Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/July 2023

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) 30 July 2023 [1].

---

Quine–Putnam indispensability argument

Nominator(s): Alduin2000 (talk) 17:57, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

This article is about one of the most important arguments in the philosophy of mathematics - according to some, the only good non-question-begging argument at all for platonism. The basic idea is that we should believe in numbers and other mathematical objects because they are indispensable to our best scientific theories. Behind that basic idea is a mix of complex ideas about the nature and goals of philosophy, how we come to know which things exist and which don't, and how language ties into answering these question. I believe this article should be a featured article because I think it now does justice to all of these ideas after some thorough GA and peer reviews. This is my first FAC so apologies if there are any major or obvious problems! Alduin2000 (talk) 17:57, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

First-time nomination

• Hi Alduin2000, a little belatedly, welcome to FAC. Just noting that as a first time nominator at FAC, this article will need to pass a source to text integrity spot check and a review for over-close paraphrasing to be considered for promotion. Good luck with the nomination. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:37, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi Alduin, welcome to FAC. Some comments on images:

• Suggest adding alt text

• File:Willard_Van_Orman_Quine_passport_cropped.jpg: the information provided under Licensing is not convincing - this may have been done to government specifications, but it's not a government work. And if it were a government work, CC-tagging it would not make sense. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:27, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi Nikkimaria. Thanks for the suggestion, I'll add some alt text now. On the photo of Quine, it appears the original justification was that the uploader had gotten permission from the owner to upload with a CC license. Is it worth starting a VRT ticket? I'm not 100% sure of the process to be honest. Alduin2000 (talk) 10:16, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

It's not clear to me that the person from whom permission was received would actually be the copyright holder - it's not the subject, but perhaps a relative of theirs based on the name? And then was the photograph taken at a photo booth as the description suggests, or by an actual photographer? Unfortunately I don't have enough information to give you a good answer - if the person mentioned was the copyright holder VRT would make sense, but that's not clear. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:06, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

The relative is Quine's son Douglas Boynton Quine I believe. Not sure on photobooth vs photographer, I opened a section here: Commons:Village pump/Copyright#Copyright status of this image and both CC justifications do seem a bit iffy. It's a shame but I can remove the photo and perhaps move the Putnam photo down to another section if that's safer. Thanks. Alduin2000 (talk) 17:04, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria Update: I contacted Douglas Quine and a new photo has been uploaded to Commons and has now replaced the passport photo. Alduin2000 (talk) 08:51, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Comments Support from Phlsph7

I'm happy to see this article finally at FAC after a lengthy preparation period. From a first look, it seems to be in good shape. One point that was already brought up at the GA review and the peer review is that the topic is difficult. There have been various improvements but going through all the explanations in detail is still not a cakewalk. However, this may be more of a problem with the abstract nature of the topic itself and less with our article. It could be simplified by leaving certain details out but that would hurt comprehensiveness.

A few observations:

• Platonism does not face problems concerning the sematic half of the dilemma: sematic -> semantic

Done

• Other positions that have attempted to provide a reason for the success of mathematics includes: includes -> include

Done

• The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy identifies it as one of the major arguments in the debate between mathematical realism and mathematical anti-realism alongside Benacerraf's epistemological problem for platonism, Benacerraf's identification problem, and Benacerraf's argument for platonism that there should be uniformity between mathematical and non-mathematical semantics.: could be split into 2 sentences to make it more accessible

I've simply removed all reference to other arguments here - resulting wording is still not the best but better than before I think

• An example of this idea provided by Michael Resnik is of the hypothesis an observer will see oil and water separate out if they are added together because they do not mix.: there is something wrong with this sentence. Maybe it and the subsequent sentence could be reformulated to simplify this point. What do you think of something along the following lines: As an example, Michael Resnik considers the observation that oil and water separate out if they are added together because they do not mix. He points out that this claim in isolation cannot be confirmed through observation since it relies on additional assumptions. For example, it assumes that no chemical substances interfere with the separation and that the eyes of the observer are functioning well enough to observe the separation.

I've reworded that passage - hopefully it's ok now

• From the text of the subsection "Mathematical explanation", it's not clear to me in what sense Melia's weaseling-argument is a mathematical explanation. It seems to be more of a criticism of mathematical explanations. Would it make more sense to put this paragraph at the end of this subsection since the other paragraphs are about mathematical explanations? An alternative would be to add an introductory sentence to clarify the relation between weaseling and mathematical explanation.

I've tried to make this a bit clearer. The idea is that Melia argues mathematics is not genuinely explanatory and so we don't need to be committed to it. Baker argues against this that mathematics is explanatory and there are genuine mathematical explanations of physical phenomena. Let me know if you still think this needs a bit more clarification.

• WP:DUPLINK in relation to David Lewis and David Malet Armstrong in the section "Influence".

DUPLINK now allows up to one link per section if it is useful for the reader. I think in this case it is useful as Lewis and Armstrong are only really mentioned in passing previously so easy to miss for the reader.

• WP:EARWIG shows various potential copyright violations. But they seem to be all due to quotes, book titles, or stock phrases ("indispensable to our best scientific theories", "the existence of abstract mathematical objects",...).
• User:Headbomb/unreliable.js marks one source as unreliable. But this is only because the link to the pdf file points to a general repository and not because of the publisher.
• there are no claims without a reference in the body of the article

Short query for the coordinators: in the course of a peer review to get the article ready for FAC, I also made a few changes to the article. Should I abstain from voting for or against because of these involvements? Phlsph7 (talk) 08:47, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi Phlsph7, I'll let you know when I've addressed your comments. thanks for all the help and suggestions at peer review getting this ready btw :) Alduin2000 (talk) 11:55, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi again, I've now responded to all your comments above. Alduin2000 (talk) 12:56, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for addressing the issues. I'll get started with a short spotcheck. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:00, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

• Hi Phlsph7, and thanks for doing the spot check. I was wondering if you felt in a position to also either support or oppose this nomination more generally? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:31, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

  I would support the nomination if the fact that I made a few contributions to article (mentioned above) is not an obstacle to my vote. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:27, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi Phlsph7. It's not, but thanks for pointing it out so clearly. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:39, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: Thanks for the clarification. I changed my "Comments" to "Support". Phlsph7 (talk) 08:59, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Spotcheck by Phlsph7 - pass

