first paragraph of the lead contains too much background for the lead. I think you should at least cut the second and third sentences, starting the fourth sentence with "The city of Byblos, also called Jbeil, established major trade links with Egypt during the Bronze Age…"
I kept the first sentence which informs of the location of the site. I removed the following sentence.el.ziade (talkallam) 12:38, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • As WP's unofficial ancient Egyptian religion specialist, I dislike the wording "the deceased was believed to take the form of a bird" (found in both the lead and the body). The bird form of the ba is a metaphor. You could say "the soul of the deceased was believed to fly from the burial chamber…", and possibly have a wikilink to Ancient Egyptian conception of the soul#Ba (personality).
That's great! thanks el.ziade (talkallam) 12:38, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]


  • My Egyptological sources (Egypt, Canaan, and Israel in Ancient Times (1992) by Donald B. Redford, The Oxford History of Ancient Egypt (2000) by Ian Shaw, and Ancient Perspectives on Egypt (2003) edited by Roger Mathews and Cornelia Roemer) treat relations between Egypt and Byblos in the Old Kingdom as an exceptionally close trading relationship, not as direct control, which doesn't seem to have existed until the Middle Kingdom at the earliest. The link to the archived Awada Jalu source doesn't work for me, but the DeVries source, written by a religious scholar, doesn't seem strong enough to support the claim when other sources don't.
Good point. I reviewed the sources and will update the text accordingly as soon as I can. el.ziade (talkallam) 12:38, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Even Byblos, the oldest state in the Levant to have been subverted by Egypt, demanded payment for its goods; and the present ruler averred strenuously that his ancestors had been paid for their services:63 in response to the statement that his fathers had willingly sent timber, Zakar-Ba'al replied:
Of course they did, and if you pay me something I will do it! But my (fathers) performed this service only after Pharaoh l.p.h. had despatched six cargo boats laden with Egyptian products and they were unloaded into their storehouses (i.e., in payment). And you? What have you brought for me? . . . Now if the ruler of Egypt were my lord, and if I were his vassal, he would not have to cause gold and silver to be brought with the request “Perform the business of Amun!”

— Redford, Egypt, Canaan, and Israel in Ancient Times, https://books.google.nl/books?id=G9PgDwAAQBAJ
  • "the advent of the 19th century" gives the impression that the city was rediscovered when the 19th century arrived, which, as the next sentence shows, was not the case.
🙈 thanks! el.ziade (talkallam) 12:38, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your notes @A. Parrot:. el.ziade (talkallam) 12:38, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi A. Parrot, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:10, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I didn't look through it thoroughly enough to support, but all of my concerns have been addressed. A. Parrot (talk) 13:29, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments and support from Gerda

[edit]

Thank you for the detailed article. I'll comment while reading, leaving the lead for afterwards. Please reply only when I'm done for today, to avoid edit conflicts. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:36, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox and TOC are basically fine, but I don't need four headers for references. I read the prose without problems, fixing minor things, - please check. I suggest to use "cm" (abbreviated) instead of "centimeter", for consistency with "m". I like the image arrangement all right, but wonder if the connection to the prose might be clearer by positioning, for example getting the gold pectoral closer to where it's mentioned. The last two images of grave findings remain a mystery to me, but it's a topic I am not familiar with. Will look at the lead tomorrow. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:51, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Gerda Arendt: I'm on it. el.ziade (talkallam) 12:12, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The format of the units of measures is now uniform, thanks for pointing this out - I moved the gold pectoral upwards - I understand your frustration about the references section but this is how to categorize sources and notes best. 13:10, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
I think it would look almost the same if the lower-level headers were just bold, not sections to be edited, - there's probably not much to edit now. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:40, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Now to the lead.

I think it is where readers unfamiliar with the topic meet new information, and believe that you could do a few things to make that easier. Some of those will just result from me not being a native speaker, so I may not now terms that everybody else knows. Please ignore such things ;)

Done Thanks!
  • be a little more wordy about Byblos being the modern name for the ancient city, or is it the other way round? (The linked article is also not clear. The prose later on has the many names, but in the lead, it's not clear enough for me.)
    I have addressed this with Jens and other reviewers. We have rephrased the passages to clarify any ambiguity. Byblos is a classical exonym (given by the Greeks), it was repopularized in the 19th century by Hellenocentric western scholars, and we are stuck with this appellation. The oldest attested name is a form of "Gebal", the root of the current name (Jbeil / Gebeil). el.ziade (talkallam) 13:10, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I would understand - if you don't want to say this in prose in the article, or the Byblos article - if there was a colon after "modern". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:40, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • translate hypogeum? yes, there's a link, but someone who wants a quick overview will not want to go back and forth.
replaced the word completely. el.ziade (talkallam) 13:10, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • split the sentence beginning "Montet categorized the graves"?
Done el.ziade (talkallam) 13:10, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "dated back" - they still do, no?
Yes of course, fixed. el.ziade (talkallam) 13:10, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's all. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:51, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Elias Ziade:? Hog Farm Talk 02:08, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Hog Farm: Can't see your review, did I miss something? el.ziade (talkallam) 12:09, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(I think Hog Farm is just the coordinator alerting you, which seems to have worked.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:14, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Silly me! It must be the fever SMH. I'll be back with you Gerda, i am running through the page history so I don't miss anything. el.ziade (talkallam) 12:25, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Now problem. I support the article as it is, but you can still think about the remaining details. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:40, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Johnbod

[edit]
  • Clearly pretty much there (I haven't read all the comments above) but a few points.
  • There needs to be some indication of the dates in the first sentence or two.
Absolutely! Thank you el.ziade (talkallam) 14:21, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't done this yet. Johnbod (talk) 22:27, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • in the lead, a bit more specificity on the grave goods - materials etc. "Egyptian-style local crafts" isn't very helpful.
I added some details.el.ziade (talkallam) 14:21, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are rather too fond of hyphenated adjectival phrases - "reliefs inscribed with Egyptian hieroglyphs" is better than "Egyptian hieroglyph-inscribed reliefs".
Thank you, done.el.ziade (talkallam) 14:21, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Another interpretation of the Gebal is "mountain town" - "name" missing?
Added el.ziade (talkallam) 14:21, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Ancient texts and manuscripts hinted at the location of Gebal.." this para pretty long - split?
Split el.ziade (talkallam) 14:21, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "floating in damp clay" - don't think one can do that.
No indeed, fixed. el.ziade (talkallam) 14:21, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The opening leads to a 1.8 m (5.9 ft) high and 1.2 m (3.9 ft) to 1.5 m (4.9 ft) wide corridor that adjoins the south side of the shaft of Tomb II" - should "adjoins" be "joins" or "enters"? Unclear what it means as it is. From the Montet plan illustrated it should be "enters".
I see, it's the corridor that joins the shaft. I will replace "adjoin" with "join". el.ziade (talkallam) 14:21, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "damaged by falling rock shards" not sure rock has "shards". The word doesn't seem needed, or "fragments" maybe.
You're right. I often make this kind of mistakes when I am thinking and rephrasing from French. el.ziade (talkallam) 14:21, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Beware, here is your loss (is) below" - whose translation is this? The English doesn't make much sense.
Neither does the French LOL. This is Dussaud's interpretation of the tiny inscription. Another interpretation is Charles Torrey is "Take notice! Strength will fail you beyond this point" Torrey 1925. Lehmann 2005 interpreted the lines as such: :Concerning knowledge: here and now be humble (you yourself!) ‹in› this basement!". el.ziade (talkallam) 23:44, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

Spotchecks not done. Version reviewed

Pass. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:03, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source for Governing body?
added el.ziade (talkallam) 23:44, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is Tomb V part of the second group, or not? The article seems inconsistent about this
It belongs to the second group. It is given a separate section however because of its importance.el.ziade (talkallam) 23:44, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay - was it robbed in antiquity?Nikkimaria (talk) 00:56, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
yes, it’s mentioned in the article el.ziade (talkallam) 18:16, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Make sure that multipage citations use pp rather than p
Done
  • FN77: page(s)?
I lost access to the resource, so did another fellow editor I contacted for help. If someone can provide me with a library access I would be grateful. NB: Could not find it in the Wikipedia Library
Requested
I haven't had access yet, I removed the citations temporarily until I get access, or use another of Lehmann's works as reference. el.ziade (talkallam) 15:39, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent in whether publication locations are included for books. If they are, don't use postal abbreviations
done
  • Barry is missing edition
I couldn't find it, i also checked worldcat
  • Don't duplicate identifiers in |url=
I ran through the references, I can't find any duplicates. Are there still any? el.ziade (talkallam) 15:39, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes - Cook, RD, etc all have JSTOR url and JSTOR id. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:55, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria Done el.ziade (talkallam) 11:52, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ranges should use endashes, including in titles
Done
  • Be consistent in when/if you include |via=
I removed these, thanks for pointing this out
  • Formatting of Jidejian doesn't match other sources, and is there any information available about this publisher?
Right
Can you elaborate on why this publisher qualifies as a high-quality reliable source Nikkimaria (talk) 00:56, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Jidejian is an archaeologist and historian. Her works are widely cited and distributed as evidenced by a worldcat / scholar search. The publisher is one of the oldest publishing houses in the Levant. Do we need more details? el.ziade (talkallam) 18:16, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent in whether you include location and/or publisher for periodicals
Added also for articles
This is still inconsistent - some have location, others have publisher. (Also noticed a missing language on Dussaud, suggest checking throughout. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:34, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: I reviewed all the references el.ziade (talkallam) 01:07, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes Livius a high-quality reliable source?
Jona Lendering is a highly regarded and awarded Dutch historian. Livius is not another blog site.
Can you elaborate? What awards? Highly regarded according to what source? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:56, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Lendering is a Dutch classicist and writer , in addition to being a member of faculty at the Dutch Vrije Universiteit, he is known to be a revisionist employing a holistic approach to historiography by including subaltern narratives to complement traditional western sources. He was awarded by the Dutch classical society among others.
  • What is the role of University of Michigan in Mionnet?
It uploaded the book to archive.org I guess. I removed it because it was an automatically generated citation.
I guess we can do without it, but it corroborates the other source and provides a more vivid description of the site.
Sure, but secondary/peer-reviewed sourcing is preferred. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:56, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ping. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:55, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria Would it matter if Moore was ex-President and is a current Honorary President of the Archaeological Institute of America? el.ziade (talkallam) 11:47, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No - that indicates that he is a reliable source now, but this is student work. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:35, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I will need your help to format this one, I don't have much experience. @Nikkimaria: Please let me know if there's anything left.el.ziade (talkallam) 12:31, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This appears to be an online republication of a previous print source - the citation should reflect both the original and where it's being read. (The latter is a case where |via= would indeed be appropriate). Nikkimaria (talk) 00:56, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done @Nikkimaria, is there anything else I can improve? el.ziade (talkallam) 11:05, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Hog Farm: please advise if I should ping the reviewers. el.ziade (talkallam) 12:31, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can't hurt (within reason). Hog Farm Talk 16:05, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are p/pp errors at cites 50 and 90.
  • Dunand - usually earlier works are listed first in "Bibliography".
  • You should find an OCLC for Dunand 1939 here.
  • Similarly there should be an identifier for Jidejian here.
I have only checked two sources for missing identifiers and they are both available. Could you please recheck the others? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:44, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild I reviewed all the sources and added identifiers where applicable. el.ziade (talkallam) 13:32, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There seem to be some queries from Nikkimaria outstanding. Eg "How does Moore meet WP:SCHOLARSHIP?" Gog the Mild (talk) 13:35, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild I removed the Moore reference although I don’t agree that it should not be included, and I strongly believe that the thesis meets scholarship requirements. @Nikkimaria if you still have pending notes please let me know. el.ziade (talkallam) 15:53, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There was no suggestion that it didn't, merely a request that you state the case for it being considered to do so. Have you now addressed all of Nikkimaria's comments? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:20, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I have, thank you for following up @Gog the Mild el.ziade (talkallam) 11:08, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nikkimaria, how's this one now? Gog the Mild (talk) 13:28, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria I have addressed your issues. Can we please move forward? el.ziade (talkallam) 06:31, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Quick prose question from Anarchyte

[edit]
  • I've not read through the whole article, but is it standard practice to use "us" in articles like these? #Attribution says the following: The names of some of the sarcophagi occupants are known to us from archeological finds (emphasis added). Surely this could be condensed by removing "to us"? Anarchyte (talk) 08:06, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Anarchyte is quite right, see MOS:WE. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:52, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Anarchyte Thank you for pointing this out, please let me know if there's anything else you noticed.el.ziade (talkallam) 10:45, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 14 July 2022 [26].

1989–90 Gillingham F.C. season

[edit]
Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:40, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here is my 14th nomination of a season in the history of my beloved Gillingham F.C. This was the club's first season for 15 years at the fourth level of English football, which is timely as they have just been relegated to the fourth tier once again - sad times....... As ever, feedback will be most gratefully received and promptly acted upon..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:40, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Support from Gog the Mild

[edit]

Recusing to review.

  • "meaning that they started the new season with a number of teenagers in the team. Gillingham started the season in poor form". " ... started the new season ... started the season ..." A little repetitive. Any chance of a bit of variation.
  • "goalkeeper Jeremy Roberts played as a trialist in that game ... he never played a game for Gillingham". Er ...
  • "he played for the first time in the home game against Scunthorpe United". How can it be his first game if he had scored "7 goals in 13 games"?
  • "after three league games they were still yet to score a goal". Delete "still".
  • "Lovell scored the only goal in the last 10 minutes". This has another meaning than the one you intend and so could do with rephrasing.
  • Link semi-professional.
  • "Key". In those competitions where they don't apply, is it helpful to include "o.g." and "pen."?
  • "both made a total of 51 appearances". "both" → 'each'. Likewise in the lead.

That is all I have. Lovely stuff. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:23, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: - all addressed, let me know what you think now....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:30, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Wehwalt

[edit]
  • "but then slipped down the table after losing six consecutive games;" the slipping no doubt happened "as" or "whilst" losing, rather than "after".
  • "With injuries also ruling out Alan Walker, Tim O'Shea and Brian Clarke and further new signings not yet completed,[17] " should there be a comma after O'Shea? This seems to be your general practice.
  • "The draw, along with the results of the day's other games, left Gillingham nine points off the play-off places and therefore, with two games remaining and a maximum of six points available, unable to finish the season with any possibility of promotion." This seems a bit long-winded, especially the final clause. Cannot it be shortened?
That's all I have.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:49, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Wehwalt: - many thanks for your review, see what you think of these changes -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:32, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Wehwalt: - any further comments? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:57, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All looks good. Support.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:27, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by FrB.TG

[edit]

Support by Amakuru

[edit]
  • "a number of players left the club, resulting in a number of teenagers playing..." - repetition of "a number"
  • "a run of five consecutive wins" - feel like some indication of when this was would be helpful?
  • "does not appear to have ever signed a contract" - slightly odd wording to be in Wikivoice; maybe just "there is no record of..." or similar?
  • "Alan Walker, Tim O'Shea, and Brian Clarke and further new signings not yet completed..." - I feel like a comma might be helpful after "Clarke" otherwise it sounds like we're lumping him with the further new signings? Not entirely certain if I'm right on that point though.
  • "the latter two of whom" - should be "the last two of whom"
  • Be consistent for league places - 4th/14th or fourth/fourteenth
  • Similarly in "Players" section, we see "16 goals" then "nine goals" in the same paragraph.
  • "Writing in his final programme notes of the season, Richardson contended that the team" - 'contended' is a slightly odd word, and perhaps a breach of MOS:SAID, albeit not one of the listed examples... Might be simpler just to say "In his final programme notes of the season, Richardson wrote that the team..."
  • "Gillingham would eventually achieve promotion back" - might just be me, but I prefer a simpler "Gillingham eventually achieved promotion..." here.

That's about it. Great article as ever. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 21:53, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Amakuru: - many thanks for your review, all done I think -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:37, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Happy to support.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:24, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Edwininlondon

[edit]

Another season, well done. I could not find much, but here are a few comments:

  • following day's games they had fallen back to 6th.[49] Following --> repetition of following
  • 18 November 1989 : the FA Cup table has the same date for replay and initial match
  • again inconsistent; following a lengthy unbeaten run in the first half of the season the team were again --> repetition again
Source review
[edit]

Quality ok. Formatting as well, with just these comments:

That's it from me. Edwininlondon (talk) 16:37, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. All fine now. I Support on prose. Source review: pass. Edwininlondon (talk) 06:03, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: - can I check if I am now OK to start a new FAC? Thanks!! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:28, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sure Chris. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:51, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 14 July 2022 [27].