• For example, according to this reasoning, if the sentence "Mars is a planet" implies the existence of the planet Mars, then the sentence "two is a prime number" should also imply the existence of the number two.[6] supported by the source
• This is called Benacerraf's epistemological problem because it concerns the epistemology of mathematics, that is, how we come to know what we do about mathematics.[9] supported by Horsten 2019, §3.4
• Platonism holds that there exist abstract mathematical objects such as numbers and sets whilst nominalism denies their existence.[10] supported by the source (it uses the term anti-realist instead of nominalist but that shouldn't be problem); I would suggest adding page 8 since it covers the previous sentence (The philosophy of mathematics is split into two main strands; platonism and nominalism) more explicitly.
• When applied in the field of ontology—the study of what exists—they exemplify a Quinean strategy for establishing the existence of controversial entities that cannot be directly investigated. ...[14] supported by the source
• Mark Colyvan presents the argument in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy in the following form:[2] supported by the source
• Some philosophers infer from the argument that mathematical knowledge is a posteriori because it implies mathematical truths can only be established via the empirical confirmation of scientific theories to which they are indispensable. ...[19] supported by both sources
• Furthermore, if an entity is dispensable to a theory, an equivalent theory can be formulated without it.[23]: supported by the source
• According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, the most influential argument against the indispensability argument comes from Hartry Field.[25] : supported by Colyvan 2019, §4; I would suggest reformulating it to "one of the most influential" since it also lists other "objections that have received the most attention"
• Field has tried to explain how it is possible for false mathematical statements to be used by science without making scientific predictions false.[32]: supported by Colyvan 2019, §4
• This is in contrast to alternative forms of naturalism, such as a form supported by David Armstrong that holds a principle called the Eleatic principle. According to this principle there are only causal entities and no non-causal entities.[37]: supported by the source
• Confirmational holism is the view scientific theories and hypotheses cannot be confirmed in isolation and must be confirmed together as part of a larger cluster of theories.[45]: supported by Paseau & Baker 2023, p. 9.
• For example, Resnik has offered a pragmatic indispensability argument that "claims that the justification for doing science ... also justifies our accepting as true such mathematics as science uses".[52]: supported by Colyvan 2001, p. 14–15.
• An example of mathematics' explanatory indispensability presented by Baker is the periodic cicada, a type of insect that has life cycles of 13 or 17 years....[69]: supported by Colyvan 2019, §5
• Whilst developing his philosophical view of confirmational holism, Quine was influenced by Pierre Duhem.[74]: supported by the source
• For the logical positivists, all justified beliefs were reducible to sense data, including our knowledge of ordinary objects such as trees.[81]: supported by the source
• Putnam has said he differed with Quine in his attitude to the argument from at least 1975.[96]: supported by the source
• Putnam has explicitly distanced himself from this version of the argument, saying; "From my point of view, Colyvan's description of my argument(s) is far from right" and has contrasted his indispensability argument with "the fictitious 'Quine–Putnam indispensability argument' ".[108] : supported by the source
• According to his argument, quantification over possible worlds is indispensable to our best philosophical theories, so we should believe in their concrete existence.[112]: supported by Weatherson 2021, §6.1

Comments from JayBeeEll

Nice to see another math article up; a very interesting article! This is just a start, I will add more in the coming days hopefully. --JBL (talk) 18:15, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi JBL, thanks for reviewing! I've responded to your comments so far below. Let me know if any still need some changes. Alduin2000 (talk) 22:01, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

• It is presented in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy as: Some writing guides recommend that what precedes a colon in a context like this should be able to stand alone as a sentence; that happens the second time Colyvan's argument is quoted, but not here.

Fixed I think

• The construction most-adjective appears three times; it is unusual to use a hyphen for an adverb-adjective compound.

Fixed

• I see at least one "i.e." -- MOS advises that Most [such abbreviations] should be replaced, in regular running text, by unabbreviated expansions or essentially synonymous plain English (that is for i.e., namely for viz., and so on), when space permits or when the material would be clearer to more readers. I also think "i.e." should be followed by a comma, just as "that is" would be.

Done

• Field tries to show this by reformulating or "nominalising" scientific theories so they do not refer to mathematical objects. what is the referent of "this"?

Fixed

• Note [c] doesn't have a footnote; is it covered by the reference [8] to Colyvan?

  Yep, I can add the reference to the footnote too if that is clearer?

  I do not insist, but maybe it would be slightly clearer? Primarily I just wanted to be sure it was referenced. --JBL (talk) 18:15, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

  Done. Shapeyness (talk) 18:37, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

• science and philosophy are continuous with one another is "continuous" the right word here?

  Yes, the Wikipedia article on naturalism puts it nicely: "According to this view, science and philosophy are not always distinct from one another, but instead form a continuum."

  Ok interesting; to me as a mathematician it sounds very odd, maybe because I am hung up on a particular technical meaning of the word. If no one else is bothered by it, I am fine. --JBL (talk) 18:15, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

• I find This is in contrast to alternative forms of naturalism, such as a form supported by David Armstrong that holds a principle called the Eleatic principle according to which there are only causal entities and no non-causal entities. hard to parse -- maybe more punctuation or splitting the sentence would help?

  I've split the sentence, hopefully that's more understandable now

  Yes thanks. --JBL (talk) 18:15, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

• Hi JayBeeEll, 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) 17:29, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

  Hi Gog the Mild, apologies, real life has been preventing the kind of sustained attention necessary to finish my read-through. I have blocked out an hour tomorrow afternoon to continue; I think it is likely that I will support. --JBL (talk) 19:47, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

More comments:

• In the sentence Analogous to the law of inertia, mathematical hypotheses hold no empirical content on their own but according to Quine, they can share in the empirical confirmations of the systems of hypotheses in which they are contained, the commas are not where I personally would have placed them (but I view comma placement as largely a matter of personal style, so this need not be viewed as a call for any changes). I also wonder if it is possible to avoid having four sentences in a row that begin "[Speaker] [synonym of 'said'] ...", but again I do not view this as obligatory.

Reading over that sentence again, I do think it was a bit awkward - I've reworded it, hopefully it isn't worse now! As for "speaker said", I don't think I can fix that.

• I always enjoy a good "whilst". I wonder if Whilst eventually becoming a platonist ... would be smoother with "he eventually became"? (Perhaps not.)

I agree

• in which he wrote "a thoroughgoing nominalist doctrine is too much to live up to" How do we feel about inserting "that" before the quote?

I don't have any strong opinions although in this case I do slightly prefer without (assuming that's not grammatically incorrect or something)

• I believe what one daily presupposes." should be WP:LQ.

Done

• and presents it in the form: Per an earlier comment, I would have written "in this form:" or "in the following form:".

Done

• Putnam has criticized Field's reformulations as only applying to classical physics and for being unlikely to be able to be extended to future fundamental physics. "as ... as" or "for ... for" perhaps?

Done

• The capitalization of Field's Science without Numbers is odd to me, and I am confused by the OUP page for the book which also lower-cases the 'w' but which shows a picture of the cover on which the 'w' is capitalized, so who knows?