1982 World Snooker Championship

[edit]
Nominator(s): Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:44, 30 April 2022 (UTC), User: BennyOnTheLoose[reply]

This article is about the 1982 edition of the World Snooker Championship. Davis's first defence. Second nomination - let me know what you think! Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:44, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Prose review (Elias)

[edit]
  • Doing a prose review of the article. Side note, I have my own FAC up here, and I would appreciate any comments. Of course, while appreciated, you are not obligated to leave a response. ‍ ‍ elias. 🧣 ‍ ‍ 💬reach out to me
    📝see my work     11:43, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • "30 April and 16 May 1982 at the Crucible Theatre, Sheffield, England" --> somewhat awkward placing of commas, but that might just be me. I'd put a "located" between "Crucible Theatre" and "Sheffield" to alleviate that
    • "The tournament was sponsored by cigarette company Embassy and was organised by the World Professional Billiards and Snooker Association (WPBSA)." --> There are a lot of "was"s in the first paragraph of the lead, which raises concerns about repetition. Plus this sentence could be reworded in such a way that the active voice is employed. "Embassy, a British cigarette company, sponsored the tournament, and the World Professional Billiards and Snooker Association (WPBSA) handled the organisation for the event", perhaps?
    • "It had a prize fund of £110,000 and the winner received £25,000." --> a comma before the "and" is missing
    • The lead's second paragraph has a lot of participle phrases. "having defeated Doug Montjoy..." "becoming the latest champion who was unable to defend his first world title..." "defeating Welshman Ray Reardon 18–15 in the final..." all within three consecutive sentences. I believe you can rewrite one or two of these sentences to avoid repetition.
    • "The World Snooker Championship is ... the official snooker world championship" --> this is just restating the title. We can rewrite this to "the official global (or worldwide?) tournament for snooker"
    • I'd rewrite the next sentence to "Developed in the late 19th century by British Army soldiers stationed in India, the sport was popular in the United Kingdom before being introduced to Europe and the Commonwealth" just to avoid having snooker appear in two sentences in a row
      • In view of that wording change, I'd also rewrite "the sport is now played worldwide" to "nowadays, snooker is played worldwide"
    • "governed by the World Professional Billiards and Snooker Association (WPBSA).[6]Thirty-two" --> space after the citation
    • "Thirty-two professional players competing in one-on-one single-elimination matches that were played over several frames." -> I feel like there is a verb missing here, because at the moment this reads like an incomplete sentence
    • " This was the first world championships" -> the verb is singular but the noun is plural
      • Many thanks for the detailed feedback. I've addressed the points above in the article, and hopefully fixed most of them. I've used a slightly different wording about it being the "official" championship, as there are at least two other world snooker championships: the IBSF World Snooker Championship and the World Women's Snooker Championship. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 23:38, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • No problem! By the way, with regards to this sentence - "The World Snooker Championship is the official world championship of professional snooker. Developed in the late 19th century by British Army soldiers stationed in India, the cue sport was popular in the United Kingdom..." - this essay argues that elegant variation, such as the one used here "world championship of professional snooker... stationed in India, the cue sport...", diminishes clarity. This is because at first glance, readers will not be able to tell what "the cue sport" refers to, and would have to spend more time than necessary figuring out the answer to that question. Here you seem to be doing elegant variation to introduce new information about professional snooker, which the essay says is not always an ideal way to go about it, for the reasons already outlined above. A way to improve clarity would be to put "the cue sport" beside "professional snooker", replacing the term with the "it" pronoun, i.e. "world championship of professional snooker, a cue sport... it was popular in the United Kingdom..."
    • All of the sentences in the third paragraph for the Overview section are in passive voice. I believe the MOS prefers the active voice whenever possible, no?

More comments to come once I get around to reading the tournament summary. :) Please ping me whenever you get around to addressing these points, by the way! FAC pages really need a "subscribe" button in the same way talk page sections do...

Will have a look at these in a mo. You can watchlist FAC pages, btw. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:52, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Troubled.elias. I am considering archiving this as it is six weeks since it was nominated and a consensus to promote does not seem to be forming. But I was wondering if you were planning on continuing your review within the next day or two. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:55, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: sorry that this review (finished in talk) was so, so delayed. A few weeks ago I had my annual medical exams done, and the results were problematic, to say the least. I knew I had to take a wikibreak, but fuck I forgot to put up a template on my user page or notify the nominators. Again, sorry for that.
Anyways, the article seems to be in very good shape! Prose is easy to read, and easy to follow. Jargon is adequately explained or easy to understand from context. My main concerns with the prose when I first came into this --- the repetition and overuse of passive voice --- have been resolved. Edit history seems stable, and all the major details I expect from the article seem to be covered. As far as my knowledge goes, the prose and the tables/diagrams are MOS-compliant. Well done, @Lee Vilenski and @BennyOnTheLoose!

NØ

[edit]

I will have a look at this article. The review above looks extensive already so apologies if I repeat something.

  • Is there a reason why newspapers that have articles are unlinked in the references?
  • "a score of 18–12 in the final the previous year" could be "a score of 18–12 in the the previous year's final".
  • "The first World Championship, in 1927, was won by Joe Davis in a final at Camkin's Hall in Birmingham, England." could be active voice.
  • "The tournament was sponsored by cigarette company Embassy." would sound better in active voice too in my opinion, actually this could be done wherever applicable.
  • "after which Knowles scored 67" - points?
  • "Knowles said he had been to a nightclub until 2:00 am that day" - maybe "been at/in a nightclub"? They sound more appropriate than "to" here.
  • "Higgins failed to pot the last red and conceded the frame" - last red what?
  • "Reardon, a six-times champion" - shouldn't this be "six-time champion"?
  • "he had not sufficiently recovered from a broken leg sustained in October 1981" - "he had not sufficiently recovered after sustaining a broken leg in October 1981"
Great work just like all of the other articles in this series. If possible, I would be really glad if you were able to contribute something at my currently active FAC.--NØ 11:05, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Lee Vilenski are you going to address these and will you consider leaving comments at my FAC linked above? Hope you're able to see this.--NØ 01:11, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi MaranoFan. Thanks for the review. I've amended the article in response to most of your comments, except the one about linking newspapers. My understanding is that there should be consistency in whether types of source are linked, and not a presumption that all newspapers will be. But I'm happy to make this amendment if necessary. Regards. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 20:30, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Great work, Benny. I am going to support the article for promotion.--NØ 17:11, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Epicgenius

[edit]

I will leave some feedback a little bit. If I forget to leave any feedback within two days, feel free to ping me. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:28, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Epicgenius. I am considering archiving this as it is six weeks since it was nominated and a consensus to promote does not seem to be forming. So I was wondering if you might be able to start your review within the next day or two. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:57, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. Here are my initial comments:
Lead:
  • "at the Crucible Theatre, located in Sheffield, England" - I think this can just be "at the Crucible Theatre in Sheffield, England"
  • "the only one that carried world ranking points" - As in the only tournament of the season that decided a player's status in the world rankings?
  • "World Professional Billiards and Snooker Association (WPBSA) handled the organisation for the event" - I'm not sure if it's an ENGVAR thing but isn't it "the organisation of the event"?
  • Amended, and also changed "handled" to "governed" as in those days there was a separate promoter, Mike Watterson, who was very hands-on in terms of the organisation. He's mentioned in the body. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 08:42, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "with a score of 18–12 in a score of 18–12" - I'm guessing this is repeated by mistake.
  • "becoming the latest champion who failed to defend his first world title at the venue" - Currently, this phrasing seems to imply that there would be previous champions who failed to defend their first world title at the Crucible Theatre. Since I don't see any mention of any such champions, perhaps this can be condensed.
More later. – Epicgenius (talk) 19:22, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Epicgenius ? Gog the Mild (talk) 17:19, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I did not receive a ping and didn't know about this until now. I intend to review the rest of the article today. – Epicgenius (talk) 17:05, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overview:
  • "The World Snooker Championship is the official world championship of professional snooker. Developed in the late 19th century by British Army soldiers stationed in India, the cue sport..." - The wording used here, in which the fact that snooker is only mentioned as a cue sport in the second sentence, is quite awkward. I think the wording on 2018 World Snooker Championship is also applicable here and flows much more naturally: "The World Snooker Championship is an annual cue sport tournament and is the official world championship of the game of snooker.[1] Snooker was founded in the late 19th century by British Army soldiers stationed in India.[2] The sport originated by players from the United Kingdom, and later players from Europe and the Commonwealth."
  • "Nowadays, snooker is played worldwide, especially becoming popular in East and Southeast Asia" - This is also a strange sentence structure, particular the "especially becoming popular" part. I'd say: "Nowadays, snooker is played worldwide and has become especially popular in East and Southeast Asia".
  • "There were 67 entrants for the 1982 tournament" - Shouldn't this be entrants in the tournament? Alternatively, you can use active voice e.g. "The 1982 tournament had 67 entrants". But see below.
  • "There were 67 entrants for the 1982 tournament including the qualifying event, a new record" - To me, it seems like the phrase "1982 tournament including the qualifying event" is missing something, even though it's grammatically correct (there were 67 entrants in the tournament, but only if you count the qualifying event). I think this can be remedied by putting that clause first, e.g. "In the 1982 tournament including the qualifying event, there were 67 entrants, a new record"
  • "The breakdown of prize money on offer for 1982 is shown below:" - There is a sentence after this, so the colon should be a period. Or, you can move this sentence to the end of the paragraph.
More later. (I promise I won't just go silent for a month this time around. I'll have the remaining comments by tomorrow, 7 July.) – Epicgenius (talk) 23:00, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
LOL. Mental image of big clock ticking. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:27, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Tournament summary:
  • "Knowles said he had been at a nightclub until 2:00 am that day and had slept for only five hours." - Knowles had only slept for five hours and still won? That's impressive.
  • "Bear won the next three frames to reduce the lead to 7–5, but Werbeniuk won 10–7." - Would it be better to say "Werbeniuk ultimately won 10–7"?
  • "Eight-time champion Fred Davis, the event's oldest competitor at the age of 68, lost 7–10 to Dean Reynolds, who at 19 was the youngest participant in the tournament" - I think "in the tournament" may be unnecessary given that "the event" is already mentioned in the beginning of the sentence.
  • "The referee could have interpreted this as Fagan conceding the frame" - "This" being hitting the cue ball while it's still moving?
  • "Higgins won the first three frames of his match against Mountjoy; two of them on the final black ball after trailing on points in each of them, and finished their first session leading 6–2." - The semicolon should really be a comma, as the second half of the sentence isn't a standalone sentence.
  • "making a break of 126" - Was this when White led Stevens 10–6?
  • "White left Higgins with a chance in the second frame but Higgins failed to pot the last red ball" - Does this mean White intentionally didn't pot the red ball so as to give Higgins an opportunity to do so?
  • "In the third session, White took three of the first four frames, compiling a break of 89 in the fourth of these to lead 11–8," - The last period should be a comma.
  • "Charlton gained a 3–0 lead over Reardon[42] but lost the next four frames. Reardon made breaks of 50, 47, 48 and 35" - These breaks being the next four frames? If so, I would make that a bit clearer.
  • "It was Higgins's fourth world final following his win in 1972, and his losing appearances in the 1976 and 1980 finals." - Is the comma necessary?
  • "The 1982 final was a rematch of the 1976 final, which Reardon won 27–16." I'd suggest "which Reardon had won"
  • "Before the tourament" - There is a spelling error.
  • "He was fined £1,000 by the Association, for bringing the game into disrepute." - Would it be better to say "The Association fined him £1,000 for bringing the game into disrepute"?
Main draw, Qualifying, Century breaks - No issues with the prose there.
That's all from me. This is a pretty well-written article, and I was only able to find relatively few issues. – Epicgenius (talk) 16:33, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from JennyOz

[edit]

Hello Lee - and Benny? I have a few questions and suggestions for clarity or to avoid ambiguity...

  • Steve Davis had defeated Doug Mountjoy with a score of 18–12 in a score of 18–12 in the previous year's final - score is repeated
  • In 1982, he lost 1–10 to Tony Knowles - change "he" to Davis
  • champion who failed to defend his first world title - champion to fail to defend his
  • popular in the United Kingdom before being introduced to Europe - mainland Europe (or rest of Europe or wider Europe)
  • Nowadays, snooker is played worldwide, especially in East and Southeast Asian nations - "especially" is wrong word? ie sounds like is played more there than anywhere else? Maybe, 'especially becoming popular in...'
  • nations such as China, Hong Kong and Thailand - HK not a nation
  • Joe Davis won the first World Championship, in 1927, at Camkin's Hall in Birmingham, England. - maybe 'Championship held in 1927 at Camkin's '
  • amended, but retained the comma after "Championship"
  • There were 67 entrants for the 1982 tournament, a new record.[10] - add 'including the qualifying event' (because you called it a "pre-tournament" event)
  • This was the first world championship to have 32 players - 'all' 32
  • Not amended (yet). 1980 and 1981 had 24 players in the main event, and the few years preceding that had 16, so the point is that the total number was increased. I'll find a source to add something about the number of players in the main event changing, and reword. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:38, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The breakdown of prize money for 1982 is shown below - money on offer? ie if no max break achieved the £110,000 would not be awarded, add 'possible'? ie breakdown of possible prize money
  • was a new record high for the world - high is redundant?
  • after Davis failed to pot the final black ball twice - twice failed to pot
  • Without making a significant break, Davis won - wlink break
  • Davis made a foul shot - wlink
  • by lightly feathering the cue ball while - accidentally?
  • and played without vision aids. - without any eyewear?
  • John Virgo defeated Mike Hallett 10–4 after leading 7–2. - add 'in the first session'
  • Terry Griffiths, the next bookmakers' favourite after Steve Davis's - the bookmakers' next favourite
  • Terry Griffiths, the next bookmakers' favourite after Steve Davis's elimination elimination - repeated word
  • Alex Higgins, who had said he was having - wlink AH
  • Fagan made the highest break of match - break of 'thrir' match
  • five of the top-eight seeds were - is hyphen necessary?
  • Steve Davis (1), Thorburn (2), Griffiths (3) - I'd put 'seeded' in the first parentheses to help reader ie Steve Davis (seeded 1),
  • who were also the top-three - hyphen needed?
  • Knowles defeated Miles by 13–7 - remove by
  • Francisco won the first four frames of his match against Reynolds, and after leading 5–3 and 9–5,[28] won it 13–8.[29] - this is repeated from previous paragraph
  • Higgins then won the next three consecutively for 12–10 - consecutively is redundant
  • Stevens defeated Fagan by 13–7 - remove by
  • File Jimmy White alt=Jimmy White wearing a waistcoar and bow tie - typo waistcoat
  • when Knowles missed an routine green ball. - 'a' routine
  • After this, Charlton made a break of 78 - Charlton then made a break
  • White, by defeating Stevens, had become the - add 'in the quarter-finals' after Stevens
  • White made breaks of 60 and 38, and won the second frame to even the score - ?
  • White again drew level at 4–4 - remove "again" or add a comma after "level"
  • compiling a breaks of 69 in the first and 52 in the second - remove "a"
  • White won the first frame of the fourth session and Higgins fluked a brown in the following frame, which he went on to win. The scores were level at 13–13 - should be 12-12? ie they were 11-11 at end last session?
  • In the 32nd frame, White was 59 points - should that be 30th frame?
  • Reardon won five successive frames to with the match 16–11 - "with" --> win
  • Amended per the six point above. 10:52, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Sheffield Snooker Centre - is that a different venue to the Crucible?
  • There was a £5,000 bonus for compiling a break higher than the championship record of 145. - 'On offer' was a £5,000 bonus ...
  • Missing? - any reaction in media worth reporting? How were players rankings affected after final?
  • I've added some notes on ranking changes, and about the post-tournament disciplinary that Higgins faced. I couldn't really find anything in the way of reflective commentary about the tournament either in books or in newspapers; most discuss the semi-final between White and Higgins in at least as much detail as the final, and cover the same ground as in the seond paragraph of the section about the final. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 17:09, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, JennyOz (talk) 15:48, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, JennyOz. There are a couple of points still outstanding from above that I'll look at sources for. Hopefully I haven't created any new problems whilst addressing your comments. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:52, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the delay in responding, JennyOz. Thanks again for your careful and constructive review. Let me know about anything that still needs addressing. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 17:09, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Looking good, Benny. Just a few new minor tweaks...
  • re Epic's suggestion ""at the Crucible Theatre, located in Sheffield, England" - I think this can just be "at the Crucible Theatre in Sheffield, England"" - I think he meant to remove "located in" not remove "England"?
  • Davis made a foul shot by - wlink?
  • Griggiths, who had been third - typo Griffiths
  • who had been third, droped to - typo dropped
  • by accidentaly lightly feathering - typo accidentally
  • latest edit (by IP) - if letting that stand, at "when his championship first rank position" change "his" to "Higgins's"
  • Ref 49 new Everton book Black Farce and Cue ball Wizards - cap B on ball and format the ISBN per others
That's it from me. Looking forward to s'porting! JennyOz (talk) 06:17, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, JennyOz! Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 09:18, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for tweaks Benny, I am happy to sign my support for promotion. (cc Gog), JennyOz (talk) 10:23, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

Spotchecks not done. Version reviewed

  • "It was the 19th event of the 1981–82 snooker season and the only one that carried world ranking points." - source?
  • Be consistent in when/if you include publication location
  • What makes Rose Villa Publications a high-quality reliable source?
  • They publish local news outlets (website) but really, in my opinion, the credibility of the source derives from the authors. Hayton was the managing editor of CueSport magazine (at least for part of its history), which was nationally distributed in the UK from 2000 to 2009. John Dee, who was also associated with CueSport and contributed to the book, was the snooker editor of The Daily Telegraph. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 15:10, 1 July 2022 (UTC)Terry Smith, another Telegraph correspondent, and author/editor of a few snooker books, was also a contributor to the magazine.[reply]
  • FN4: edition should be in its own parameter
  • Be consistent in when/if you include publisher for periodicals
Thank you for the review, Nikkimaria. I really appreciate it. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 15:31, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nikkimaria, how is this looking now? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:06, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Should be good to go. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:42, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 10 July 2022 [28].