I think both are acceptable, but I agree all capitalised makes more sense to me - I previously changed the capitalisation in the primary sources section, so will change in the prose for consistency

--JBL (talk) 18:42, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

• Having completed a thorough read-through: I am satisfied that this article is well written and researched. Stylistically it appears fine. It's a tough subject to illustrate, but the media chosen are on-point. It is an appropriate length. It deals with a very technical subject matter, in a way that is comprehensible and thorough. I support listing it as a FA. --JBL (talk) 18:47, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for reviewing JayBeeEll! I've gone over your last few comments and made some changes, thanks for the suggestions :) Shapeyness (talk) 19:28, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Looks good, and you're welcome! --JBL (talk) 19:32, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Comments from voorts

I don't have much knowledge of philosophy of mathematics, so I can only opine on the quality of the writing and compliance with MOS and citation rules (criteria 1a, 1e, and 2). I copy edited the article (not much to fix), and have a few notes:

• In the first paragraph of the background section, I think the name "Benacerraf's epistemological problem" should be introduced earlier, rather than at the end of the paragraph. Perhaps, In his 1973 paper "Mathematical Truth", Paul Benacerraf raised a problem for the philosophy of mathematics, which has since been called "Benacerraf's epistemological problem".

The issue is that the problem he raised in that paper has two parts - only the second part of the problem is Benacerraf's epistemological problem. The first part is the part about semantics and doesn't really have a name as far as I know. Both of these problems together make up Benacerraf's dilemma, so referring to the problem as a whole as "Benacerraf's epistemological problem" might give the reader the wrong idea. I can attempt to clarify a bit more in the text if you think it's needed.

• The transition into the second paragraph of the background section feels a bit clunky.

Hmm, I'm not sure how to improve, do you have any suggestions?

• When applied in the field of ontology—the study of what exists—they exemplify a Quinean strategy for establishing the existence of controversial entities that cannot be directly investigated. What makes the "strategy" "Quinean"?

The strategy is Quinean in that it can be traced back to Quine, I've added a link to wiktionary there now to clarify. Let me know if you think the article prose needs to explain this more.

• The "overview of the argument" only describes the justification for the first premise, but does not summarize the second.

The second premise is generally not supported by any further justifications as it is seen as a strong premise already - it is also quite hard to explain "indispensability" without going into technical details which I've tried to separate out from this section as much as possible. I can attempt to find some sourcing to add in a sentence about how the second premise makes the argument valid to tie things together if you think that is better.

• Since "ontological commitment" is relevant to the first premise, should it not be moved above indespensibility in the "Major concepts" section so that the order matches the order of the proof?

My approach to ordering that section was mainly in order of importance - for comparison, the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy article also places its section on indispensability before naturalism/holism despite the order of premises being the other way around

• Should the first paragraph of the indispensibility section be in wikivoice, or should it ascribe those descriptions to the particular philosophers who have expounded upon the concept?

I think wikivoice should be ok here because all sides of the debate agree that the indispensability argument needs more than eliminability to work, it needs to retain some sense of theoretical attractiveness. E.g. a key part of Field's argument which I didn't have the space to include (and isn't included in other general outlines) is an argument that his nominalistic reformulations are more theoretically attractive than platonistic versions. This idea that eliminability is not enough is also pointed out by Colyvan on the pro-indispensability argument side.

• Therefore, dispensability requires an entity is eliminable without sacrificing the attractiveness of the theory. This sentence is unclear; what does it mean to sacrifice the attractiveness of the theory?

I've reworded the following sentence to more explicitly explain this idea

• This explains how mathematics can be used by scientific theories without making the predictions of science false, but it does not explain why mathematics is actually useful in application. Is this sentence an objection to Field?

No, sorry, this is meant to capture the idea that Field has tried to explain both (1) how it is even possible for mathematics to be useful despite being false and (2) how it actually is useful. The first part is answered by mathematics being conservative over nominalistic science. The second part is answered by the fact that mathematics provides a useful shorthand to aid in derivations etc.

• An example of weaseling is the statement: "Everyone who came to the seminar had a handout. But the person who came in late didn't get one." Whilst this statement can be interpreted as being self-contradictory, it is more charitable to interpret it as coherently making the claim: "Except for the person who came in late, everyone who came to the seminar had a handout." Should there be a cite for these examples?

This should be fixed now, it's all to the same citation but I've copied it to the end of each quote for explicitness

• Frege said in 1903 that "it is applicability alone which elevates arithmetic from a game to the rank of a science".; "I will put my cards on the table now and avow my prejudices: I should like to be able to accept nominalism."; "quantification over mathematical entities is indispensable for science, both formal and physical; therefore we should accept such quantification; but this commits us to accepting the existence of the mathematical entities in question. These quotes require citations.

Same as above

• Putnam has said he differed with Quine in his attitude to the argument from at least 1975. Does this mean he started disagreeing with Quine in 1975, or that was the first time he made clear his disagreement?

It seems from the way Putnam words it that he couldn't exactly remember when he started disagreeing but places the date to "at least" 1975 which lines up with when he first publicly disagreed - I would provide the exact quote but I seem to have lost access to the chapter on JSTOR

• The first and second premises of the argument have been seen as uncontroversial, so discussion of this argument has been focused on the third premise. Who has accepted the premises as uncontroversial? This sentence itself could be challenged and I think needs a cite.

I've now attributed this to the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, it is covered by citation 94

• There are inconsistencies between using sentence case and title case in journal article titles in the citations.

Fixed I think, let me know if there are any I missed

Once these issues are addressed, I will support the nomination. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:03, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the review Voorts! Btw, sorry if this causes any confusion, I am Alduin2000, I requested a name change while this was an FAC. Anyway, I have responded to your comments, hopefully that covers everything! Shapeyness (talk) 15:00, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! Support this article for FAC. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:54, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Comments from BennyOnTheLoose

Great work. My comments will be rather footling after the comprehensive reviews above. Feel free to challenge on these minor points. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 09:49, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks BennyOnTheLoose, and don't worry it's more than made up for by the comments from GA review! I've responded to your initial comments below :) Shapeyness (talk) 13:16, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

• Be consistent between "David Malet Armstrong" and "David Armstrong" in the text.

Done

• I think "used" is generally preferred to "utilized"

Done

• "[[Scientific realist|scientific realists]] as it attempts to justify belief in mathematical entities in a manner similar to the justification for belief in theoretical entities such as [[Electron|electrons]] or [[Quark|quarks]]" should be "[[scientific realist]]s as it attempts to justify belief in mathematical entities in a manner similar to the justification for belief in theoretical entities such as [[electron]]s or [[quark]]s" (I think).