Armadillo shoe

[edit]
Nominator(s): ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:43, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

British designer Alexander McQueen was a wild child of fashion, a theatrical mastermind known for runway shows that doubled as performance art. Never was that more true than at his final show, Plato's Atlantis (2009), which featured a number of models walking in foot-tall armadillo shoes that made them look like alien ballerinas. The shoes were both lauded and loathed by the press and the public: many reviews called them grotesque and beautiful in the same sentence. Lady Gaga became famously associated with them after wearing them in a music video and on the red carpet. They remain a subject of fascination for academics and fashion journalists – and me – to this day. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:43, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Support by Lee Vilenski

[edit]

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

Lede
  • I feel like this format is approximately the same as having the year after an album, which is pretty standard (see the lead of Lady Gaga, for example).
  • I suppose not
Prose
  • I don't see how it's a jump. A bit shocking, yes, but factual and contextually relevant.
  • Thanks, me too! The sketch especially was a godsend because I could not get my head around them before I saw it.
  • Fixed
  • Fixed
Additional comments

Additionally, if you liked this review, or are looking for items to review, I have some at my nominations list. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:36, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from ChrisTheDude

[edit]
  • Spring/Summer 2010 - seasons aren't normally written with capital letters
  • Normally no, but in the fashion world "Spring/Summer" and "Fall/Winter" are used as proper nouns denoting seasons of fashion as opposed to natural seasons, the other two being Resort and Pre-Fall (see [29], [30], [31], [32] for a couple of examples).
  • "suggesting that the models have evolved" => "had evolved"
  • Fixed
  • "final fully-realized collection" - McQueen was British, so shouldn't British spellings be used per WP:TIES.....?
  • Lol yep. I'm a bad Canadian.
  • "21 pairs were crafted" - any way to avoid starting a sentence with a digit? It looks wrong to me......
  • Fixed
  • "Lady Gaga, then his fiancé" - Gaga is female, so it should be spelt fiancée
  • Whoops

Aoba47

[edit]
  • I have a clarification question about this sentence: McQueen admitted in an interview with trade journal Women's Wear Daily that he had never tested the armadillos personally. Would it be normal for McQueen to test out his designs personally (i.e. is this abnormal for him to not do this) or is this pretty standard for him?
  • This is something specific to these shoes, rather than something that would normally be expected for a designer to do. I put that quote in because it plays into the feminist critique that comes later in the article, that a man would expect women to wear these heavy, impossibly high shoes that have zero basis in reality, but not even test them out himself.
  • Thank you for the explanation. That makes sense to me. I have seen some interesting discussions about McQueen, where some call him anti-woman/misogynist and others that call him pro-woman/feminist (including Lady Gaga). Aoba47 (talk) 01:00, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not necessary for the FAC, but I would archive all the web citations to avoid any future headaches. Citation 29 (i.e. the Glamour citation on Kelis) was what lead me to post this comment. I believe a majority of the web citations are already archived so this may just be the odd one out.
  • Whoops yeah forgot. Done now.
  • It happens to the best of us. Thankfully, it was a live citation so it was not difficult to archive. I probably just noticed it because I forgot (or was just not aware) that Kelis owned a pair of these shoes. Aoba47 (talk) 01:00, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have a clarification question about this sentence: In 2012, British Vogue called them one of the 20 most iconic shoes of all time. Is it British Vogue or British Vogue? The prose and citation have it both ways.
  • The magazine is just called Vogue, but informally calls itself British Vogue to distinguish itself from the original American Vogue. Our article is named on that basis, and doesn't italicize "British" in its title. Unfortunately, {{cite web}} doesn't let you do partial italics in the "website" parameter, so I'm forced to italicize the whole thing.
  • That is what I had figured, but I wanted to make sure anyway. That makes sense to me. You are consistent through the article with the British Vogue representation so that makes it clear to me (and to readers in general). Aoba47 (talk) 01:00, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderful work with the article. My comments are rather nitpick-y so apologies for that. Once everything has been addressed, I will be more than happy to support this FAC for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 15:56, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Aoba, thanks as always for your commentary, which is always thoughtful! I've responded to your comments, let me know if you feel anything remains unaddressed. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:52, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your responses! I support the article based on the prose. I greatly appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia and I had a lot of fun reading about this article. It was a huge blast of nostalgia for that period of Gaga's career lol. Best of luck with this FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 01:00, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Aoba47 this is a bit late but I'm glad to hear you enjoyed the article. It was a lot of fun to write about and I was so pleased when I found enough sourcing to hit GA/FA. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:09, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

Spotchecks not done

  • FN1: this appears to have been specifically in the magazine rather than BBC News generally
  • Weird. Okay, I've changed the link
  • Be consistent in whether publication locations are included for books and if so how these are formatted
  • I've added these. The only instance where I didn't was where Oxford University was the publisher, because Cite book says not to put a location where the publisher includes the location
  • Oh, I totally misread that. Seems weird to me, but I've changed it.
  • Access dates aren't helpful for GBooks
  • Removed
  • What makes Daily Beast a high-quality reliable source? GeminiDragon?
  • At RSP, Daily Beast is shown in yellow for being biased/opinionated rather than for journalistic integrity issues. Per WP:BIASED, biased sources can be acceptable if there is editorial control, fact-checking, and independence. There is also more leeway given when it is the site's opinion being cited. In this case I believe the DB articles cited pass muster.
  1. The "Best Shoes Ever" DB article has been cited by other sources including this book, Christie's, i-D by Vice, indicating that it is considered reliable by those publications
  2. The author of that article has also written for WSJ, NYT, and several other publications, so I have no concerns about her journalistic qualifications.
  3. For the most part, in this article the content cited to the Best Shoes DB article is supported by other sources, indicating that the facts are in line with what other sources are reporting (I would prefer to keep it even where other sources are used as it sometimes backs up similar but not identical facts)
  4. In other cases it is citing opinions, such as in the last paragraph - I am happy to change to in-text attribution for those, if that would help.
  • The book from GeminiDragon was a republication of a Prentice Hall/Person Education book, but I wound up ditching it anyway as I had other sources that said the same.
  • Check that date formatting is consistent throughout - eg FN12
  • Should now be fixed
  • Metropolitan Museum or The Metropolitan Museum?
  • Made consistent
  • Check formatting of quote marks within quote marks
  • Can you specify where I have a quote within a quote? I don't see one.
  • Ah, I see. I've adjusted those to be singles now.
  • Are FNs 4 and 22 the same source?
  • Fixed
  • Be consistent in whether you include publishers for periodicals
  • I have done so consistent with the citation template guidance, which says the publisher should be omitted when it's substantially the same as the work.
  • Be consistent in whether museums are treated as publishers or works.
  • I assume this is in reference to the "Museum of Savage Beauty" from the V&A. "The Museum of Savage Beauty" is just the name of the website for the McQueen exhibition, and the website is published by the V&A. There is no actual separate museum entity by that name. In terms of the Met, I put Met as the website where I'm citing the Met's website (FN17 & 18), and Met as the publisher where it's the publisher of a book (FN20).
  • Well...for whatever reason, that particular article isn't on the Museum of Savage Beauty site, even though it's McQueen-related. It's just on the main Victoria & Albert website. So I put V&A as the website. I'm not sure how else to handle the distinction.

Nikkimaria (talk) 03:31, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments, Nikkimaria, I am sorry that it took me several days to respond. Let me know what you think. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:52, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass

[edit]

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:17, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 9 July 2022 [33].

Judith Resnik

[edit]
Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:05, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Judith Resnik, one of the original six American women astronauts who died in the Space Shuttle Challenger disaster. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:05, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

[edit]

Recusing to review.

Thanks. This is much appreciated. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:08, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in military intelligence and aerial reconnaissance in the Pacific Theater and the Occupation of Japan." Possibly some commas, or a mild rephrasing, would avoid the reading that he worked in "aerial reconnaissance in ... the Occupation of Japan"?
    What's the problem? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:01, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    As it stands it reads that Resnik served in both military intelligence and aerial reconnaissance during the occupation of Japan. I am assuming, possibly incorrectly, that there was little call for aerial reconnaissance during the occupation of Japan.
    I am not assuming that. The source says: "He was stationed in New Guinea, and after the war, in Kyoto, Japan, doing both aero reconnaissance and prisoner interrogation." Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:42, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and with whom she became quite close." Why the qualifying "quite"? It seems wishy washy and I can't find where this is in the source given.
    Just my way of talking. Deleted "quite". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:01, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "one of six women selected out of over 8,000 male and female applicants". Is it known how many men were selected?
    Twenty-nine. Added. There is a detailed breakdown in the NASA Astronaut Group 8 article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:01, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "During the second attempt the following day". 'The following day, during the second attempt' would avoid the possibility of a misreading.
    Um, okay. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:01, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Space Shuttle Main Engines". Why the upper case M and E? I note that the source - NASA - uses lower case.
    Lower cased. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:01, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Discovery landed back at Edwards Air Force Base on September 5, after a flight lasting 6 days and 56 minutes." This jars a little as a single sentence paragraph and I don't think it necessary.
    We need it because her time in space is required. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:01, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a trouble bolt on the Space Shuttle Challenger's door." What is "a trouble bolt"?
    Changed to "troublesome". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:01, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Also, was it a threaded bolt or part of door latching/locking mechanism?
  • "reminding the cockpit crew of a switch configuration change". What is "a switch configuration change"?
    Gee, I don't know that either. Looking it up on StackExchange:

    A primary flight instrument for the shuttle pilots was the Attitude Direction Indicator (ADI). In the STS-51L days this was a electromechanical instrument. Pre-launch, the ADI ATTITUDE switch is set to the REF position, although LVLH is the desired frame of reference for flying the Orbiter in "airplane mode". This means that shortly after liftoff, the switch must be moved to LVLH to set up the instrument for a possible ascent abort. Although it was desirable to avoid switch throws during ascent, the switch could not be pre-positioned to LVLH by the Astronaut Support Personnel (ASPs, or "Cape Crusaders") who set the cockpit switches, because there was a singularity in the calculations of LVLH attitude at pitch of 90 degrees (which the Orbiter was at on the pad). [34]

    Any chance of informing the readers of that? Either by adding a brief "translation" or by replacing the technical term with a more plain English version.
    Yes, I have done this. Added it in a footnote. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:42, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Resnik was reading from the launch checklist. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:01, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "three of the crew members' Personal Egress Air Packs were activated for pilot Michael J. Smith and two other crew members." You don't need "three of the crew members" and "pilot Michael J. Smith and two other crew members." (Suggest deleting the former.
    Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:01, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Landmarks and buildings being named for her include". Why do you use the word "being"?
    Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:01, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "verified by flight experience (include launch date)". I don't understand what is meant by the words in parentheses.
    It's part of the application form. Replaced with ellipsis Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:01, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The goal of the center is to increase science, technology, engineering, and mathematics interest in children." This seems a little clumsy, even ungrammatical. Perhaps 'The goal of the center is to increase the interest of children in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics'?
    Reworded as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:01, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • No publisher for Wayne?
    Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:01, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild (talk) 21:46, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt

[edit]
  • I find the first sentence a bit unwieldy. Can we not cut it off after the disaster and put the other links somewhere else? This leads into my other comment re the lead, that the discussion of her NASA service should be expanded, after all, you use only two paragraphs for the lead. I note that the discussion of her time at NASA is the lead is small in proportion to that in the body of the article.
    Expanded intro. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:42, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "His family had emigrated to Israel in the 1920s," It wasn't Israel yet. Perhaps "British mandatory Palestine" or some such?
    Well spotted. Changed asc suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:42, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • It might be worthy of note (or might not) that in 1962, it was quite unusual for girls to mark their Bat Mitzvah.
    Yes! This points to things to come. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:42, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I suppose it is unusual for the child to be initiator, it's not at all unusual for a court to place custody where a mature teenager prefers, since such a person is the 800-pound gorilla of custody law, that sleeps where they want to.(probably no action required).
    Good to hear; back then the interests of the child were not paramount in the US. I have seen this happen: a teenager decides that they would rather live with their father and just moves out. When the Child Support Agency finds out, they cut the mother's child support payments. But no court action is required. What I've noticed is that most astronauts have good relationships with both their parents, but tend to be closer to their fathers. The only exception I've come across so far has been Scott Carpenter, whose father was absent. But of six biographies of women astronauts, three had bad relationships with their mothers. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:42, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In her second year she developed a passion for electrical engineering, discovering her interest in "practical aspects of science" after attending lectures with her boyfriend and future husband, Michael Oldak, who was on the engineering course.[1] " What do you mean by "who was on the engineering course"? Doesn't sound like AmEng to me. If he was taking the same class, that is already implied; if he was an engineering major, I would phrase it in terms of that.
    Yes. Sometimes you can see me thinking the sentence through. Deleted that phrase. Trying to get AmEng right is a big problem for me. The automated checkers do not pick up on such things. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:42, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Georgetown University law school," I would cap throughout, and possibly say and link "Georgetown University Law Center"
    I don't know why the call it that. I was afraid that readers would think it was a legal aid centre or some such. Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:42, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Jordan later regretted doing so." I might come out and say "After her death, Jordan regretted doing so"
    Just trying not to foreshadow. Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:42, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Was she recruited or did she apply? There apparently was a process, since she dated other candidates.
    Yes, there was an elaborate process, which I have written up at great length in NASA Astronaut Group 8. Changed to "selected". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:42, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Discovery landed back at Edwards Air Force Base on September 5, after a flight lasting 6 days and 56 minutes." Why "back"? It hadn't launched from there.
    Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:42, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Space Shuttle Challenger's door." The door spoken of is perhaps one of the payload bay doors? Then shouldn't "door" be plural?
    No, it was the door. Changed to "hatch". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:42, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it worth mentioning she's commemorated on the Space Mirror Memorial?
    Sure. Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:42, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:02, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Wehwalt (talk) 16:25, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Kusma

[edit]

I reviewed the article for GA and am happy with its sourcing. I am also pleased to see that it has been further improved based on the comments above. I only have some small things:

  • "She piloted the Northrop T-38 Talon." a rather short sentence that perhaps could be clarified by saying that this was part of her astronaut training, not her civilian fun (which isn't obvious if you don't know what type of plane it is).
    Added a bit about this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:26, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "In popular culture" section is a bit short. Is there a way to merge it into "Legacy"? (A well justified "no" would be fine).
    Merged with Legacy section. It was once larger. I had retained it to collect additions. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:26, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd also like to hear that your decision not to talk about Franz Strambach here (author of the most comprehensive Judith Resnik website) is deliberate. I think that arguments could be made in either direction.
    I'd never heard of it. It seems fairly trivial and incidental, but added a footnote about it. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:26, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I had mentioned it while making conversation during the GA review. The footnote strikes the right balance for me (I find it borderline worthy of inclusion in a comprehensive treatment).

That's all from me. —Kusma (talk) 12:45, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Balon Greyjoy

[edit]

Article looks in good shape! Some comments:

  • Not all of the photos have alt text.
    Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:58, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Bat Mitzvah was not common at this time." It's not clear how this fits into Resnik's story; was there resistance to her having a Bar Mitzvah?
    The majority of Orthodox and some Conservative Jews still reject the idea that a woman can publicly read from the Torah or lead prayer services. The more important point here that Wehwalt and I are emphasising is that Resnik grew up in an environment that was supportive of female equality. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:58, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Resnik was noticed for "intellectual brilliance" while still in kindergarten" I don't think "intellectual brilliance" needs to be directly quoted; it's not attributed to anyone and can be paraphrased without a loss of meaning.
    The idea was to avoid paraphrasing. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:58, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Why would paraphrasing be avoided on a two word quote? It's not a profound/unique quote. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 09:27, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Removed the quotation marks. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:29, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Playing classical piano with "more than technical mastery", she planned on becoming a professional concert pianist" It's not clear what it means to even be more advanced than technical mastery (which comes across like it is the highest level). Wouldn't it just be appropriate to say she was skilled in piano and planned to become a professional pianist?
    It makes it clear clear that this was a real prospect. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:58, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "When questioned about her intensity at the piano, she replied, "I never play anything softly"." I don't think this adds to any claims of her skills playing piano. Additionally, is this from an interview or just her commenting that she plays the piano loudly?
    She is talking metaphorically. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:58, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but the metaphor of her playing loudly doesn't translate to her being a skilled pianist. The reference makes no mention of the metaphor, and the sentence itself is pretty close to the reference sentence, albeit flipped around. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 09:27, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:29, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The college entry and major selection is confusing. It starts off by saying she became an electrical engineering student, then goes into her deciding to become an electrical engineering student. Maybe something like, "She began college as a math major, but after attending lectures with her boyfriend, discovered an interest in electrical engineering and switched her major".
    Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:58, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Oldak said, "She was a math whiz, but at some point math lost the numbers and she wanted something more tangible so she switched her collegiate major to electrical engineering"." I think this quote can be paraphrased and put into the previous sentence, as it's already been addressed that she liked math but wanted practical applications.
    Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:58, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Carnegie Mellon University (as it now was)" Maybe move the Carnegie Mellon name change earlier? It's not clear if the college changed its name by the time she graduated, or if the name changed sometime before present day.
    I think it is clear enough that the name changed while she was there. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:58, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "attention of NASA during this time" Anyone particular at NASA? Did someone reach out to ask her about her paper?
    Source doesn't say. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:58, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "he wanted to start a family and she did not" I think this should be that he wanted to have children and she did not; they already had a family between the two of them.
    Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:58, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "After her death, Jordan regretted doing so. "She was an amazing person... I pushed her to excel, and I live with that memory every day."" I don't think this needs to be included. It jumps ahead in the chronology of the article, and it just seems like understandable regret from someone who encouraged her to apply.
    Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:58, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "where she would jog along the beach to improve her stamina and reduce her weight" Is this significant? Was she out of shape/overweight? It seems like it's just someone routinely exercising.
    Resnik struggled with her weight. The reader can see this in the images. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:58, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I may just be desensitized to overweight people in America, but I don't think any of the pictures make it look like Resnik was overweight. It seems like pretty standard exercising, especially for someone trying to be an astronaut. I don't think it needs to be stated, let alone explained why someone would run for exercise. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 09:27, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    In this case it is about her purpose: gaining astronaut selection. It wasn't common back then, especially for women, and demonstrates her determination to be selected. She is the only member her her class that I have examined so far who did this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:57, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This involved taking a pay cut, as her new salary was considerably less than what she was being paid at Xerox." Seeing as her pay isn't mentioned at all through the rest of the article, I'm not sure why this is mentioned. Did it factor into her decision to join NASA?
    Clearly not. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:58, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    So why is it being mentioned then? It seems like an out of place detail. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 09:27, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Precisely because it tells the reader that Resnik was not doing it for the money. Military astronauts were still paid their usual salaries; some of the others, like Sally Ride, were paid more than they were getting before; but Resnik took a pay cut. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:29, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "She dated some of her fellow astronaut candidates, who nicknamed her "JR"." This reads like it was a nickname only from the astronaut candidates she dated. Additionally, did she go by JR or did they sometime just call her by her initials?
    It's a military custom. Her fellow astronauts in Group 8 called her that all the time. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:58, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I wouldn't categorize using initials to refer to someone as a military custom, unlike the use of a callsign. Also, I don't have my copy of Mullane's book with me (currently moving back to the US) but I don't recall him referring to her as JR. I would argue that initials are just as much of a standard nickname as an abbreviated/informal first name, and there's no explanation for why she was called "Judy" (nor should there be). Balon Greyjoy (talk) 09:27, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It was more of a callsign. I have re-worded to make it clear that it was used by all the astronauts in her class. I don't know of any other astronauts who were nicknamed with their initials. If you read Mullane's book, you will find constant references to it. (She called him "Tarzan".) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:29, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Did she seriously date her fellow astronaut candidates? Simply saying that she dated some of them without further details may have some negative connotations and somewhat implies promiscuity. I don't want to break WP:NPOV, but I also think it's important not to imply things that could be perceived negatively, especially when it is a relatively minor details. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 09:27, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Sally Ride and Rhea Seddon also dated more than one other astronaut, and they eventually married one. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:29, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "as it had some similarities to the Space Shuttle" I'm not sure about this. T-38s at NASA pre-date the Space Shuttle, and NASA used a modified Gulfstream to simulate flying the orbiter.
    Correct. "The flying is not an exact physical simulation; the astronauts use the Shuttle Training Aircraft, or STA, for that. But flying the approach in a T-38 shows them what a landing in the shuttle will look like, time and time again." Deleted phrase to avoid confusion. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:58, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Astronaut Jerome Apt described her as "an excellent pilot and a superb operator in space"" Since she an Apt weren't on the same missions, its not clear how his testimony fits in here. If he was the CapCom or backup crew, wouldn't this make more sense under the STS-41 section?
    We're talking about her pilot skills here. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:58, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The last paragraph of the Selection section leans heavily on the opinions of Rhea Seddon, but it's not clear why she's being quoted, as it's not like she was in the position to make astronaut assignments. Regardless, I don't think there needs to be a quote talking about how much fun she was at happy hour.
    It tells us about Resnik's personality. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:58, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The first Seddon quote doesn't mention Resnik's personality; it was just Seddon's opinion on who would be picked. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 09:27, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "During a visit to a contractor's factory, Resnik whispered to Mullane: "there are no maidens on this flight"." What does this mean? I thought it might be a Selleck quote but nothing popped up when I searched for it. Unless I'm missing an obvious reference, it doesn't belong in the article.
    Resnik asserts her equality with the male astronauts. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:58, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That is not clear from the quote; it just reads like it's an offhand comment made to Mullane. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 09:27, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "She advocated the benefits of the solar array technology, particularly for future use in powering space stations" I'm assuming this occurred sometime after the mission? I'm assuming she did not begin advocating for a major tech change midway through a Space Shuttle mission.
    Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:58, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "send civilians on the Space Shuttle" would "private citizens" be better than "civilians?" A common definition for civilian is someone not in the military, which Resnik falls under.
    Not what we mean. Changed to "non-astronauts". The sources consistently use "civilians". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:58, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think the TV movie needs to be mentioned. There are already a lot of legacy/memorial things mentioned, and I don't think the role of a relatively unknown actress in a made-for-TV movie needs to be included, let alone in a standalone paragraph at the end of the section.
    I'm sure people will add more over time. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:58, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The IEEE source makes no mention of Resnik.
    A 301. Repaired. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:58, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • A number of the articles are missing dates.
    Added some. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:58, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I have! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 13:47, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work! I support this nomination. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 11:17, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note -- although I note that the GAN reviewer was satisfied with sourcing, I also carried out a source review for reliability and formatting and made a couple of minor tweaks; as there are no concerns I'm not going to recuse from closing this nom. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:36, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 7 July 2022 [35].

Shepseskaf

[edit]
Nominator(s): Iry-Hor (talk) 12:57, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Shepseskaf last pharaoh of the Fourth Dynasty, who ruled Ancient Egypt for 4 to 8 years in the late 26th to mid 25th century BC. Shepseskaf's relations to his predecessor and successor are uncertain and very few activities are known from his reign. Strikingly, he broke with the tradition of his forebears who had built the great pyramids of Giza, and chose instead to have a (relatively) small mastaba tomb built for himself in a remote corner of the Saqqara necropolis. The reasons for and significance of this decision continue to be debated in Egyptology.Iry-Hor (talk) 12:57, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Query by Support by WereSpielChequers

[edit]

Interesting topic, thanks for writing it. I've made a few tweaks, hope you like them. "He reigned most probably four but possibly up to seven years in the late 26th to mid 25th century BC." (my emphasis) Is a good sentence to have in the lede, but I'd expect a couple of sentences in the body of the text explaining that the chronology of early Egyptian history has not been precisely linked to our modern calendar. ϢereSpielChequers 08:20, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done WereSpielChequers Thank you for your comment, I agree with you so I have updated with the following (at the beginning of the "Reign" section):
In addition, all exact dates estimated for Shepseskaf's reign are detailed in the footnote [note 1], which is also available from the infobox. Also, did you know that in the infobox if you click on the [show] button next to "Royal Titulary", the full titles of Shepseskaf will appear in hieroglyphics with translation ? I ask this because often people don't notice this button. Iry-Hor (talk) 18:57, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for making that change. I hadn't noticed the show button but have now tried it and like what it does. ϢereSpielChequers 10:52, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"A causeway led to a valley temple which has yet to be located" Would it be more correct to say "A causeway is assumed to have led to a valley temple which has yet to be located" or even "based on similar complexes, archaeologists expect that there would also have been a causeway leading to a valley temple. Neither the expected causeway or valley temple have yet been found, and it is unknown whether they were demolished and the stones reused, or they were not built in his short reign and not built by his successors".
Done WereSpielChequers so the causeway is there alright, at least its beginning is there as it is visible on archeological maps (e.g. in Lehner's book). I wrote "Remnants of a causeway have been found, it is supposed to have led to a valley temple which has yet to be located" which is very close to what you proposed.Iry-Hor (talk) 12:20, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. ϢereSpielChequers 11:50, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Family relations between the Pharoahs and queens of this era seem uncertain. We know that at a much later time the pharoahs were a very incestuos bunch, and a daughter could also be a grandaughter is there concensus among Egyptologists that this wasn't a feature of the fourth dynasty? ϢereSpielChequers 10:52, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I guess it was a feature of the 4th dynasty as well since e.g. at least one of Menkaure's wife was his sister. But I wrote "daughter and grandaughter" because that is exactly what the source says, I guess Kozloff wanted to say some close female descendant. I have not yet found a source discussing incestuous relationship in the 4th dynasty royal family in particular and in Shepseskaf's case we do not know for sure what relationships he had with his wives since we don't even know for sure who they were.Iry-Hor (talk) 12:20, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK, we can't go beyond the sources. I have my suspicions that this may have lead to much more complex interrelationships than whether three Pharoahs were a father and his two sons or two brothers and a nephew, and we have plenty of historic examples of monarchs whose claim of descent from their predecessors was a tad sketchy, but the official line was that the current guy was the legit heir of their predecessors. But if the Eyptologists aren't saying that then we can't. ϢereSpielChequers 11:50, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well some Egyptologists do say that perhaps Shepseskaf didn't have such a perfect claim to the throne: perhaps he took power only by marriage. There is, however, no trace of struggle at the time so he must have been relatively legitimate, at least enough to be accepted as a king but perhaps not enough to be given a pyramid as explained in the article. This is only one hypothesis among many though.Iry-Hor (talk) 15:30, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Niches I understand, but magazines? Is this a meaning of magazine that is jargon within Egyptology? I'm pretty sure this era won't have had gunpowder. ϢereSpielChequers 11:50, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WereSpielChequers Yes this is Egyptologic jargon, it essentially means storeroom or storage-space. I have changed it so it is clearer.Iry-Hor (talk) 15:30, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for resolving my pedanticisms, happy to support this interesting and well written article. ϢereSpielChequers 21:59, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Tim riley

[edit]

I hope to have a thorough perusal and then look in with a full review over the weekend, but from a quick canter through just now I notice that the spelling is a mish-mash of English and American: favour, favourite, hypothesises and recognised but center (twice), honoring and unrivaled. Either the Queen's English or Amerenglish is fine, of course, but it should be all one or the other, I think. (And I think Shepseskaf has got himself misspelled Shespeskaf in the penultimate para of the lead, though I didn't dare change it.) More anon. I'm looking forward to this. Tim riley talk 21:17, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tim riley So I chose to put everything into British English, I hope I did not miss anything now. And you are right there were two "Shespeskaf" misspelled in the article, thank your for spotting this! I am looking forward to your comments. Iry-Hor (talk) 06:10, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

These are my suggestions for tweaking the prose. I have no comments on the actual content – which seems to me comprehensively authoritative, and hugely interesting – and I can only salute the author, with admiration and envy, for such mastery of a language not his/her own.

  • Lead
  • This is merely a suggestion, but as a layman I'd have found it helpful to have "mastaba" given a very brief gloss at first mention: " – a burial mound – " or whatever the correct description is. And failing that (or even as well as that) there should be a blue link to mastaba.
Done I have done both, now "mastaba" is wikilinked and I say immediately after "that is a flat-roofed rectangular structure,". I hope this clarifies the subject enough for the lead.Iry-Hor (talk) 15:50, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Parents
  • "Shepseskaf was Menkaure's son based on a decree" – doesn't quite say what you want it to say. It was the hypothesis, not the parentage, that was based on a decree. You could smooth this over by rejigging on the lines of "hypothesised from a decree showing that Shepseskaf completed Menkaure's mortuary temple that Shepseskaf was Menkaure's son".
Done I wrote : "George Andrew Reisner who proposed that Shepseskaf was Menkaure's son. Reisner based his hypothesis on a decree showing that Shepseskaf completed Menkaure's mortuary temple.".Iry-Hor (talk) 15:50, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In stark contrast with these hypotheses" – I might lose the slightly editoral "stark".
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 15:50, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Queens and children
  • "Egyptologist Lana Troy" – a false title has crept in here, which we could do without.
Done I wrote "Lana Troy, an Egyptologist," let me know if this is suitable.
  • Reign
  • "Indeed, an absolute chronology" – this is the third "indeed" in successive sections. Admittedly there are only two more, later, but one does just begin to notice them, and I might lose this one: the prose works just as well without it.
Done thank you for your suggestion the prose feels lighter this way now.Iry-Hor (talk) 15:50, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relative chronology
  • "Archaeological evidences seem to indicate" – one can see why you go for a plural noun here, but I don't think it quite works in everyday English. I think "evidence seems" is probably safer.
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 15:50, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Three historical sources go directly or indirectly against this order of succession however" – I'm not a foaming-at-the-mouth opponent of "however", which has its place, but I don't think it adds anything here, and I'd delete it.
Done ! Iry-Hor (talk) 15:50, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Unfortunately, the five cartouches between those of Khafre and Userkaf are now illegible" – no doubt it is unfortunate, but that isn't for Wikipedia to say.
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 15:50, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Duration
  • "The duration of Shepseskaf's rule is uncertain but it is generally taken to have lasted likely four but perhaps up to seven years" – BrE has the peculiarity (among countless others) that "likely" in this construction isn't idiomatic, and "probably" is normal. (Quite why we prefer the woollier Latinism to the crisp Middle English word I have no idea, but there it is. Americans have more sense than we English do on this point.)
Done thank you I will try to keep this in mind. This is also somewhat closer to how we say this in French with "probablement" taken to mean that there is more chance for than against something.Iry-Hor (talk) 15:50, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"L'anglais, ce n'est jamais que du français mal prononcé" (Clemenceau). Tim riley talk 16:12, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Two historical sources report Shepseskaf's reign duration" – "reign duration" sounds alien to a speaker of the Queen's English (to this one, at any rate). I think we'd normally say "the duration of Shepseskaf's reign.
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 15:50, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Although such a reign length" – I think this variant just about passes muster as idiomatic BrE, and I shan't quarrel if you want to leave it as is.
I changed it to "Although this figure is..." is this better ?Iry-Hor (talk) 15:50, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Activities
  • "The Palermo stone reports that the year of his accession" – could do with "in" after "that".
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 15:50, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Finally Shepseskaf likely decreed" – another case for "probably" instead of "likely"
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 15:50, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This material allows for rapid constructions" – "construction" singular, I suggest, here.
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 15:50, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • End of Dynasty
  • "they likely belonged to the same family" – as before for "likely"
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 15:50, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Location
  • "This remains unverified as no palace of Old Kingdom king has been located" – would benefit from "an" or "any" before "Old", I think.
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 15:50, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decision to build a mastaba
  • "Hassan has put forth the idea" – "forth" is rather an antique term and "forward" would perhaps look more natural.
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 15:50, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "if Shepseskaf really did intend for his tomb to be a mastaba" – we don't want the "for" here: "did intend his tomb" would be normal BrE.
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 15:50, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Architecture
  • "Remnants of a causeway have been found, it is supposed to have led to a valley temple which has yet to be located" – comma splice. Replacing the comma with a semicolon will do the trick.
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 15:50, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Middle Kingdom
  • "The stele uncovered by Jéquier likely originated" – et encore
Indeed! Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 15:50, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "as pavement for the temple floor" – I think "as paving" (without the definite article) or else "as the pavement for the temple floor" would be usual.
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 15:52, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the deads of the surrounding necropolis" – again, I see why you have the plural, but I think a singular "the dead" is wanted here (twice).
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 15:52, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Those are my few suggestions. I'll look in again shortly and – I confidently expect – add my support. – Tim riley talk 15:24, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tim riley thank you for your comments, all addressed so far!Iry-Hor (talk) 15:52, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Good grief! That didn't take long. All my minor quibbles about the prose have been thoroughly dealt with, and I am happy to add my support for this article, which seems to me comprehensive, balanced, well and widely sourced, admirably illustrated and a really good read. Meets all the FA criteria in my judgement, and I look forward to seeing it on our front page in due course. Tim riley talk 16:03, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Funk

[edit]
Looking forward to it !Iry-Hor (talk) 07:07, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Palermo stone and Dahshur are duplinked. You can highlight duplink with this script:[36]
Fixed thanks for the tip !Iry-Hor (talk) 07:07, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link cartouche?
Done now it is linked in the caption of the main picture of the infobox and once in the main text.Iry-Hor (talk) 09:00, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "duration uncertain, probably 4 years but possibly up to 7 years" Should this begin with a capital letter? Same for other infobox sentences, seem to be capitalised in all other articles I checked. You also do it in the sentence after "Monuments", so in any case its inconsistent.
Fixed you are right I think consistency is the guiding principle here. I have capitalized throughout.Iry-Hor (talk) 09:00, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Radiocarbon studies have yielded" What was used for the dating?
Done that is one hell of a good question ! The article explicitly states that multiple sources were used to evaluate the absolute chronology from the second to the early 6th dynasty: archaeological samples to measure fluctuations in radiocarbon activity, specific information on radiocarbon activity in the region of the Nile Valley (anchored by dendrochronology to absolute dates), direct linkages between the dated samples and historical chronology and relative dating information. Samples dated to specific reigns were collected from museum, collections and excavation material while certain types of material (notably charcoal and mummified remains) were avoided owing to their susceptibility to contamination. I have some text to the footnote on the matter.Iry-Hor (talk) 09:00, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bunefer is linked twice in close succession in the infobox.
Fixed.Iry-Hor (talk)
  • Link more names and terms in image captions.
Done this might have added duplinks with the main text though.Iry-Hor (talk) 09:00, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That should be fine, like the intro, the captions are separate from the article body. FunkMonk (talk) 16:55, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link radiocarbon dating.
Done once in the footnote and once in the main text.Iry-Hor (talk) 09:00, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ptahshepses is linked at second instead of first mention, if these are meant to be the same person.
Fixed yes it is the same person.Iry-Hor (talk) 09:00, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the fifth dynasty royal annal known as the Palermo stone" It has already been presented by this point, so the introduction could be cut here.
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 09:00, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Verner points notably to the unfinished state of his mastaba to conclude Shepseskaf's rule did not exceed the four years attributed to him by the Turin canon." What is the correlation?
Fixed. A mastaba is takes time to build and the unfinished state of the tomb gives some indication on the reign duration. Indeed one of the first act of a pharaoh was to decide the location of his tomb and start works there (the Palermo stone notably states that Shepseskaf did so shortly after ascending the throne). These works stopped or were at least interrupted at the death of the king, with the successor sometimes deciding to complete the tomb, usually with cheaper techniques which can be distinguished from the original construction. Depending on the final state of the originally planned tomb, one can thus conclude on the maximum duration of the reign. Had Shepseskaf reigned longer than 4 years, his mastaba would have been more advanced at his death than it is, according to Verner. I have added a footnote with this explanation (footnote 9).Iry-Hor (talk) 09:00, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The note for "senuti shrine" doesn't explain what "senuti" means.
Unfortunately I can't help, I wondered the same question but couldn't find a source on the subject matter. It is likely that some scholarly article exists somewhere on the notion of Senuti shrine but I couldn't find one. The fact that the source referenced here (as well as other I found) does not translate the notion means it is probably unclear what such shrine were or at least that this necessitates scholarly discussion that is beyond the source's goal (which is translation).Iry-Hor (talk) 09:00, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It is during his second year of rule that Shepseskaf recorded" It was?
Fixed.Iry-Hor (talk) 09:00, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Alabaster statuette of Babaef from his Giza tomb G5230" Could establish context in the caption to what his connection was to the subject of the article.
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 09:00, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "End of Dynasty" Why capital D?
Fixed it was a typo.Iry-Hor (talk) 09:00, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shouldn't the meaning of his name be stated explicitly earlier in the article body, like in the intro?
Done added to the main text, where the similarity of Userkaf an Shepseskaf's names is discussed. Note that all of this is also given in the infobox (if you click on [Show] button next to royal titulary).Iry-Hor (talk) 09:00, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mastaba is linked at second mention instead of first.
Fixed.Iry-Hor (talk) 09:00, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Nowadays it is known as Mastabat al-Fir'aun, meaning "bench of the pharaoh"." You could state this is in Arabic.
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 09:00, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Except for the question on the senuti shrine, all is fixed FunkMonk. I hope this addresses your concerns so far.Iry-Hor (talk) 09:00, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I was able to find a brief comment about the Senuti shrine from Strudwick (2005) on p. 508: 'A building perhaps marked by snake stelae, possibly at Heliopolis.' Further referenced to Wilkinson 2001 [should be 2000], pp. 136–137 and MMA 1999, p. 171. Checking the first source – Royal Annals of Ancient Egypt (2000), pp. 136–137 – I find a translation of an inscription from the reign of Djoser: 'appearance of the dual king; introduction of the king into the senut(i) shrine 4 cubits, one and two thirds palms'. There is further details towards the bottom of p.137 continuing onto p.138. Checking the second source – Egyptian Art in the Age of the Pyramids (1999), p.171 – is an entry on a doorjamb from Saqqara with snakes carved into it. I then thought to check Budge's dictionary for hieroglyphs, and he has an entry on it in vol. II p. 675, though it is spelled as senti: 'the two shrines of Egypt ... a double shrine of Ra which was symbolic of all Egypt'. I don't know if knowing the hieroglyphs helps you at all, though. As to what it means, I too have not a clue. That all being said, I don't think it's 'a senuti shrine', but rather 'the senuti shrine'. Mr rnddude (talk) 07:02, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Mr rnddude Amazing, I will put Studwick's sentence into a footnote ! For the "a" vs "the" senuti shrine you are right, I have amended the text with "the". I would still like to see an article on the matter but JSTOR did not turn up anything clear, in particular entering snwt returns too many results owing to it being also the word "sisters" if I am not mistaken (feminin plural of sn).Iry-Hor (talk) 07:36, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nice find! FunkMonk (talk) 17:45, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "theophoric" What does this mean? Link? Explanation?
Done I wikilinked to Theophoric name. A theophoric name is a name that refers to a god by embedding the god's name in the name of the person.Iry-Hor (talk) 20:26, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link sarcophagus.
Done at first instance of the word in the main text.Iry-Hor (talk) 20:26, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link necropolis when it is a standalone word?
Done at first instance of the word in the main text.Iry-Hor (talk) 20:26, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gustave Jéquier is the only historian fully named and linked in the footnote, make it just his last name for consistency?
Done you are right, plus he was already fully named and linked in the main text.Iry-Hor (talk) 20:26, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we have any idea how he died?
FunkMonk You mean Shepseskaf ? If so then no not at all: we don't have his body and as far as I know no archaeological nor historical source talks about his death.Iry-Hor (talk) 20:26, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by Mr rnddude