Oops, can never trust the visual editor to get that right, fixed now

• I used the Ref check script and didn't find any changes required. The fix sources script suggested changing some "date=" parameters to "year=" but I couldn't see that this would have any worthwhile effect.
• I ran Citation Bot - looks like the very small changes are OK, but please check.
• Having "Quine, W. V." and "Smart, J. J. C." but fuller names for all the other authors in Primary sources seems a bit inconsistent - not sure if there is a guideline on this but even if there is, there might be a case for applying WP:IAR if those authors are best known by their initials.

A lot of philosophers from around that time seem to have gone by just their initials and surname, not sure why. I think Smart would definitely be more well known as J. J. C. Smart. Quine wrote under W. V. Quine but he is also quite well known by his full name, Willard Van Orman Quine. I don't have a strong opinion on whether to change.

• Suport, as I can't see anything else. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 17:27, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:01, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

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 2023 [2].

---

44th Chess Olympiad

Nominator(s): Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:54, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

This article is about a team chess tournament with global participation in the spirit of the Olympic Games that took place in Chennai, India in August 2022. After the article attained the GA status, some brief sections have been merged with longer ones, so it stands to reason to believe that it meets all criteria for an FA in the field of sport.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:54, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

First-time nomination

• Hi Kiril Simeonovski, and welcome to FAC. Just noting that as a first time nominator at FAC, this article will need to pass a source to text integrity spot check to be considered for promotion. Good luck with the nomination. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:58, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Image review

• Don't use fixed px size
• Suggest adding alt text
• File:44th_Chess_Olympiad_2022_stamp_of_India.jpg: is there a source to support the given licensing?
• File:Chess_Olympiad_2022_official_logo.png is missing copyright owner. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:00, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. I've made changes in line with the suggestions. I couldn't find a source to support the licencing for the postal stamp, but the same licence is used for all Indian postal stamps (see the stamps in this category).--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:27, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Source review by Bilorv

Good to see a chess article at FAC! I'm reviewing this with one eye on WCC commentary, rooting for Ding. I'll do some spotchecks, in reference to Gog the Mild's comment. Reference numbers as of Special:Permalink/1148495851.

Spotchecks: #2, #3, #8, #10, #13, #17, #21, #23, #50, #96, #101, #105, #115.

Source comments:

• TASS is generally unreliable (RSP entry) as a Russian government propaganda outlet. Source #111 is acceptable as verifying a Russian Chess Federation statement, but other uses need removal.
• Other than this, I'm happy that the sources given are reliable for the facts in the article, after some investigation into the sources I haven't seen before. Primary sources are largely acceptable for simple statements of facts or official statements.
• I can't see a source for "Both sections set team participation records" or the repetition in the body, "both records for a Chess Olympiad" and "also a record". Reference #13 says vague promotional things like "Clearly, this scale and magnitude ... is going to be unprecedented" and Chess-Results doesn't seem to state the record directly. Reference #50 (not cited inline) does say the previous record was 179 countries, so perhaps the claim could be changed to this record.
• Reference #23 doesn't say "Only one bid was submitted"; perhaps #24 implies this by only listing one bid in the appendix. (Though unreliable for this fact, TASS implies Argentina and Slovakia did bid in some way.)
• Reference #115 doesn't say "The Chinese team ... won gold medals in both events at the 2018 Chess Olympiad".
• Formatting issues pose a 2(c) problem. You should consider what parameters to include for each source e.g. URL, title, work or publisher, date or access-date; and whether they should be in italics or linked. For instance, source #46 and #118 lacks a mention of work/publisher; #51 and #52 have neither a date nor an access-date; The Times of India is linked in #92 but not in #43 or #100; is it "ANI" or "Asian News International" etc. These are examples but the whole reference list will need a run through. Some of the data is also incorrect, such as the "author" 'Team, BS Web' in #29, 'ANI' in #32, "official website" in #46.
• I can't access source #61. Archiving may be worthwhile.

Other comments:

• "The olympiad was initially ..." – Should "Olympiad" be capitalised for consistency?
• "1,737; 937 in the Open" – I think a colon is more accurate than a semi-colon (the latter half is a breakdown of the 1,737 number, not a standalone clause).

— Bilorv (talk) 13:13, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed review. I've run through all the references and made corrections on the formatting (e.g. replacing "work" with "publisher", correcting author data, linking to the publisher on the first mention etc.). Additionally, I was able to find other reliable sources to replace TASS as a source, as well as to support the claims that were not literally stated in the previous sources. Those that could not be found, such as "only one bid was submitted", were rephrased in a meaningful way. Finally, I've replaced "olympiad" with "Olympiad" and put a colon in line with the other comments (BTW, both Nepo and Ding are gentle and good players, so it's difficult to choose one).--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:57, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Better-looking references and most issues are solved. A couple of follow-ups: I think the new source on records is about overall countries/teams, not necessarily that there was a record for Open and Women's sections considered separately. The new Ruchess source doesn't seem to verify the sentence The president of the Russian Chess Federation Andrey Filatov had stated earlier the same day that the two cities would likely co-host the event. Sources #119 and #123 need a publisher. — Bilorv (talk) 17:39, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

I've found a new source in which Filatov's statement is explained in greater detail and worked it out a little bit in the text. On the record-breaking number of participants in both sections, the cited source says “We have 185 countries registered with 186 teams in the open section and 156 in the Women’s section. Batumi Olympiad had set a record with 179 countries with 184 teams in Open section and 150 in Women’s section., which I thought would be sufficient.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:47, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Okay, I see what you mean on the records quote. Thanks for the improvements! — Bilorv (talk) 10:30, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Support, particularly on sourcing. — Bilorv (talk) 10:30, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Review by DaxServer

Hi. I performed a quick ce but hasn't done much of source checks. Here are some pointers for the moment:

• "the United States were regarded" ... either "the United States was regarded" or "the United States team was regarded" or "the players representing the United States were regarded" - I think it's the first?
• Split the |author= in citations to |first= and |last=
• There're some redundancies in the form of duplications, but I gotta go sleep now, will re-review them later

— DaxServer (t · m · c) 18:58, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. I've replaced "author" with "first" and "last" everywhere. As for the use of the country teams in plural form, this is because the article is written in British English where it's the common form (for instance, The Guardian reported Uzbekistan's victory with "Uzbekistan win", so it's totally acceptable to use "the United States were regarded").--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:47, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Ah I see — DaxServer (t · m · c) 08:44, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

• MOS:REFLINK - citations are standalone entities, I'd suggest linking publishers in all citations where there is an article. For the authors who have articles, link them using |author-link=

— DaxServer (t · m · c) 08:48, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

I've added a couple of new links (e.g. Leonard Barden). The publishers are linked on the first mention but not every time they appear per MOS:OVERLINK.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:12, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Comments Edwininlondon

I'm pleased to see a chess article here. I'm afraid I have to do this review in chunks. This is what I have so far:

• I have never seen references used in the lead. I can't see any hard rule that says it is not allowed, but it is adding unnecessary clutter to the only part of the article most people read.
• Not sure about the opening sentence. It would be better if it mentioned that it is an international tournament between countries.
• I assume the players on a team are chosen by their national chess association. Would it therefore not good to link the country names to the national association pages? For example, the Netherlands. I'm saying this because there is an inconsistency: country names are mostly not linked at all inline (although for some reason Belarus is), mostly linked in the table of participating countries (although some like Canada and Mexico are not).
• More link issues: Moscow should be linked in lead and its first occurrence in main text. And Russian Chess Federation should be linked.
• the link label won in 2006 is not a strong one. Perhaps rephrase to "having previously won the 37th Chess Olympiad in 2006."
• It may sound odd but the idea is that you have to introduce everything again after the lead. So FIDE needs to be explained again in the Bid section. And linked again. See for comparison 2014 FIFA World Cup final. I would recommend to rename the first section Background and give a general overview of what the Olympiad is, before you talk about the bidding.
• I'm not quite following the arguments of why it was moved to Moscow, but at the very least I'd say that the statement "which was chiefly organised in Moscow" is dubious. 11 Russian cities were used.
• The positioning of the sentence "Khanty-Mansiysk was to ... and physically disabled players" is a bit odd, with most of it coming back to the first factor, explaining what Chess Paralympics means.
• That same sentence leaves me wondering: was the Chess Paralympics event also moved to Moscow? The current phrasing is ambiguous.
• Because earlier "inaugural" was used, you don't need to say "first ever" again.
• "Shortly after this announcement, the AICF .." --> what is AICF?
• "On 15 March 2022, FIDE .." --> only link the first occurrence in the body. FIDE was mentioned before
• "top 28 boards in the open section" --> In the lead you have a capital for Open

More soon. Edwininlondon (talk) 15:15, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Just a note on lead citations: per MOS:CITELEAD, The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article. It is definitely not unheard of to have citations throughout the lead. — Bilorv (talk) 16:54, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

That is certainly true for normal articles, but is it for Featured Articles? Other reviewers more experienced than me are better positioned to provide a view of what is FA standard. In the 100 or so FAC reviews I have done, I've never come across a citation-laden one. And rightfully so, as it adds unnecessary clutter. Edwininlondon (talk) 05:41, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Here is the rest of my comments:

• with all these rituals borrowed from the Olympics, I do think the article needs to address, albeit briefly and in the Background section, the relationship with the Olympic Games, or lack thereof. Is the IOC involved at all? Is chess the only sport that has an Olympics clone?
• The five-time World Chess Champion Viswanathan Anand passed ... --> Anand passed ... (he's already been introduced)
• The claims about Rwanda, Pakistan, and Netherlands Antilles all need references. The current 54 reference does not back these up.
• can you explain your choice of Afghanistan's flag?
• list of participating countries should be alphabetical: Cameroon is out of order. Check others
• "weather conditions,[61] Teimour Radjabov withdrew ..." --> grammatically not quite ok
• "Viswanathan Anand described the team .." --> Anand described the team
• and Anish Giri --> a bit of introduction would be good, for example: Dutch Grandmaster Anish Giri. Was he playing himself? Would be good to add.
• from Fabiano Caruana, who suffered three losses, and Levon Aronian --> only refer to people by their last name once they have already been introduced
• 7½ out of a possible 8 points (7/8 .. --> should that not be 7½/8 ?
• why is there no dSB score for India-2 in the rankings table?
• Oliwia Kiołbasa had the highest individual score in the Women's event, playing for Poland on board three, who scored 9½/11 --> grammar
• (1961–78) --> a bit too cryptic perhaps, as it could be read as years of birth and death. Perhaps just say something along the lines of "world champion between 1961 and 1978"
• on an official YouTube channel, --> on FIDE's official YouTube channel
• FIDE followed a recommendation by the International Olympic Committee to suspend Russia and Belarus from participation in international tournaments,[59] including the Olympiad. --> this to me suggests that the IOC explicitely mentioned the Olympiad in their recommendation. Did they?

Sorry for the delay. Edwininlondon (talk) 19:40, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

@Edwininlondon: Thanks for the detailed review. I'll elaborate the improvements of the article in the following bullet points:

• The "Bidding process" section has been renamed "Background" and expanded with an introductory paragraph on the history of the Chess Olympiad and its relation with the Olympic Games. Note that chess is recognised as a sport by the International Olympic Committee (see this source), and this is why FIDE followed IOC's recommendation to ban Russia and Belarus from participating.
• The list of participating teams has been carefully checked and links have been added to the missing nations. As participating teams at the Chess Olympiad represent nations and wave their flags (see Uzbek's victory celebration), it's more appropriate to link to countries instead of national chess federations (an optimal solution would be to link to Olympic-style country articles such as 'Afghanistan at the 44th Chess Olympiad', but the Chess Olympiads are not yet at the same level as the Olympics so that the existence of such articles is justified). Given that the Taliban flag doesn't have international recognition and Afghanistan participated under the tricolour flag, an explanatory note has been added. Better references have also been added to cite Pakistan's and Rwanda's withdrawals, as well as to support Netherlands Antilles' participation.
• The information on the move from Khanty-Mansiysk to Moscow has been precisified and Filatov's statement on the reasons for the move has been clarified (no need to mention that the FIFA World Cup was chiefly organised in Moscow).
• All references have been removed from the introduction and moved to the article's main body.
• All comments pertaining to style, minor errors and ambiguities have been accepted and appropriately dealt with.