[edit]
Spotchecks - Not done as nominator has an extensive FAC history
References
FN14 should be pp.
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:43, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
FN44 should be pp.
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:43, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
FN102 says pp. 2170 & 273 - I think '2170' was meant to be '270'.
Corrected thanks for spotting this!Iry-Hor (talk) 07:43, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
FN140 - missing page numbers (199–201 corresponds to Mastabat el-Faraun)
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:43, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
FN162 should be pp.
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:43, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Bibliography
Verner, Miroslav (2010). "Some considerations concerning the Old Kingdom royal palace (aH)". Anthropologie. XLVIII (2): 91–96. - Missing an ISSN
Added.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:43, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Verner, Miroslav (2001a). "Archaeological Remarks on the 4th and 5th Dynasty Chronology" (PDF). Archiv Orientální. 69 (3): 363–418. - Missing an ISSN
Added.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:43, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Etheredge, Laura (ed.). "Saqqarah". Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved 5 June 2022. - is cited once for a minor, non-controversial detail which is in my opinion fine.
But otherwise what is the status of Encyclopædia Britannica regarding refs ? Is it considered a reliable source ?Iry-Hor (talk) 07:43, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
EB gets discussed occasionally at RSN and there's a divide in the community on reliability, see this most recent discussion and the corresponding entry in RSP. Some editors hold the opinion that it is a tertiary RS, others that it depends if there is a specific, subject-matter expert author, and others that it's a marginal source best avoided. I'm neutral on the matter. The article cites EB for a date for Shepseskaf's reign, which fits within the range of other RS, so that I don't think it's an issue. Mr rnddude (talk) 08:06, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ricke, Herbert (1950). Bemerkungen zur Ägyptischen Baukunst des Alten Reichs II. Beiträge zur Ägyptischen Bauforschung und Altertumskunde. Vol. 5. Cairo: Institut für Ägytpsiche Bauforschung und Altertumskunde. - Missing an OCLC
Added.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:43, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
El Awady, Tarek (2006). "The royal family of Sahure. New evidence" (PDF). In Bárta, Miroslav; Krejčí, Jaromír (eds.). Abusir and Saqqara in the Year 2005. Prague: Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, Oriental Institute. pp. 31–45. ISBN 978-80-7308-116-4. Archived from the original (PDF) on 1 February 2011.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: ref duplicates default (link) - Has a CS1 error, but I have no idea what it means.
Fixed Yes it is quite obscur, but explained here. I have fixed the issue, the problem was that I was enforcing an harvid that was actually the same as the one generated by default by the cite book template hence it was complaining about the duplicate.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:43, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Bárta, Miroslav (2015). "Tomb of the chief physician Shepseskafankh". Prague Egyptological Studies. Czech Institute of Egyptology. XV: 15–27. - Missing an ISSN
Added.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:43, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Mr rnddude All fixed !Iry-Hor (talk) 07:43, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I've left a note regarding your question on EB above. Mr rnddude (talk) 08:06, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I see, well I will be careful from now on with EB. I usually cite it only for dates regarding pharaohs but I always found it a bit unsettling that the author is often not given on EB's website.Iry-Hor (talk) 09:33, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note to moderators by Iry-Hor

[edit]

I wanted to note that I am going on vacations from the 8th of July until the 20th and will likely be unable to respond to further queries until the 21st of July. At the time I write this message, the article has received 3 supports, has passed its image and source reviews and there is no pending review.Iry-Hor (talk) 08:52, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. In addition:
  • There is a p/pp error at cite 46, which should also use an en dash, not a hyphen.
Fixed it now appears as 45.Iry-Hor (talk) 15:05, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rice: the publisher is not "Routledge London & New York", but 'Routledge'. The |location= is 'London; New York'.
Fixed.Iry-Hor (talk) 15:05, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ryholt needs a publisher location.
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 15:05, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ditto Callender.
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 15:05, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ditto Gardiner.
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 15:05, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Gog the Mild (talk) 14:32, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I spent over an hour slowly trawling through each bibliographic entry and still managed to miss these. Do y'all use a script of some sort? or a method that's better at identifying if a parameter has been missed? Mr rnddude (talk) 14:48, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Gog the Mild you are quite an expert at spotting such things ! I fixed them all, I hope this will allow the article to reach FA status.Iry-Hor (talk) 15:05, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I cheat, obviously. I think it's this script - User:Ohconfucius/script/Sources. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:11, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed it was just a weirdly phrased sentence. I have removed the "Remark that", the sentence is now much clearer.Iry-Hor (talk) 15:34, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 7 July 2022 [37].

Streets (song)

[edit]
Nominator(s): ‍ ‍ elias. 🧣 ‍ ‍ 💬reach out to me
📝see my work 13:13, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a song that achieved commercial success in frankly the most 2020s way possible: blowing up on TikTok. After an Internet challenge which featured "Streets" went viral on the platform, the resulting boost in streams propelled this song to number 16 on the Billboard Hot 100 and number 8 on the Global 200---a pretty impressive feat. The trend was so influential to the song's notability, in fact, that the music video for the song features the artist Doja Cat performing her version of the online challenge.

When I found the article lying on the GA nominations backlog for 6 months, while still having several issues with regards to sourcing and prose, I decided to take on the duty of nursing it to good health. Now, after a GA review from Realmaxxver, and a very helpful PR from the wonderful @Aoba47 and @GWL, I believe that this article satisfies the criteria for a featured article. This is my first-ever foray into FAC, so please remind me when I fall short of understanding how the process works! Cheers, ‍ ‍ elias. 🧣 ‍ ‍ 💬reach out to me
📝see my work 13:13, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47

[edit]
  • I understand the purpose of this part, Incorporating both Doja Cat's singing voice and rapping voice, but it seems like an unnecessarily wordy way to say that she sings and raps on this song. I think this information could be conveyed in a better way.
  • You Right, right! That part of the lead should be less verbose now
  • I'd move the citation for this sentence, "Streets" was a sleeper hit that gradually acquired Internet-driven success., to the end. as the current placement is not the best for readability.
  • ref 32 is used to cite only the "sleeper hit" claim, and that article does not support the other part of the sentence that says "gradually acquired Internet-driven success." I think it will be fine to keep it where it is, but we'll see if anyone else objects.
  • For the Paul Anka, Yeti Beats, and Theron Feemster images, I would include the year these photos were taken in the caption to provide full context to readers.
  • Rewritten. I also split the caption for the Yeti Beats/Theron Feemster images into two sentences, since I found them to be overwhelmingly long.

Great work with the article. A majority of my concerns were already addressed in the peer review phase. I believe this should be everything from me. Once the above comments are addressed, I will be more than happy to support this FAC for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 01:12, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the quick comments above, @Aoba !! I have addressed everything that needs to have been addressed. Also, if you don't mind --- I need to know if you're able to do a full source review of the article? Of course, that's not necessary on your end, and these comments are already of enough help for me. ‍ ‍ elias. 🧣 ‍ ‍ 💬reach out to me
📝see my work 05:26, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for addressing everything. I support this FAC for promotion based on the prose. As for your question about a source review, I will have to decline on that one. Best of luck with this FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 14:52, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, apologies. Anyways, once again, thanks! I am glad that you supported. And I completely understand that you declined ‍ ‍ elias. 🧣 ‍ ‍ 💬reach out to me
📝see my work 15:24, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass

[edit]

So, let's see what we got here left after the PR. Pinging nominator Troubled.elias per offwiki request. I might do a prose review when I am in the mood for it; may also do source formatting check. GeraldWL 15:51, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review! I will drop by comments really shortly. Please ping me again if for whatever reason I neglect to respond within a reasonable timeframe :") ‍ ‍ elias. 🧣 ‍ ‍ 💬reach out to me
📝see my work 13:58, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The infobox image is good: it is reduced, and the parameters are validly copied from other articles. Good job with the footnotes too btw :D
  • Thanks :")
  • Theron's image looks good
  • Hooray!
  • I was kind of conflicted seeing Yeti's image's parameter, considering the EXIF data has no data on the camera used, but then again EXIFs can be wrong, and a Google Lens search has no avail, so I'll give a pass on that.
  • Actually, there is EXIF data, at least on the original image file. I didn't use the crop tool to trim that photo, so it is very likely that that is the reason why there is a discrepancy in the EXIF
  • Paul Anka's and Doja Cat's images are well-licened: one PD and another OTRS-verified
  • Neat
  • The music video:
  • "partly because it has been viewed over 100 million times on YouTube already." This is redundant; most fair use rationales only state "because it is in low resolution"
  • I'm not sure I follow. That "...partly..." line is for the "Respect for commercial opportunities" parameter and not the "minimal use" one, which is where the "low-resolution" bit is indicated. Being low-res and not harming the commercial viability of a product are not exact synonyms (though of course one is the result of the other), so is it really redundant?
  • Troubled.elias, typically I would write "This is a low-resolution image used only in one article with a valid purpose, and thus will not hurt any commercial opportunities." No rationale as far as I'm aware of ever states other reasons, and it's not needed, since the commercial protection is pretty apparent in the "minimal use" and "purpose" sections. Using the number of views as a justification also isn't really a legally effective defense either. GeraldWL 01:31, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Got that. Rewrote as you asked
  • Okay got it. I can put a "song copyright belongs to" clause before the labels. Then I'll write a separate sentence that states the owner of copyright for the video. I can see the "Streets" music video in the website for Lucky Bastards Inc., but not in the London Alley Entertainment website. Do you know how you managed to find out that London Alley did production for the video?
  • Nevermind, found it. Turns out the director works for London Alley
  • Aight, the captions. You can remove note K and L, then alter note M to start with "The latter" to avoid confusion.
  • Is there really any reason to remove the two footnotes? Subjective descriptions like "this was described as erotic" should all be attributed properly to whomever said it. It makes no sense to provide attribution only for the "epic version" claim just because you think only one of the descriptions should have quotes. By the way, I have explained my concern with trying to unquote "film noir-like" in the bullet point below this one.
  • Captions, as we know it, are not part of the prose but the images. That's why you don't see gameplay screenshots with cited captions very often, because they're covered in prose and images are merely enhancers of the prose. I think you can honestly phrase the whole thing with "erotically suspenseful". Also, in a way, "Doja Cat dances while lit from behind with red lights" can be combined with "and an "epic version" of the Silhouette Challenge". "the online trend that contributed to the song's success" is not needed, assuming at this point people already know what the challenge is. GeraldWL 09:47, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair enough. I've removed some of the footnotes (while still keeping the one that attributes the "epic version" line to Billboard). And you're right to point out that by this section of the article folks would already be familiar with the Silhouette Challenge's significance towards the song's success. The caption should be trimmed accordingly now.
  • Hmm, I still think it's a bit lengthy; I very rarely see screenshot captions with all these attributes, as in, the publication and author. Even if you want to keep this attribute, you will have to cite it, which makes the caption way more lengthy than it should. As I stated, the suspense and eroticism can be merged. "Several critics have categorized the music video as erotic, suspenseful, and fantastical." More specific quotes can be seen by readers in the prose. GeraldWL 13:00, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • What do you advise we change the whole caption for the screenshot to, then? Remember that the NFC use rationale currently states that the image is there to (1) depict the Silhouette Challenge, (2) convey the sultry and scary tone (keep in mind that the prose mentions only one writer who described this video as such, so your "several critics" suggestion confuses me), and (3) illustrate the film noir comparison made by The Times writers. Thus, the caption should adhere to, at the very least, two of these points. "Several critics praised or otherwise noted the video's aesthetics and its combination of sultry and scary tones; two writers compared the visuals to that of film noir media." --- would that be good enough for you?
Plus... I'm not really sure about the whole "you will have to cite it, which makes the caption way more lengthy than it should" comment... a lot of captions for music video screenshots have citations within them. See Shake It Off#Music video and All About That Bass#Music video for instance.
  • Well, I found a way to get rid of the citations and trim the caption! Glad that we could make that happen. Hopefully I have now solved this comment of yours ^^ And I'm sorry that I came across slightly miffed here
  • "The clip was described as "film noir-like", an erotic "horror-fantasy", and an "epic version" of the Silhouette Challenge," --> "The clip was labeled as film noir, erotic horror fantasy, and an "epic version" of the Silhouette Challenge," ... These genres are not coined by the critics so they don't have to be quoted.
  • Cairns and Helm did not call the music video "film noir"---they only made that comparison, i.e. by saying "film noir-like". Hence that term being in quotes. I could try and rewrite that part to "compared the video to film noir" to properly paraphrase, but that would make an already-long image caption even longer (and unnecessarily wordy; I think that sentence does the job of combining the descriptions just fine). Plus, your suggestion for "erotic horror fantasy" has some MOS:SOB problems, and I would just link the entire thing to erotic horror.
  • The "co-wrote 11 out of 12 songs on Hot Pink" claim is not mentioned in the prose itself, so I had to put a citation in the caption as well to get that fact covered
  • Alt texts:
  • The infobox: "Doja Cat facing frontwards as she kneels on top of a smashed car hood." facing frontwards as she kneels on top of can be trimmed to atop; we don't need to be too specific in alt texts
  • Trimmed
  • "The title "Streets" is handwritten in red on the center of the cover art. Below it is smaller, white text spelling out "Doja Cat". A red sticker that says "SILHOUETTE REMIX" is plastered on the bottom left corner." --> "The song's title is written in red on the center, and "Doja Cat" below it, alongside a "SILHOUETTE REMIX" sticker."
  • Trimmed, although very slightly. "The song's title is written in red on the center, and 'Doja Cat' below it" is clunky in a syntactic way---there is no verb on the latter clause that applies to "Doja Cat". If you were to remove the "and", the clause on its own will not make sense. Plus, the sentence does not specify the colour of the text that says "Doja Cat", which would lead readers to assume that it is also red. Which is not. That part of the alt text now currently reads "The song's title—in red—is written on the center, and below it is smaller, white text spelling out "Doja Cat". A red sticker that says "SILHOUETTE REMIX" is plastered on the bottom left corner."
  • Portraits typically don't have to be alt-texted unless it's an infobox image of a bio article. So for photos of Yeti, Theron, Anka, and Doja Cat, you can change them all to "Refer to caption".
  • Got that. Although when I look at the article using my phone, Yeti Beats and Feemster's photos are displayed from top to bottom instead of from left to right. Which makes the caption somewhat confusing. Thus I'll have to indicate which photo depicts which person. "A photo of Yeti Beats." vs. "A photo of Theron Feemster"
  • "A male driver in his cab, looking to his left. Behind him is a shop display window lit by red lights. The silhouette of a woman, who poses provocatively, is shown in the window." -- This can be changed to "Refer to caption" too, as the caption's sentence 1 describes it well.
  • Done
Hi Gerald Waldo Luis, is that a pass for the image review? Gog the Mild (talk) 18:34, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Gog, yes it is a pass! :) I did confirm it off-wiki but forgot to do so on-wiki. GeraldWL 16:26, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from BennyOnTheLoose

[edit]