Apologies now from my side for the delayed response.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:25, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Apologies for the delay. Good to see the article starting with some background information. A few more comments:

• After the tournament was organised on irregular intervals until World War II, it has been held biannually since 1950. --> Not quite precise as it leaves a gap between 1939-1950, so something along the lines of "Up until 1950 the tournament was organised at irregular intervals. From then on it has been held biannually."
• in Emmen in 1957 as a separate event --> this makes me wonder if it perhaps would not be better to consistently refer to the 44th Olympiad Women's tournament as "section" rather than "event". So keep "event" reserved for when it was separate.
• Bidding for the Olympiad and the simultaneous FIDE --> explain what FIDE stands for (the fact you already did this in the lead does not count). And link FIDE.
• The current AICF President, Sanjay Kapoor was the president of the Organising Committee for the 44th Chess Olympiad, and AICF Secretary, Bharat Singh Chauhan was the Tournament Director --> so many capitals .. I would try to drop a few: Sanjay Kapoor, who later became president of AICF, was the president of the organising committee for the 44th Chess Olympiad, and AICF's secretary, Bharat Singh Chauhan, was the tournament director.
• who will contest the World Chess Championship 2023 --> this should now be past tense
• blundered a loss --> not seen this expression before. "blundered a piece" I have seen.
• with Former Women's World Champion --> not so sure about the capital F. Later on, in Gaprindashvili Trophy, you have a small f yourself

I promise these are my last comments. Edwininlondon (talk) 20:49, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the additional comments. I've taken care of them all. Concerning the Women's Chess Olympiad, I added a link to the first edition, and slightly modified the sentence without "separate event" (changing "event" to "section" would initiate renaming articles of events at past Olympiads, such as Women's event at the 43rd Chess Olympiad).--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:31, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

@Edwininlondon: - do you feel that your concerns have been satisfactorily addressed? Hog Farm _Talk 20:12, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Support from me. Edwininlondon (talk) 12:46, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Comments by Sportsfan77777

Some quick comments:

• "Open event", "Women's event", "Open section", and "Women's section" probably shouldn't be capitalized in most if not all instances.
• The "Best players" section of the infobox should include all board gold medal winners, not just the top performers. The Olympiad used to have an award for the overall top performer in each of the open and women's sections, but as far as I know, they got rid of that and now just award medals to the top performers on every board.
• "Chess Paralympics" <<<=== I believe it's called the "Chess Olympiad for People with Disabilities".
• Is it normal to have so many paying spectators? If not, there should be some comments about that.
• In this sentence: "Other medal contenders were expected to be Poland[93][71] France,[94] Azerbaijan, the United States and Germany.[75]", the sourcing doesn't make sense. If you want to link to the teams on chess results, why not link all of them? And why aren't both news articles at the end of the sentence instead of one randomly in the middle?
• There are a lot of ", with" issues. See WP:PLUSING.
• "but blundered a loss to Nodirbek Abdusattorov in their match with the Uzbek team, which proved decisive" <<<=== "blundered a loss" is not proper terminology, and the sentence doesn't make it clear what was "decisive" about it.
• If Gukesh's 8/8 start was mentioned, so should Kiolbasa's 9/9 start.
• "Jana Schneider of Germany who played as a reserve player before scoring 9/10 points" <<<=== "before" is not grammatically correct.
• The FIDE Congress encompassed other things than just the presidential election. It would be more appropriate to have some sort of brief summary, rather than focusing only on the election. Less importantly, I might also suggest the present version has too much detail on the election.
• The Year of Women in Chess came up in a few ways at the Olympiad, but there is no mention of it.

I don't know if I'll get to the whole article. This is just what I came across at first glance. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 05:54, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Kiril Simeonovski Nudge. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:04, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder. I've already gone through some of the points and plan to complete the changes very soon (probably by tomorrow).--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 15:42, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

@Sportsfan77777: I've made changes in the article based on your comments and recommendations. I think it's useful to keep the "Open event" and "Women's event" capitalised because these are the names of the two main tournaments (we even have Open event at the 44th Chess Olympiad and Women's event at the 44th Chess Olympiad as separate articles).--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:45, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

@Sportsfan77777: Just a kind reminder that I've made changes in the article some time ago. Thanks.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:42, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

I might have time to review the whole article towards the end of this week, but that would still be only two prose reviews. You need at least one more. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 16:19, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

• Hi Sportsfan77777, how's it looking now? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:11, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Alright, I actually have some free time now! Sportsfan77777 (talk) 18:55, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Lead

• "The Olympiad was initially supposed to take place in Khanty-Mansiysk, Russia, along with the Chess World Cup 2019, but was later moved to Moscow and scheduled for August 2020" <<<=== This makes it sound like the Olympiad was originally scheduled to happen in 2019 at the same time as the World Cup.
• I don't think you need to label Laurent Freyd as an International Arbiter for the same reason you wouldn't label players like David Howell as GMs
• in the Chess Olympiads ===>>> at the Chess Olympiad
• I'm not sure the use of parentheses in the third paragraph is correct or if you even need the parentheses.
• Relatedly, I would recommend instead of "30th Chess Olympiad in 1992", just "1992" linked to 30th Chess Olympiad or "Manila in 1992" and Manila or 1992 linked to 30th Chess Olympiad. This is mainly because I don't think the number of the Olympiad means anything to anyone.

Background

• What FIDE is an abbreviation of is the "International Chess Federation" even if the letters don't match.
• "The president of the Russian Chess Federation, Andrey Filatov, explained that the decision was driven by two factors: firstly, there would be technical problems because of the enlarged number of participants due to the inaugural Chess Olympiad for People with Disabilities; and secondly, there had been growing demands to the Russian Chess Federation from amateur chess players following the 2018 FIFA World Cup, who would like to see the event with their own eyes." <<<=== This isn't written in an encyclopedic manner, but more importantly, it's also too closely paraphrased from the source.
• "Khanty-Mansiysk was to host the Chess Olympiad for People with Disabilities" <<<=== "was to host" isn't the best tense
• "in teams representing blind, deaf and physically disabled players" <<<=== I don't think this explanation of what "Olympiad for People with Disabilities" means is necessary.
• "as well as the opening ceremony of the Chess Olympiad" <<<=== I find it hard to believe this is true.
• "It was the first time that the Chess Olympiad was hosted in India." <<<=== I don't think this is the right tense.

Preparations

• top 28 boards in the Open section and the top board <<<=== number is missing
• Relatedly, specify "the boards for the top 28 teams in the standings"
• "with other games played in Hall 2" ===>>> "while the rest of the boards were played in Hall 2"
• "the morning of 27 July" ===>>> "the morning of 27 July, the day before the event"
• calling the pricing "premium" is too much WP:PUFFERY
• "an official of the Tamil Nadu State Chess Association said that, despite the premium pricing, all tickets had been sold out" <<<=== This is too closely paraphrased.
• "To prevent cheating using chess engines, all electronic devices (including mobile phones) had to be deposited at a counter outside the halls" <<< === The parentheses aren't necessary. Something like "mobile phones and any other electronic devices" would be better. The last part of the sentence is also too closely paraphrased.

Opening ceremony

• A flag parade was held with one player from each team. <<<=== I don't think it was any specific number of players.

Format

• "increment of 30 seconds per move was applied" <<<=== rephrase to indicate from the first move.
• Specify the board colours alternate.
• drawing a round was worth 1 match point <<<=== "one match point"
• "The event took pace" <<<=== typo

Will continue later this week. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 19:05, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Open

• It featured five out of the top ten players from the FIDE rating list published in July 2022. <<<=== Suggest rephrasing to: "five of the top ten didn't play" because the current wording makes it sound like the top players are not expected to play, whereas I think it was unusual this this many top players skipped.
• Relatedly, group the top ten players who played, instead of dividing it between the beginning and end of the paragraph.
• As you start the paragraph talking about the top ten, it makes it sound like all players mentioned are top ten, but Anand, Radjabov, and Le Quang Liem were not
• average rating of 2771, higher than any other team <<<=== clarify "much higher"
• Maybe clarify that Norway's high average rating was largely due to Magnus. That could probably be cited.
• open event, with a total of 19 match points <<<=== comma is not necessary
• The paragraph should be framed from a perspective of how Uzbekistan won, not just how the other teams lost. (For example, Nodirbek also had a great performance above expectation, like Gukesh.)

Women's

• It featured three of the ten top players ===>>> It featured only three of the ten top players
• the other six players of the top ten <<<=== Seven, you are missing Lei Tingjie.
• Hou Yifan probably wouldn't have played anyway, as she has been largely inactive. I wouldn't imply she didn't play just because China didn't send a team.
• current Women's World Champion ===>>> reigning Women's World Champion
• Ukraine, with former Women's World Champion Anna Ushenina, <<<=== I don't think this is an adequate summary of the Ukraine team
• I think "tie-break" is correct, not "tie-breaker"
• Like the open section, it should be framed more from a perspective of how Ukraine won, not just how the other teams lost.
• Oliwia Kiołbasa had the highest individual score <<<=== best performance, not highest score. Pia Cramling had the exact same score.

Will come back later. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 09:19, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

@Sportsfan77777: Thanks for the additional comments. I've improved the article accordingly.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:05, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Sportsfan77777 ? Gog the Mild (talk) 12:26, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Continuing...

Gaprindashvili Trophy

• "both results tables" ===>>> "the standings" ("results table" I don't think is an expression)

FIDE Congress

• silly point, but what is a FIDE Congress?
• 31 July 2022 to 9 August <<<=== you don't need "2022", also it's weird to only include it in one of four dates in this sentence
• "other notable decisions made at the Congress are presented in turn" <<<=== I don't think this is encyclopedic phrasing.
• I would suggest putting the "Other decisions" in a paragraph rather than a list.
• "after it had been previously received as the only valid bid" ===>>> They were the only valid bid
• in the bidding procedure that ended on 31 May 2022 ===>>> submitted by the 31 May 2022 deadline
• The FIDE General Assembly noted the results of re-electing Zurab Azmaiparashvili as president of the European Chess Union and electing of Tshepiso Lopang as president of the African Chess Confederation <<<=== If these things didn't happen at the Congress, what is the reason for mentioning them?
• whereas the ASEAN Chess Confederation <<<=== "whereas" is not correct. The second part of the sentence isn't the opposite of the first.

Year of the Woman in Chess

• On the first day of the Olympiad, the Queen's and Social Pavilion was opened by FIDE President Dvorkovich and Managing Director Dana Reizniece-Ozola with the goal of spreading the message of unity in diversity. <<<=== This is too close paraphrasing, but I think it's also unnecessary to begin with.

Marketing

• "current Grandmasters" <<<=== "current" is not necessary, and "grandmasters" should be lowercase when plural in this manner
• " All games from 707 boards" ===>>> "Games from all 707 boards"

Broadcasting

• Okay.

Controversies

• Doping restrictions <<<=== suggest re-organizing this section. I don't think the points are clear. It seems like the main points are (i) there was drug testing, and separate from that, (ii) Russia shouldn't have been allowed to host the event to begin with. The section seems to switch back-and-forth between those points in a confusing way. I suggest starting the paragraph with those two points, and then explaining them in the sentences that follow. It also should be mentioned that the event was moved out of Russia anyway.
• at the same host ===>>> with the same host
• clarify that China did not participate because of travel restrictions related to the pandemic.
• The Russian invasion section should start with the effect on the Olympiad, and then explain the specifics. (which is a similar issue to the doping restrictions section)
• "playing for them at the Olympiad." ===>>> "and played for them at the Olympiad."
• "used the flag used by the Taliban militant group" ===>>> "used the flag of the Taliban militant group" (to avoid multiple "used"s)
• The Pakistan citations need to be in numerical order.
• have refused to recognise the chess federation ===>>> had refused to recognise the federation

Previous comments

• These two points weren't addressed: "The paragraph should be framed from a perspective of how Uzbekistan won, not just how the other teams lost." and "Like the open section, it should be framed more from a perspective of how Ukraine won, not just how the other teams lost." The progression of the each winning team through the tournaments are still missing.

Other comments

• I see some access dates missing. Not 100% sure, but I think those are required.

I'll look at it again after these points are addressed. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 09:26, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi Kiril Simeonovski, how are you doing with these? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:49, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

@Sportsfan77777 and Gog the Mild: I've made changes in the article according to the suggestions. Regarding the FIDE Congress, there's a definition in the FIDE Handbook, which could fit well in a note, but it's written in a specialist language.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:31, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

If you feel it appropriate to add it, then by all means rewrite, or paraphrase, the terminology into something comprehensible to a lay reader. This is one of the things which Wikipedia articles are supposed to be about. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:15, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

I've added that note.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:22, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

• Hi Sportsfan77777, 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) 17:26, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Comments from Mirokado

• §Background: "The city of Khanty-Mansiysk (Russia) officially bid for the event, although the national federations of Argentina and Slovakia had previously also expressed interest." Needs rephrasing:
  • "officially" looks redundant since an unofficial bid is presumably not a bid at all.
  • "although" is appropriate if it follows a complete list of bids, in which case the point of the sentence would be that Khanty-Mansiysk was the only bid.
  • in light of subsequent changes (first to Moscow, then to India), perhaps we can call Khanty-Mansiysk's bid the only original bid, this prepares the reader for the following complications.

  Thus, something like: "The city of Khanty-Mansiysk (Russia) submitted the only original bid for the event, although the national federations of Argentina and Slovakia had previously also expressed interest."

More later... ---- Mirokado (talk) 07:23, 23 June 2023 (UTC), updated -- Mirokado (talk) 15:22, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

@Mirokado: Thanks for your comment. I've rephrased that sentence in the text.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:07, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

• §Venue and transport: I think we need to explain why Hall 1 had 28 boards from the Open section and only one from the Womens' section. Was it pre-tournament player rankings, for example?
• §Competition format and calendar: "There was one rest day at the tournament, on 4 August, ...": "at the tournament" is redundant, and "at" does not seem quite correct usage. I think "There was one rest day on 4 August, ..." would be better.
• §Open event: Final standings table: Why is the dSB entry missing for India-2?
• §Promotional activities: "A private school in Perambur erected a 6,400-square-foot (590 m2) giant chessboard, opened by P. K. Sekar Babu, Tamil Nadu's minister of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, on which students played the pieces and 14-foot (4.3 m) statues of the Thambi mascot." This sentence is too complicated - the students did not play the statues! It needs to be rephrased, probably split.