Happy to be challenged on any of my comments. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 08:55, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Footnote 1 does not have a reference.
  • Added the Apple Music references, which are used in the track listing and release history sections
  • The images of Yeti Beats and Theron Feemster have different widths to each other. Can they be equalised?
  • Yep - I've added a new cropped version
  • How do we know the dropbox content is from ARIA?
  • If you go to their official website's accreditations page and click "Latest accreditaions [sic]" it would take you to the dropbox link. It's certainly a choice on their end; I understand why this tipped you off at first
  • Refs 108 and 109 have Billboard mis-formatted
  • Footbnote b: "This date pertains to when the song..." - how about something like "This date is when the song..."
  • Rewritten
  • Footnote c: "in which the three served as songwriters" to something like "for which the three served as songwriters"
  • Done
  • Footnote f & K: "...are attributed to ..." - maybe "...are from..."/2"...is from..."
  • I honestly like "attributed" better since it feels more elegant. But to prevent unnecessary repetition I have applied the suggestion to one of the footnotes
  • Footnote g: I think '"Audience impressions" refer to' should be '"Audience impressions" refers to'
  • Good catch
  • "Length 3:47" from infobox doesn't match any of those on the track listing. I guess it may be 3:47 on the album, in which case a citation should be added I think.
  • Lead: "Some critics who reviewed Hot Pink praised the track for demonstrating Doja Cat's versatility as a musical artist" feels a bit vague, pehaps because of the "some", or because it doesn't go on to say anything about what other critics wrote.
  • My thought process behind this was that if I removed "some" from that sentence, it would give the impression that quite a lot of critics commented on the song during their Hot Pink reviews, when the prose only gives two. We could quantify "some" and change it to "two" if you prefer
  • Lead: "...Kemosabe and RCA Records.." perhaps mention that the single was on these labels in the lead.
  • Sorry - can't quite parse that. Do you mean that I should specify that Kemosabe and RCA Records are record labels?
  • Backgrond: 'During 2019, Doja Cat released three additional singles in promotion of Hot Pink, two of which appearing in over 200,000 videos on the platform combined—"Rules" and "Cyber Sex".' - I don't understand this.
  • Oh yeah sorry. Should be more straightforward now
  • Background "aforementioned" seems unnecessary.
  • Right - reworded to "successes of the tracks"
  • Production and songwriting: "proceeds to, in the words of Billboard editor Jason Lipshutz," To me, this wording seems like he is expressing a truth rather than an opinion.
  • Changed "in the words of" to "in the views of"
  • Commercial performance and release: "with negligible amount of airplay" something like "with a negligible amount of airplay"
  • Commercial performance and release: "with negligible amount of airplay for the song because of its unprecedented boost in fame online" - reads like the fame online was the cause of the negligible airplay.
  • I was under the impression that that was correct per the cited Billboard source ... Relevant quote: "Airplay for the single is virtually nonexistent, with minimal chart activity deriving from the radio sector as 'Streets' was an unplanned single that gained traction through users on TikTok and social media apps" But I may have misread. Currently I have reworded to the following so that the whole train of thought makes more sense---open to any alternative suggestions.
At first, the track received a negligible amount of airplay; instead, its initial chart activity was driven predominantly by streams and digital sales because of its unprecedented boost in fame online.
  • Update: I revised that final bit to "driven predominantly by streams and digital sales because of its online success" because the Billboard source says that the single release was unplanned, not the boost in fame
I think it's a suitable improvement, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:53, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Commercial performance and release: "Kemosabe and RCA Records.." - same point as for the lead above.
  • Commercial performance and release: Should "third biggest" be hyphenated?
  • Not quite sure about this one honestly... in my head I can see good arguments for both the hyphenated and unhyphenated version. I would gladly appreciate a third opinion from another editor ^^
  • Commercial performance and release: "in its second charting week[74]" - add comma before ref, or move ref to the end of the sentence.
  • Moved to the end
  • Critical reception and analysis: "in her most serious form" is a direct quote from the source.
  • Enclosed in quotes
  • Critical reception and analysis: Perhaps remove "..during the album's runtime" as I'm not sure that the source is specific about whether it's "her most serious form" on the album or in general.
  • That is a good call
  • Critical reception and analysis: I expected more than four sources here. Are there further reviews from reputable sources that can be added?
  • Unfortunately, no... One of the FA reviewers actually raised the same concern during the peer review. Here's an abridged recap of what I said at the time
When I scoured for reviews of Hot Pink posted at the time of its release, there were only two of them that described something about "Streets" in non-trivial detail. Actually, the Pitchfork review for Hot Pink, quite annoyingly, has said very little about the song itself ... That and the Consequence review were all the critical commentary I can find for the song during 2019, unfortunately
Though I believe the amount of critical commentary about the song is at a bare minimum - it addresses both the composition itself, as well as its commercial reception. So it doesn't seem to neglect any major details per WP:WIAFA.
  • Music video: "Aaron Williams, an editor for Uproxx" has already been mentioned, so perhaps just "Williams" or "Williams of Uproxx"?
  • Amended
  • Music video: "Mason of Slant Magazine" - magazine was mentioned in the preceding para, so just "Mason" would do
  • Rewritten
  • I ran scripts to fix a couple of date formats and dashes.

Hi Troubled.elias. I can't see any big issues, only things to tweak. I might have some further comments or questions later. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 11:11, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Troubled.elias, have you completed your responses to BennyOnTheLoose? Gog the Mild (talk) 13:57, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Troubled.elias and Gog the Mild. I'm happy with responses above, but will have another look later, probably after some of the other reviewers' comments have been replied to. Feel free to ping me if I'm delaying the process! Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:58, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Benny, can you have another look now? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:38, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ian Rose Happy to support. (I'm assuming that the outstanding points on the source review will be addressed.) Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 09:49, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

Doing the easy to look sources first, then the more complex ones. Will do spot-check. GeraldWL 08:22, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Citation formatting
[edit]
  • The Apple Music sources need publisher parameter to the record labels/company.
  • Done
  • Ref 7: remove the Illustrators parameter. Those people merely drew the featured GIF which holds little significance. The parameter is more reserved for multimedia articles, like this one.
  • Got it
  • Ref 8: Remove "Billboard Staff". We don't put staff attributes.
  • Alright. A few other refs had that listed as the author so I went ahead and removed those parameters for those refs as well :))
  • I can't look at ref 9 and the archive is pretty laggy, but it looks multimedia so I'll let this pass.
  • Oop- you're right. Nothing is showing up when I click the archive link. Perhaps I can use something other than Internet Archive for it?
  • Ref 20: is "19439-71705-1" catalogue number? If so, are there prefix letters at the number (e.g. ISC 0000)?
  • Yep, it is the catalogue number. And no, there ain't any prefixes before the ID (see also this Discogs entry).
  • Ref 51-52, 63-66, 105: can you fill in the transl-title parameter? Google Translate should work as the titles are very short.
  • To keep consistent, I have not added a trans-title parameter for any foreign-language references, because refs 63, 64, and 66 are generated by Template:Single chart instead of Template:Cite web. With the current parameters in {{Single chart}}, I am not able to add a translated title, unforts. See also my response to the point below this one.
  • Ref 53-55, 57, 59-75, 93-99, 101-102: is there a way these links can be archived? If Wayback doesn't work, there's always ghostarchive.org
  • The templates behind those references are generated by Template:Single chart and unfortunately with the way that things are, there is no way for me to sneak in an archive link... which is really annoying from a verifiability and formatting point of view. As mentioned above, the same goes for the translated titles
  • Ref 56: decapitalize "Select". "SK – SINGLES DIGITAL – TOP 100", "202105" should be italicized per ref 75's format.
  • I'm trying to keep the Slovak Charts citation's formatting consistent with the Czech Charts citation's if that makes sense... hence the capitalized "Select". I can't just change how the note looks for the Czech citation because, well, it's not generated by any of the cite templates. It's not like I can change how the Mexico Certs ref (ref 75) looks either, because funnily enough, that is also generated by a non-cite template. Specifically, Template:Certification Table Entry. My god, these templates need some serious cleanup to keep references consistent, now that I think about it. Lmao

Other than that, looks good. I might revisit later just to make sure.

Spotcheck
[edit]
  • Aight so this sounds more of a prose than spotcheck but it is kind of relevant. You often interchange "the track/song" with "the record", and though in a way synonymous, "record" only applies to a song that is exclusively released physically. And the sources don't seem to state such.

Ok that is like, really it. Do apologise for the long wait! Got an IRL project going on so it is super hard to catch up. I do have some prose comments though.

Troubled.elias, poke. GeraldWL 17:17, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Troubled.elias, doule poke. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:00, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Gerald Waldo Luis, anything else outstanding from your PoV? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:00, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Pfff, @Gog the Mild, appreciate the humor. I think this part is resolved, judging by the statement of support and the "Glad everything was resolved" from GWL below. All the hits you get when you Ctrl+F "record" give you record labels, recording industry associations, the recording process, etc. None of them use "record" to refer to the song itself. Although I'd need clearer commentary from GWL on how the rest of the spotchecking went. ‍ ‍ elias. 🧣 ‍ ‍ 💬reach out to me
📝see my work 01:34, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, think you missed this: "The record received little media coverage", clearly referring to the single. I did not find any problems in regards to sourcing and citing; every source seem to be reliable, mixing secondary with a couple of primary sources. They are also cited at the right sentences. I don't think I'm able to sort of recheck right now, but if anyone wants to, please do; I may have missed things since this is my first time spotchecking. But yeah, apart from the record thing, everything else (to me) looks good. GeraldWL 13:48, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In that sentence, "record" pertains to Amala the studio album... Oh well, changed that for the much clearer "album" ‍ ‍ elias. 🧣 ‍ ‍ 💬reach out to me
📝see my work 13:54, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Prose- SUPPORT
[edit]
  • The former. From my understanding, "So High" blew 'out of nowhere' as some might say, without any extravagant promotion on her end, so "marketing" doesn't feel right here
  • Then I would suggest linking it.
  • ...linking... to which term? "Viral marketing" does not feel right to describe "So High" 's success, as I said, so I don't like it as a target. And "viral success" is already linked to viral phenomena. It seems like there is nothing to do here.
  • Sorry-- I didn't notice the piped link there!
  • "By September 2021, "Rules" and "Cyber Sex"" --> "By September 2021, the latter two"
  • Feels somewhat clunky to me, imo. Plus it's repeated here only once, so I think we could let this slide
  • Fair enough.
  • Including both "Tiktok superstar" and "household name" in the same sentence is kind of repetition. I would suggest trimming the first half of the sentence to "Likewise, Aliya Chaudhry of Slate argued that..."
  • That is better!
  • "brothers who comprise a two-person band"-- wasn't "two person" already established by mentioning two names and "comprise"?
  • Removed "two-person"
  • Add a "(YEAR)" to the film ("You Got Served (2004)")
  • Done
  • Footnote e: "The adjectives "sultry", "melanchol[ic]", and "soulful" are" can be removed as it is excessive.
  • Okay
  • "It has a duration of 3 minutes and 46 seconds." This would be read in a monotone way. "has been described as "sultry", "melanchol[ic]", and "soulful", with a duration of 3 minutes and 46 seconds" sounds more natural.
  • Yeah but it also would make the first sentence longer. I would prefer that sentences are short
  • "Jade Gomez of Paste called the vocal performance in the song a blend between a "wispy" singing voice and a "raspy" rap delivery that does not "[ruin] the immersion" for listeners." I kind of got lost out of focus reading this. I suggest something like "Jade Gomez of Paste remarked the vocals as immersive despite its blend of euphonic singing and hoarse rapping." Shorter, less quotes but synonymous.
  • Will "Jade Gomez of Paste called the vocal performance an immersive blend between a 'wispy' singing voice..." be good enough? I did my best to make the Gomez+Thomas descriptions work together
  • Sounds great!
  • "However, in the beginning of 2021, around 15 months after its initial release, the track experienced a surge in popularity on TikTok." I think this would suit best as the first sentence of paragraph two. "On the application" would have to be changed to "There" to avoid repetition.
  • Done as you asked :")
  • After some internal debating with myself, I decided to delink it
  • "sparked fans'"-- of? Doja Cat, or the song, or the album?
  • Fans of Doja Cat, but I went ahead and removed "fans'" entirely to avoid further confusion
  • Skipping the rest of the section since it's too much lol. But given the extensive copyedits we've done, I think it's all great, and a quick scroll reveals no flaws to me!
  • That's good! I think I spent most of my time and effort on the article perfecting that section in particular, so I'm glad you like it :")
  • "as the reason why" is extraneous, "cited" already does the job.
  • Fair.
  • Italicize Uproxx
  • Of course
  • I still do think the first paragraph felt repetitive, but I guess it's fine given the limited sources and statements, and paragraph two is very strong!
  • Yeah, me too don't worry. It could have been a whooole lot worse
  • "the first few seconds of Paul Anka's "Put Your Head on My Shoulder""-- "Paul Anka's" is repetitive, it's already established.
  • Right - removed
  • Okay, I think you mayyy just be overdescribing the MV a bit. Let me elaborate bit by bit.
  • "In the next scene, Doja Cat dances" --> "Doja Cat then dances"
  • I like my wording better - without the "in the next scene" it gives the impression that we're still on the same location which... a car parked in a shop window will raise eyebrows for sure. I'm trying to abide by the principle of least astonishment here
  • Yeahh, I just noticed that.
  • "wearing white contact lenses and appearing to be undead, subsequently emerge from the road on which the car is parked" --> "rise from the dead". It's not a breakdown, it's a summary, and it's perfectly assumable that they're rising from the dead.
  • Fair enough, rewritten
  • "As "Streets" comes to an end, the video transitions to a shot of Doja Cat as she reclines on a living room couch. Residing in a house located on a nuclear testing site," --> "Doja Cat is then seen reclining on a living room couch, in a house nearby a nuclear test site."
  • Done
  • "She rests her head on the lap of a mannequin that looks like the cab driver"-- you can't assume that it's a mannequin. "She rests her head on the lap of a the cab driver, immobile" is safer since it doesn't assume the true nature of the driver, only what is visible onscreen.
  • ...but the Rolling Stone source cited for that sentence says that she's lying beside a mannequin. "In another fantasy sequence, she snuggles up on a couch with a male mannequin before the entire room is set on fire." Then the New York (Vulture) citation beside that has this line: "settle down with the object of her affection [Siriboe, the cab driver] at a nuclear-testing site." With these in mind I think it's perfectly fine to make the assumption. Somewhat reticent, but we can settle for a compromise and instead say that she is lying on the lap of a male mannequin without specifying that it's the cab driver.
  • One thing I learned as a film article editor is that critics can be wrong. I've seen countless reviews of something get the most remote things like the name of a director wrongly. A review shouldn't determine an ambiguous fact objectively. Perhaps we can say "what seems to be the cab driver" to emphasize this ambiguity.
  • Okay then. Amended
  • "and the resulting explosion"-- repetition. --> "which".
  • Done
  • Italicize Uproxx
  • Of course
  • I don't think so, at least not to me? I'm not a film kind of person, and I think it's soooomewhat of a technical term, so imo I feel justified in linking it. If you want we can get a third opinion about this :)
  • Maybe, although... cinematography is never linked in film articles. I mean, almost anything primary in film is never credited. Producer? What counts as a producer? Someone who made the whole thing? Then you learnt a producer is just an oversee-er, then there are such things as executive, associate, creative, co-producer, the producer. A producer could also be nothing more than one who funds a project-- but "why are they called a produceer?" These things should be technically linked, but they're kind of common knowledge. I also found "cinematography" to be derivative of "photography". GeraldWL 17:09, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @GWL: Well, for one, this isn't a film article... it's a song article. I suppose you could make the argument that music videos are a form of film (and I would agree!). However, I would argue that the average reader who's likely to search and visit the article would be someone who's familiar with songs (probably Doja Cat fans), but not necessarily film. As such, we shouldn't expect readers to be already familiar with filmmaking terminology such as this one, so link them in line with MOS:UL. Someone can prove me wrong and correct me on how often cinematography is used in most contexts though, FWIW - that would convince me enough to delink cinematography
  • I would suggest bringing a third person here. Perhaps it's just me too acclimated with the film environment, but the term cinematography felt too... common in a way. I would say this is also the case with radiology: one might assume it's the study of radio signals, but it is actually the study of radioactivity, although that misunderstanding doesn't really merit linking since it's merely alien words to some. But yeah, I would want another person to comment, since I can see your point too. GeraldWL 09:38, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
While I am sympathetic to the suggestion that this is overlink, and personally consider that FAC articles in general tend towards overlink, I am aware that the consensus on this is towards the "if in doubt link it" PoV. The arguments advanced for this specific link also seem sensible, so I am content to go with the nominator's view on this. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:39, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the assessment, Gog ^^ ‍ ‍ elias. 🧣 ‍ ‍ 💬reach out to me
📝see my work 12:59, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Lift program, a campaign"-- so is it a program or campaign?
  • The HNHH source uses "initiative" to describe it, so I just went with that.
  • "The production team for the video decided to incorporate milk into the set design to evoke cat imagery"-- they... put milk, to evoke cat imagery?
  • Everyone knows what milks and cats are; no need to wikilink them :P
  • Lmaoo no, I was just wondering... how does milk make... cat imagery? Or perhaps I'm too autistic to fathom ;-;
  • Huh? Okay then
  • The thought of milk making cat imagery will officially bug me for life.
  • "marked her "latest step toward world domination""-- "latest" may be outdated sooner or later. Suggest something like "believed that the live performance is an effort in achieving global fame."
  • Clarified that the article was published just after the live performance came out
  • Good catch
  • "UFO" --> "unidentified flying object"
  • Done
Troubled.elias: nudge. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:37, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild - OOPS sorry! Will try to get this off the "older noms" section as soon as I can. My pending FAC review for 1982 World Snooker Championship should be done now as well; once again apologies for the delays :") ‍ ‍ elias. 🧣 ‍ ‍ 💬reach out to me
📝see my work 06:13, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@GWL, I am finally done addressing, hopefully, everything. Don't hesitate to ping me here with your thoughts on my responses :") And by the way, I never really got to find out your exact thoughts on how the spot check went. May you please clarify that? Thanks, ‍ ‍ elias. 🧣 ‍ ‍ 💬reach out to me
📝see my work 07:47, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@GWL ? ‍ ‍ elias. 🧣 ‍ ‍ 💬reach out to me
📝see my work 07:58, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry! I addressed the remaining stuff, just one more problem and it should be good-- that is, for me. GeraldWL 09:38, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Aaand everything looks good! Glad everything was resolved, and it looks good now. It's nice to see this article develop. I'm supporting this nomination. Good luck! GeraldWL 13:44, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Lee Vilenski

[edit]

Support - happy with this one. Saw one or two minor bits, but nothing to avoid a support in this case. great work. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:04, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you, Lee Vilenski! Off-topic, but congrats with getting the bureaucrat role.

Comments and support from Gerda

[edit]

I finally get to look and it's almost over, - I'll see. Writing while reading until I fall asleep which may be soon ;) - Lead last. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:57, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

  • Do we need all these unlinked names of songwriters?
    • ...yes? The infobox's songwriter parameter asks us the names of those credited for writing the song's music and lyrics. Thus we give it all the songwriters; I don't think it matters whether they have their own articles (and thus can be wikilinked).
      • Thank you. Before I forget: please indent following the essay on top of User talk:Drmies, it helps the blind. - Where I come from: I feel like a victim of the infobox wars, and still have a hard time explaining the wish for key facts (see Cosima Wagner) to make our info more accessible (and am not heard), so I don't see the relevance of names without links which I think can't be key. --GA
        • I was not aware of this information until now! Incredibly grateful to you for directing me to the essay - I try my best to make reading material accessible, so this is much appreciated.
        • And re. that last sentence, I understand where you're coming from. Infoboxen should communicate essential information in an easy-to-understand manner. Thing is, a lot of songs in popular music take a whole team of 5+ writers to concoct: cf. WAP (song), Partition (song), and Thank U, Next (song). "Streets" is no different. So when crediting songwriters --- including those credited in samples or interpolations --- we have to take each and every one into account, because they're all integral into creating the music described in the article.
        • To make an argument more based in WP guidelines... MOS:INFOBOXUSE states that "Each infobox type should have documentation giving instruction on how each part/field may be used." The relevant infobox and infobox parameter is Template:Infobox song#writer, and the instructions don't say anything about not listing songwriters if they cannot be wikilinked. Hopefully, this makes things somewhat clearer :)
          • Thank you! The basic difference seems to be that fair credit is of higher importance than "key information", - accepted. --GA

Background

  • Isn't "American" kind of default for the topic? ... then just "rapper" instead of "American rapper" (twice).
    • No, not really... rap/hip-hop music isn't limited to just the US, nor is it known widely as a US thing. Lots of countries, regardless of location, have somewhat of a rap culture. Ukraine, Iceland, Germany, the Philippines, Nigeria, you name it. It's not redundant at all to indicate someone's an American rapper, in the same way it's not redundant to say "German rapper" or "Peruvian rapper".
      • See, I have a very mixed feeling about the meaning of nationality when it comes to music. No question that there are Ukrainian rappers, and great there are. And accepted to introduce her as an "American rapper and singer", setting the stage for the whole article. But once that is done, I believe that it's kind of default that colleagues are also American, so repetition not needed for all others, unless they come from a different country. --GA
        • I suppose that makes sense... it is disconcerting to see the exact phrase "American rapper" two sentences in a row. I've removed "American" in both instances :)

Production ...

  • I wonder why first music then text? (Confessing that I find the lyrics trivial) Sleepy as expected ... --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:12, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Really, including the lyrics before the composition would have been as valid as doing it the other way around! I decided to include info about the composition first since the article covers it in more detail. Re. the "trivial" comment - the lyrics themselves are "major facts or details" in most pop song articles and as such should not be neglected. However, since this song's lyrics/subject material have virtually little coverage in reliable sources, the article would have to say very little about it, which is a shame. Although if you were to ask me, the quoted lyrics aptly sum up what the song is all about, so not entirely useless :shrug:
      • Again where I come from: I wrote articles about songs a lot, mostly short ones (one up for deletion in case of interest), my best probably Traum durch die Dämmerung, and without exception, they have text first, because most often the text has inspired the music. - The lyrics: of course mention, but I am just surprised how rather conventional they read, not much different from something written in the 19th century. - I took this little break for my own refreshment, overwhelmed with RD articles, Richard Taruskin followed by Peter Brook - they don't wait. Will see when I can return to here. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:04, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • Good luck with your other work, and take as much time as you need! Please let me know when you'll leave another batch of comments by pinging me here. In the era of music in which you take interest, it may be true that "the [lyrics] inspired the music", but ehhh that's more up in the air with 21st-century popular music. In the case of this song, we're not sure if the music inspired the lyrics or the other way around, so I don't think we can agree on which aspect of the song should be discussed first based on such information.
        • Wrt the "lyrics" issue - it is definitely conventional subject material, yeah. I mean, popular music, as with any other genre, is gonna have its own corpus of recurring themes. Though whether or not the subject matter's conventional does not necessarily mean it's trivial, I would say. And when you say trivial, do you mean too trivial for inclusion within the article? If that's the case, please do let me know if this concern has been addressed with my comments above ‍ ‍ elias. 🧣 ‍ ‍ 💬reach out to me
          📝see my work           00:37, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • Sorry about the word "trivial" - I was sleepy, and English is not my first language. It just worded my surprise about how conventional these 21st-century lyrics are. Of course they should appear. My other surprise was the order, but you explained well, thank you. - I have now (after going over my long watchlist) another obituary to add to Brook, - a monster of an article, with some long lists without cohesion, but at least everything has some source now (which is necessary for bringing him to the Main page), and after nominating, I'll return here, promised. - Today is the birthday of Brian who wrote Cosima Wagner, DYK? Fond memories. He wrote an article about a fresh look at infoboxes in 2013 (link on my user page), but his friends argue as if he didn't mean it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:33, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
            I've read about Brian before. It seems like he was a very prolific editor :( May he rest in peace. On a more enthusiastic note, I'm glad we've resolved your comments so far... looking forward to more of them coming soon ^^ ‍ ‍ elias. 🧣 ‍ ‍ 💬reach out to me
            📝see my work             06:51, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Silhouette Challenge

  • I wonder if that is a good header, or could perhaps a few words explain what happened? Will most readers know that Challenge is short for Internet challenge?
    • I believe it is most appropriate for a header. It is what all the cited sources call "the thing that made 'Streets' extremely popular online" - think WP:COMMONNAME but for section titles. If unfamiliar folks want to know what the "challenge" in "Silhouette Challenge" means, they can just click the section, where they will see an explanation of what the Silhouette Challenge was all about. This would, I believe, suffice - I would pipe "Challenge" to Internet challenge to further help readers, but we already have an Internet challenge link in the Background section. Per WP:DUPLINK, we should generally avoid this.
  • I also wonder if the information about the head staff not proposing Streets for a single belongs under the header. (But I understand we need some text to go along the pretty pic of Anka.)
    • It does. The following "commercial performance" section establishes "Streets" as a sleeper hit - that is, a song that received very little promotion during initial release (in this case, the release of the album Hot Pink) but became quite successful long after it. The information you highlighted is important in the article as a context clue: in case folks are unfamiliar with what sleeper hits mean.
      • Thanks for both explanations, and, wow, fast! - I like to read in a TOC things that give me a clue as to what expect. "Reception" tells me something, "Silhouette Challenge" is a mystery. You think that's fine to raise curiosity? Fine then. It doesn't matter that the head stuff's decisions don't relate to the challenge? Fine then. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:45, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Commercial performance and release

  • Did I read right that the first intro sentence there more or less summarizes the previous section, while the three YT videos mentioned in the next sentence happened before? If yes, I'm not sure that's a good record in chronology terms.
    • Yes. And I was not going for chronology with the two sentences. I was going for a thesis statement followed by some supporting points. I opened with "'Streets' was a sleeper hit that gradually gained Internet-driven success" because it aptly summarizes what the section is all about - its commercial performance. The next part of that paragraph, "gained traction in social media after three live performances ... sparked interest in the track" is there to explain, or support, why the song became a sleeper hit in the first place! It didn't feel right putting it over at the "Silhouette Challenge" section because that section dealt with how the song was received on TikTok, not social media platforms in general.
  • So I believe the image caption of her performing in 2012 could end there. The "going viral" is not pictured.
    • The opening paragraph states that certain live performances of "Streets" contributed to the song blowing up. The picture shows her in a live performance; the second sentence in the caption states why its placement in the section is relevant and connects it to the opening paragraph in question.

International

  • I wonder if "Global" might work better, derived from the Board? The streaming release comes as a bit of a surprise after all these charts, - could it perhaps also show in the header?
    • Both are fine, although I have a slight preference towards "international". "Global" kind of implies that the song became available for release in virtually every single country/territory/landmass (which is absurd), whereas "international" denotes that the song was released for digital streaming in one or more territories, but not all of it. Pedantry, I know, but I suppose that's just what I think.
    • Re. "streaming release" - the big header establishes that the sections under it deal with chart performance and release formats. This shouldn't be intended to be surprising :P

Critical reception and analysis

  • I confess that the header promises more than I get: that she is "in her most serious form", "ultra-soft and chill", "one of her best", showing versatility, switched up, - that's it. Really. You can't help if that's all what the sources say, but how does it deserve the title "analysis"? "slow and raspy voice" is about the only thing concrete. No explanation whatsoever for the hype? OK, analysis is done for her way to get attention ;) - instead of the song.
    • No explanation whatsoever for the hype - actually, the second paragraph mentions that Doja Cat has an "innate ability to produce hit singles" and discusses how she leverages the popularity of her songs to "properly... capitalize on the trends that her fans create". Williams of Uproxx expands more on that second point in the article. While not a lot of commentary, it still seems like insightful stuff, and thus the section title deserves the "analysis" part. Though of course "critical reception" on its own will do the job just fine.
    • To add, the Background section talks a bit about how Doja Cat's past songs have been popular on TikTok, and established that TikTok users have "a propensity of making songs go viral" - meaning, they just kind of pick what songs they want to receive hype I guess. It's more of an art than it is science.

Video

  • How about first saying what it is? It has nothing to do in the caption of the almost abstract image (at least in that size), and reception makes little sense before knowing of what.
    • I'm sorry, what do you mean by this? The opening sentence of both the music video section and the image caption says "music video for 'Streets'", so it is very clear what is being talked about.
      • The first para is reception of the video, the second begins its description. For me, first description (what it is), the reception would work better. --GA
        • Ah, now I understand where you're getting at. Langford's, Halle's, and Shaffer's comments about the music video's aesthetic and tone, I would think, also double as descriptions for the video, so def appropriate. Explains what the vibes are like before we get to the plot itself. Plus it's definitely relevant to the image caption - "Several critics labeled the video as erotic, horror-fantasy" refers to the aforementioned comments.
          • We will have to disagree. I'd factually describe the plot, instead of ringing the "erotic" and "horror" bells to start it, but as you like it. We'll also disagree on what an image caption should do. For me, it should say that the actor's face can be seen far right, in his cab, with the illuminated shop window in the background, to connect to the plot. I couldn't see the face, believe me or not, and all the red looks completely abstract to me. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:21, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "While inside a cab on a heavily congested street, he notices Doja Cat posing as a mannequin by a shop window across the sidewalk." - He doesn't notice her, but strangely a puppet in a window move, no? That's not a mannequin, to my understanding, - my translator gives my display mannequin and window mannequin. (A mannequin is a a person showing garments at a fashion show, expected to live, no?) The object in the show is the window is not expected to live, no?
    • I have watched the music video - he does notice her posing, and the cited sources also say so. It's just that the screenshot happened to capture the driver in a frame where he was looking away.
    • The cited sources say that she was posing as a mannequin, and we go by what the sources say. And yes, she does move, and mannequins are statues or large dolls that aren't supposed to move :) We aren't calling Doja Cat a mannequin; we are simply describing that she is pretending as one for the video.
      • I think we have a simple language problem, with the German "Mannequin" meaning something completely different. --GA
  • I believe some of the next imaginations could be trimmed, without describing individual poses and desasters.
  • "When the song finishes playing, the music video cuts back to the driver inside his cab. It is revealed that he imagined everything that happened beforehand; he encounters Doja Cat once again, this time shown as his passenger." - I'd just say: "In the end, the driver is back inside his cab, revealing that he imagined all this, driving her as his passenger." for example.

Reception

  • more or less as in the previous reception section: many words (of the critics") saying little. "one of the best", "appealing to current social media trends", - really, that's all? No opera reviewer would be taken serious when saying so little ;) - Summary: she knows what her costumers want and feeds them with that.
    • Yes, unfortunately, that is it :P For what it's worth, I did find the first paragraph to be a bunch of nothing burgers, but I did my best with what I got. The second paragraph was slightly better imo.
    • And, well, we're not talking about opera reviewers, we're talking about reviewers of contemporary music. Completely different topic areas, completely different standards for what constitutes as good commentary. But we're getting off-topic here.

Live performances

  • how about adding that there were more videos? - That's it from someone completely alien to the topic. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:23, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • What do you mean?
      • I mean that the header doesn't indicate anything besides performances, and here come 3 videos.
        • They are videos of live performances

The tables: cudos for diligent work. T'd have the numbers of views right-aligned. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:14, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for this! That table with the views or certified sales is generated by this template, and unfort there doesn't seem to be an option to right-align the rightmost column. I'd love to take this suggestion but there's just nothing I can do within my power atm :(
  • @Gerda, I have done my best to respond to every point in here :) I have asked you for clarification with some of these replies, so I would appreciate a response to them as soon as you can! As with everything we do in Wikipedia, though, take your time and pace yourself. Since there were quite a lot of responses, would you please indicate which concerns have not been resolved by replying to this specific bullet point with the specific comments? Thanks, ‍ ‍ elias. 🧣 ‍ ‍ 💬reach out to me
    📝see my work     13:33, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Finally: the lead. I like most of it, but would like to mention (before the going viral) that the song was originally not supposed to be a single - for more contrast. I'd prefer the last sentence in chronological order, and I'd try to close the whole thing on some line of reception. But up to you. - Possibly a completely unrelated question: why is it called "Streets"? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:48, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Rearranged the last paragraph. I too like the lead as it is. @Gerda, I think the "unplanned single" detail might be too much for the lead: we're already summarising a lot of things that make the song notable, and I don't really think its being an unplanned single is one of them.
    • And I believe it's called "Streets" because it's named after the song it samples, "Streets Is Callin'", but unfortunately I can't find a high-quality source to back this up, so it will have to remain unmentioned. ‍ ‍ elias. 🧣 ‍ ‍ 💬reach out to me
      📝see my work       00:10, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you, and support. I learned a lot: that - while "Traum durch die Dämmerung" clearly says it's all a dream in the title - this ballad can be named streets without ever referring to even one street (at least not noteworthy to the article), and harmless lyrics be blown up to a monster spider and nuclear desaster, and gets liked ;) - I didn't know the singer and met a woman of strong personality and cat-like movements, more reference to her name than the milk ;) - Now this woman who "is apt to go on and on and on until she gets her way" (allegedly) - will look for DYK Diana Tishchenko, and why Brook is still not on the Main page. Last reminder of "my way": I don't think the images of her live performance and the video need any caption beyond saying what is pictured, a 2021 live performance, a cabdriver in whose head something is going on. The critics' views -about the whole video, and mentioned often enough prominently - have nothing to do with the very "scene" pictured which is neither erotic nor "noir", only unclear ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:53, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Gerda Arendt, thank you for the support; I appreciate the constructive comments and suggestions. I'm glad you and I were both patient on the contested points, but oh well, we will have to agree to disagree on your thoughts about the video screenshot. The picture is there to communicate the tone of the entire video, and it's fine if you don't detect those tones I guess :shrug: Also, I refuse to comment further on the "go on and on" line, though I politely request you strike it, because it feels off-topic and inappropriate to me. ‍ ‍ elias. 🧣 ‍ ‍ 💬reach out to me
          📝see my work           07:59, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Query for the coordinators

[edit]

@Gog (and apologies for the ping), what's the status of this nomination? Would Gerald's wrapping up his comments be the only thing left to do before the discussion is closed with a decision ? Thanks, ‍ ‍ elias. 🧣 ‍ ‍ 💬reach out to me
📝see my work 03:59, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If GWL were to sign off on everything I would certainly be happy to look through the reviews and the article with a view to closing. I imagine my fellow coordinators would share that view. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:41, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Gog the Mild and Troubled.elias, SORRY. I'm kind of on a semi-wikibreak right now since I'm working on a film, and I realized I have not disclosed in advance. I'm looking through the comments now. GeraldWL 16:49, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And I'm done with that. After my remaining comments are addressed I'll support. GeraldWL 17:10, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The last prose commenter has wrapped up with their responses, and the outstanding spotcheck results from GWL are out. Would any available @FAC coordinators: kindly check the entire discussion as well as the article to see if it can be promoted? It's been languishing at the bottom of the FAC list for a while, thus getting it out ASAP would be nice. Would preface however that this discussion has been pretty in-depth, reaching an unusually high FAC nom page size of 80,545 bytes, so to whoever checks, please do take your time with it. ‍ ‍ elias. 🧣 ‍ ‍ 💬reach out to me
    📝see my work     14:03, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Buidhe via FACBot (talk) 7 July 2022 [38].

Mandrill

[edit]
Nominator(s): LittleJerry (talk) 01:22, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the mandrill, arguably the most iconic looking primate and the most colorful mammal. After an extensive GA review by Mover of molehills, I think its showtime. LittleJerry (talk) 01:22, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
  • Suggest adding alt text
Added. LittleJerry (talk) 12:10, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The sandwiching article states that "Mul­ti­ple im­ages can be stag­gered right and left. How­ever, a­void sand­wich­ing text be­tween two im­ages that face each oth­er;" There's no problem with that there. LittleJerry (talk) 12:17, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately on my screen there is. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:40, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 21:12, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly is the problem? LittleJerry (talk) 12:10, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Colour alone is being used to convey important information. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:40, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thats how range maps work. buidhe? LittleJerry (talk) 13:12, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 12:10, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Same question on the amended version. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:40, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand. buidhe? LittleJerry (talk) 13:11, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria what exactly is wrong with the image licensing and the map? What do you mean "where is that licensing coming from?" and what's wrong with the color of the map? LittleJerry (talk) 14:53, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For the map, because there are other shaded areas in other colours, the use of only colour to convey information presents a problem for users with vision problems. For the image licensing, the image description page includes a source link, but I do not see the licensing claimed at that link. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:15, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Replaced flower image. BhagyaMani, could you remove the green stuff on Africa and make it uniformly white to contrast with the purple? LittleJerry (talk) 12:02, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I used the wikimedia map as base layer, which is coloured in white + green shades. It is not possible to change this coloration, I'm afraid. The darker green areas represent protected areas, I think. BhagyaMani (talk) 19:26, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
BhagyaMani can't you use File:BlankMap-World.png or File:World map blank black lines 4500px.gif? Zoom in on middle Africa like File:Distibución gorilla.png? LittleJerry (talk) 19:43, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What is wrong with wikimedia map?? I used this as the reviewers for the red panda page agreed with this as base layer. BhagyaMani (talk) 04:26, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
BhagyaMani, because it has green on it. Our readers may be color blind or have vision problems so they may not be able tell between the green and the range map color. Its better to have one color for the (land) background and one for the animal range. LittleJerry (talk) 23:19, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for my late reply. Today only I had time to have a look at this : I cannot use a png as baselayer. But see this without any greens, just borders : https://drive.google.com/file/d/1J1lAcu7Hma0deJx8L5DvQPTyhviIm5EA/view?usp=sharing -- BhagyaMani (talk) 13:19, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thats okay. I already got a new map, but thanks anyway. LittleJerry (talk) 13:24, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Changed range map. LittleJerry (talk) 22:42, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jens

[edit]
  • Etymology seems a bit incomplete. For example, according to [39] the name was first used by William Smith for the Chimpanzee but later transferred to this animal.
Added. LittleJerry (talk) 12:39, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • the latter meaning "baboon" – Is the meaning really restricted to baboon? This source [40] states "baboon or ape". Please check with other sources.
Added. LittleJerry (talk) 12:39, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • central Africa – capitalise?
Not nessacarily. LittleJerry (talk) 12:39, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But see Central Africa and Central Europe. Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:27, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's okay to use lower case for non-geopolitical articles. LittleJerry (talk) 16:39, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But "central Africa" and "Central Africa" have different meanings, see [41]. Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:11, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 17:56, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • and placed in the genus Papio. – is there an "it" missing?
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 12:39, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • This divergence correlates with the split of two known mandrill SIVs – This is too technical and needs more explanation I think. You could spell out the abbreviation, and it is not the virus itself that split but virus species?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 12:39, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2.90 gb – Again, I would spell out the abbreviation.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 12:39, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • draft genome – What does "draft" mean here exactly?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 12:39, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Males have a 700–950 mm – suggest to change to cm which appears to be more standard?
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 12:46, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • red and blues hues – "blue"?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 12:46, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rear view of the animal is an important feature, but I miss a picture of it.
Added. LittleJerry (talk) 13:02, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The darker and more subdued coloring of female faces is caused by melanin – I think this could be misleading. It reads as if the female coloring is entirely due to melanin, which is not the case; melanin only makes it darker.
Thats what its saying. It already mentions where the red and blue colors come from and states that females are darker due to melanin. LittleJerry (talk) 13:02, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The rump skin of male mandrills also have melanin – But melanin is everywhere regardless (also in human skin, for example)?
Nope. Not on the face. LittleJerry (talk) 13:02, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That would surprise me. Do you have a source for the claim that it does not occur in the face? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:28, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes cite 33 states that males don't have melanin on the blue facial skin. LittleJerry (talk) 15:55, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Both mandrills and drills are more arboreal than baboons. – This could do with more detail; how much time do they spent in trees? Are there percentages, case studies, or similar?
There's no information on that. The article already states that they sleep in trees. LittleJerry (talk) 13:11, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mandrills may associate or compete with other primates such as – Here, detail is lacking in my opinion. What does it mean "to associate", do they form groups?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 13:11, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 16:01, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • ulterior benefit – I don't understand what "ulterior" adds here. Why is it needed?
Removed. LittleJerry (talk) 16:01, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The blue facial skin is more consistant in brightness. – "consistent"?
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 16:01, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The blue facial skin is more consistant in brightness.[32][61] Blue skin is another sign of dominance; – why "another" when it was just mentioned in the previous sentence?
Removed. LittleJerry (talk) 16:01, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • When a males loses dominance, these physiological changes are at least partially reversed.[32] The blue facial skin is more consistant in brightness.[32][61] Blue skin is another sign of dominance; and higher ranking males tend to have more contrast between red and blue facial coloring. – Information order is confusing and seemingly contradicting: 1) males may loose color, 2) but not in the face, 3) they loose it also in the face. Could be better formulated to show how this fits together.
I don't see the contradiction. It states the red coloration varies with dominance while blue is more consistent. LittleJerry (talk) 16:01, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Individuals may cooperative during hunting and share kills – cooperate?
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 16:01, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • nematode loa loa – upper case
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 16:01, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 21:16, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Tim riley

[edit]

Place-marker. Comments to follow after close scrutiny of text, but one thing jumps out from a first canter through: "sexual dimorphic" should be "sexually dimorphic", as in our WP article on that subject. The adjective needs an adverb modifier. More anon. Tim riley talk 14:37, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I found this a most interesting and informative article. A few small points on the prose:

  • Lead
  • Dominant males have more vibrant colors and fatter flanks and rumps – more and fatter than whom? Non-dominant males, presumably, but it isn't clear. The first part of the sentence is ambiguous: do you mean they have more colours that are vibrant or colours that are more vibrant?
It states "and have more success siring young" so its comparing them to less dominant males. The colors are more vibrant. LittleJerry (talk) 21:00, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Etymology
  • French naturalist Georges-Louis Buffon … Welsh naturalist Thomas Pennant – are their nationalities relevant? Likewise for Gessner, later.
They help distinguish between the different naturalists. LittleJerry (talk) 21:00, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Appearance
  • The mandrill has a heavyset body – heavyset is a new word to me. Is it an AmE term? Its meaning isn't obvious.
Changed. LittleJerry (talk) 17:58, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Behavior and life history
  • semi-captive females may survive into their early 20s – it would be helpful to have the unexpected term “semi-captive” explained briefly.
Its pretty self explanatory. Semi = "partly". They are semi-free ranging. LittleJerry (talk) 21:13, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I also think that this may be difficult for readers; what about linking to wiktionary? Jens Lallensack (talk) 13:53, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Removed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:25, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Social structure
  • unaided wild primates – "unaided" is another unfamiliar term, in this context, and could do with explanation for the benefit of non-expert readers.
Unaided is also obvious. The source uses "unprovisioned". This is the best I can break it down. LittleJerry (talk) 21:13, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • a 120 member group – would benefit from a hyphen
Added. LittleJerry (talk) 21:13, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • an average travelling distance – as the article is so very obviously in AmE, the BrE "travelling" rather than "traveling" looks odd to me, but perhaps the former is an accepted American alternative.
  • leads to less social connections – grammatically you can't have less connections: you mean fewer.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 21:13, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reproduction and development
  • dominant males are also known as "fattened" males while subordinate males are known as "non-fatted" males – this seems strange. One might expect consistent fattened/non-fattened or fatted/non-fatted, but if the versions we here are the standard terms, that’s fine, of course.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 21:13, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Those are my few minor observations. Tim riley talk 09:53, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tim riley, anymore? LittleJerry (talk) 23:27, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's my lot. I have no more comments. Tim riley talk 03:20, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Tim riley. is that a support? LittleJerry (talk) 23:04, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Neither supporting nor opposing. Tim riley talk 07:16, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Funk

[edit]
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 12:15, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is the last photo really worth all the white space it creates by the references? Its pretty poor and doesn't add much.
Removed. LittleJerry (talk) 12:15, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • This[42] photo shows the shape and gait of the animal better than many of the current pictures, some of which are blurry and samey.
There's no room for it. It can't be in the description section, since I'll have three images of adult males in a row (including lead). LittleJerry (talk) 12:15, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The photo under ecology is pretty blurry and samey, do we even know if it shows a wild individual, which I assume is why it's there? Could be replaced by something better. FunkMonk (talk) 22:13, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Replaced. LittleJerry (talk) 23:16, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "to be "forest baboons" and placed them in the genus Papio." Add "like the baboons" or "the baboon genus Papio" to clarify this is the genus of all baboons.
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 22:46, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The majority consensus is that mandrills belong to one subspecies (M. s. sphinx)" How does the source phrase this? If there are no subspecies, it's just monotypic, and no trinomial is needed?
"....while all mandrills are placed in a single subspecies (M. sphinx sphinx). I guess its like modern humans being Homo sapiens sapiens LittleJerry (talk) 22:46, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and are distinct haplogroups" They belong to distinct haplogroups, they are not.
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 22:46, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "to have also lead to the splitting" Led.
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 22:46, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The blue ridges on males contrasts both" Contrast plural?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:46, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • These[43][44][45] are superior photos of babies, the one in the article barely shows the juvenile, and is very similar to the grooming photo.
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 23:06, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would seem more relevant and interesting to show a male characteristically baring its fangs, instead of the poor photo under ecology, examples:[46][47][48]
Those images appear to show mandrills yawning. They don't communicate by showing their teeth like that. The skull image shows the teeth. LittleJerry (talk) 23:06, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 23:16, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Outside the breeding season, males are believed to lead a solitary life and all-male bachelor groups are not known to exist." This makes me wonder about all the photos we have of males with femals in zoos, seems they are kept together all yer around, but do we know how this affects their behaviour? At least male elephants are usually kept away from the females in zoos.
Doesn't say. LittleJerry (talk) 23:06, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "captive individuals at the Colchester Zoo, England learned to facepalm" Does it have any meaning for them?
Added. LittleJerry (talk) 22:43, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Mandrills may also may grunt" Double may.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:43, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Ovulating females are more likely to allow the brightest colored males near them and inspect their perineum" Who inspects who?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:06, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "hunting in Cameroon and Equatorial Guinea appears to have led to smaller group sizes" Hunting for meat, skins, or what? Could go further into human use.
For meat. It already states so earlier in the paragraph. LittleJerry (talk) 22:43, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and hunting for bushmeat" I see the intro specifies, then the article body should too.
It does. "Its total population is unknown but is suspected to have decreased by more than 30 percent over the last 24 years. Its main threats are habitat destruction and hunting for bushmeat." LittleJerry (talk) 22:43, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why does the common name need a citation in the infobox?
Removed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:43, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • If fossils have not been found, as indicated by the article, how do we know this species appeared in the Early Pleistocene, as indicated by the taxobox?
Removed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:43, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • " with which it shares the genus name Mandrillus" Or rather just the genus, seems odd to say they share it as a "name".
Removed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:43, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The intro could give a better physical description, none of their distinct facial and posterior features are mentioned.
It already states "It is one of the most colorful mammals in the world, with red and blue skin on its face and posterior." LittleJerry (talk) 22:43, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

[edit]
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 18:28, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Various morphological and genetic studies". I would leave out "Various" as unnecessary and vague.
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 18:28, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The current consensus". "Current" will become dated. Better "As of 2022, the consensus"
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 18:28, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some photos are too small to be useful and would be better enlarged. E.g. you could increase "Male and female mandrills" to upright=1.3
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 18:28, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is a chest gland. Can it be linked?
A gland on the chest? There is no link. LittleJerry (talk) 18:28, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "feed as high as the canopy." is tautologous. Does you mean they also feed in the canopy? If so, you should say so.
Its not a tautology, there are different levels to the rainforest and the canopy is the highest. LittleJerry (talk) 18:28, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Mandrills may aggregate or compete with other primates" This is vague. Do you mean that they mix socially or fight with other primates? Presumably they could expel smaller species from feeding areas?
It doesn't say. Only that they can be found together and compete for foods. LittleJerry (talk) 18:28, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "unaided wild primates" What does unaided mean here? If it means primates which are not fed by humans I would leave it out as superfluous.
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 18:39, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The supergroup would occasionally diverge" "split" would be a better word than "diverge"
That's the word used in the source. I'd rather be as different as possible. LittleJerry (talk) 18:39, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "try to monopolize access to respective females by mate guarding" What does "respective" mean here? receptive?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 18:39, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Interbirth periods last an average of 405 days" I do not get this. Do you mean that there is a year and 40 days between births, so each birth is on average 40 days later in the year than the previous one? If it is an average with some births after one year and some after two years it should be clarified.
I have no idea. The source states "Interbirth intervals (IBI) average 405 days (range 184–1159 days, N = 103)" LittleJerry (talk) 18:51, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Added. LittleJerry (talk) 18:51, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:18, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FunkMonk? Dudley Miles? LittleJerry (talk) 19:50, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass

[edit]

I'll try to take care of this over the next couple days. Hog Farm Talk 03:30, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: : Anything more needed? LittleJerry (talk) 13:19, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

[edit]

Recusing to review.

  • Lead: "most colorful"; article: "brightest coloration". I suggest you pick one - or use both in both places if the sourcing supports this.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:48, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Females form the core of these groups, while adult males are solitary and only reunite with the larger groups during the breeding season. Dominant males have more vibrant colors and fatter flanks and rumps ...". Just checking that the "more vibrant colors and fatter flanks" is in comparison to females? The follow on from the female - male comparison seems to make that clear, but the terminating "and have more success siring young" makes me want to check.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:48, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why are some naturalists labelled by nationality - Swiss, French - some by region - Welsh - some by ethnic/language group - German (there was no German nation in 1824) - and some not assigned such a label - Darwin, Linnaeus?
Darwin and Linneaeus are well known and need no introduction. LittleJerry (talk) 20:48, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This only addresses one of my queries. What about the others. Re Darwin and Linneaeus, I see no reason why any of them need labelling other than by name, but if you are going to assign nationalities, regional identities, language groups or whatever - which I can live with, it's your article - you need to be consistent.
Removed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:36, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "majority consensus". Delete "majority". (One can't have a minority consensus.)
Removed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:48, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "split 800,000 years ago based on cytochrome-b sequences". Er, you mean cytochrome-b sequences were used to date the split, not what you wrote. And is there an associated error bar?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:48, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The rump skin of male mandrills also have melanin" is not grammatical.
Removed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:48, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "They may live in gallery forests". "may"? Is this not known for certain then.
Removed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:48, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is "continuous forest"? Is there non-continuous forest?
The opposite of gallery forest. LittleJerry (talk) 20:48, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Umm. The opposite of gallery forest is bare earth. Could we have a brief in line explanation.
Gallery forest are patches of forests surrounded by savannas and other habitats. That what continuous forests contrasts with. LittleJerry (talk) 22:36, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Leopards may prey on mandrills, as traces of mandrill have been found in their feces." Why "may"?
There is a possibly of scavenging. LittleJerry (talk) 20:48, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Other potential predators include African rock pythons, crowned eagles and chimpanzees." Why "potential"?
The author suggests them but predation hasn't been recorded. LittleJerry (talk) 20:48, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly 'it has been suggested that' or similar may convey this nuance better?
I don't see the improvement. LittleJerry (talk) 22:40, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in captivity, they used sticks to clean themselves". "used" → either 'use' or 'have been observed using'.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:48, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "71 less dominant and subadult males". Just checking that is correct and you don't mean '71 less dominant or subadult males'.
Correct. LittleJerry (talk) 20:48, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "that would reunite after certain periods". How long is a "certain period"?
It just says they temporarly split. LittleJerry (talk) 21:02, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "may lead to support during conflicts ...". And, there again, it may not. Is this not known, or is it just an author playing guessing games?
The author uses that type of language. You can't know for sure. LittleJerry (talk) 20:48, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well you can, but if we don't in this case then fair enough.
  • "captive alpha males to mark enclosure boundaries more frequently." More frequently than what? Or who, as the case may be.
Than other places. LittleJerry (talk) 20:48, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Could this be clarified in the article?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:36, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Mandrills groom one another, even when there is no benefit to be gained from doing so." I assume that the groomed mandrill always benefits?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:55, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "give them more time to flee." Flee from what?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:48, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The recipients of grooming will try to maneuver the groomer to pick at more "risky" areas." Er, what does this mean? Risk of what?
See above LittleJerry (talk) 20:48, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "fattened" and "non-fatted" seems odd. You sure the source says that? I would expect either fattened and non-fattened os fatted and non-fatted.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:48, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and males are less able to sire offspring when their canines are under 30 mm". I suspect that "able" should be 'likely'.
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 20:50, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Receptive females have sexual swellings". Where?
Added. LittleJerry (talk)
  • "Infants are born around 640 g (23 oz)" → 'Infants when born weigh around 640 g (23 oz)'.
That's closer to how the source words it so I can't do that. LittleJerry (talk) 20:48, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
'Infants are born weighing around 640 g'; 'When born infants typically weigh 640 g'; At birth, infant weight is around 640 g' ...
Changed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:36, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and mostly bare with some white hair". Do you mean 'and are mostly bare-skinned ...'?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:48, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Females may reach their adult size around seven years" → something like 'Females may reach their adult size when aged around seven years'. And, again, "may". Is this not known, or been observed, or calculated, or anything.
Removed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:48, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cites 26 and 77: pp errors.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:48, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • References: some books have publisher locations, some don't. Either is acceptable, but be consistent.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:48, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild (talk) 20:08, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Very prompt. Looking good. Several come backs above. If I haven't commented I am happy.

@FAC coordinators: : I think we're ready. LittleJerry (talk) 21:21, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: : 4 supports, a source review and a image review. LittleJerry (talk) 23:18, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Featured_log/July_2022&oldid=1101308787"