Both the sections have their own main article which gives details of the games themselves and a few interesting positions. Was there no play sufficiently significant to be mentioned in this overview article. It's OK if there wasn't, of course. ---- Mirokado (talk) 14:25, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

@Mirokado: Thanks for the additional comments. My responses in corresponding order are in turn:

• I wasn't able to find out any details about why only the top board of the Women's section was played in Hall 1 alongside the first 28 boards in the Open section, but I don't think it has anything to do with the pre-tournament average ratings of participating teams.
• Accepted and changed.
• The Sonneborn-Berger score excluding worst result (dSB) is a tie-breaking criterion used to rank teams with equal match points. As India-2 was the only team with 18 match points, the value of the dSB is redundant. There's a note in the article's source code which explains this, but it's possible to make the emboldened dSB in the table's first row link to Sonneborn–Berger score. What do you think?
• Accepted and changed (split).

There were some interesting games played in both sections that proved decisive for the final standings, but given that there was no knock-out phase and all rounds count equally, it'd give undue weight if some moments are singled out. Best regards.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:15, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you Kiril: an excellent split for the chessboard sentence. If there is no reliable source, or no commentary from a reliable source, we cannot explain the board dispositions, but this part should be updated if anyone does find a suitable source.

• §Open event: Final standings table: The comment in the source is really clear and will prevent any unwanted "helpful" edit. Particularly since we already have "Notes" for this table, I think we should add a brief note for this, with for example a dagger symbol in the greyed-out field. This will make the table self-explanatory and conform to MOS which says that no information should be conveyed solely by a change of colour. A link to the dSB article could appear in that note, since the existing link is rather far away in this article. The current dotted-line abbr explanations in the table headings are fine, I would leave those as they are for consistent presentation.

I have probably one or two further comments which will need a separate post. ---- Mirokado (talk) 08:12, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

• §Participating teams: table: from the point of view of accessibility and general clarity, I think that using only a typographic distinction (italics, bold, strikethrough) to indicate various aspects of participation should be improved. I for example did not notice those differences while looking through the table, only when checking the notes and going back. Italics-etc would be very cryptic to anyone using a screen reader, whereas additional notes symbols would provide a conventional clue that there is a notes section after the table. It would be fine to retain the existing indication as well.
• §Year of the Woman in Chess: five of the winners do not have articles yet. I am wondering whether we can give a bit more information about each than just their name, for example nationality, job title or whatever. A callout to a note for each of those entries would be one way to do this without making them longer than the others.

Probably no more comments from me. -- Mirokado (talk) 20:23, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

@Mirokado: Thanks for the new suggestions. I’ve added notes to the participating teams and the dSB criterion. As for the winners of the Year of the Women in Chess awards, adding their nationality in parentheses was the first thing that came to my mind because there were also continental winnners from other countries in the same categories. Best regards.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:05, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you Kiril. All the above now fixed, and of course I noticed a couple other issues while checking!

• §Year of the Woman in Chess:
  • "The list of overall winners across award categories include:" The verb should be singular ("includes") because the subject is "The list". However, when I see "something includes..." I think of the list as incomplete. In this case it would be better to say: "The overall winners across award categories were:" or similar
  • "The awards were handed by Alwahshi Abdullah Salem": Better usage would be "handed out" (informal) or "presented" (better for an encyclopedia), but the FIDE reference says "The awards have been provided by Dr Alwahshi Abdullah Salem", which I understand to mean "provided to FIDE or the organisers for the event". The photographs in the ref seem to show each award being presented by a different person. I think it would be better to go with "provided".

-- Mirokado (talk) 16:06, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you Kiril for making these corrections.

Support. -- Mirokado (talk) 23:46, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:30, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

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 2023 [3].

---

Terminator 2: Judgment Day

Nominator(s): Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 20:28, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

"I told you... I'll be back"

Hoping this sequel is as successful as the film on which it is focused. This is Terminator 2, the 1991 action film that pits machine against machine to preserve the future of humanity.Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 20:29, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Pseud 14

• when he is a child -- Should this be in the past tense? Since he went back in time. (same with the plot section)
• I would link principal photography for readers unfamiliar with the term
• See also: List of Terminator characters -- should the linked title all be in italics?
• that looked like an average human -- maybe an average-sized human since we are comparing to Arnold's larger frame
• or came from advertisement backgrounds -- perhaps modelling backgrounds

Down to the end of Casting. More to follow. Hoping this FAC will gain traction from reviewers this time. With that said, might I interest you if you have spare time to review a current FAC. Pseud 14 (talk) 21:28, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

• Three months of pre-production was truncated -- maybe shortened or something similar per WP:NOTSIMPLE
• Over one week -- maybe for over a week
• The production used many locations -- filmed in many locations
• vivifying the T-1000 -- could use a much simpler term WP:NOTSIMPLE
• A team of up to 35 -- perhaps clarify if these are 35 editors, graphic designers, etc?
• oscillators and synthesizers -- could benefit wikilinking for context if available
• at which the audience was -- during which the audience
• and a new "Extended Cut", containing a further scene -- containing a scene
• subsequent 2017 theatrical re-release of Terminator 2: Judgment Day in August 2017 -- remove first mention of 2017
• Compared to the bleak, nihilistic theme of The Terminator, Terminator 2 -- maybe replace the The Terminator as the first film so it doesn't read or appear repetitive.
• Terminator 2: Judgment Day has been referenced to in a variety of media -- has been referenced in a variety of media
• Maybe merge the last para under cultural influence section since it is only 2 sentences.
• and Empire readers ranked Terminator 2 17th on its 2017 "100 Greatest Movies" -- ranked the film to avoid repetition and since it's followed by a numeric

Those are my comments. I hope they are helpful. Another very well-written and elaborate film article. I adored this film as a kid (to this day). Pseud 14 (talk) 19:17, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for these comments Pseud, I just want to acknowledge I am aware of them and will tackle them tomorrow hopefully, had a lot going on the last few days! Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 20:39, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi Pseud 14, I've done most of these, I have had a look at the prose re: "when he is a child" and I've run it through a grammar checker and it does seem to be correct as is. I get where you're coming from with it but I do think it's right as is unless anyone else can comment on it?

Thanks for the clarification. I too was debating on it, that's why I brought it up. But if your grammar check says otherwise, then I am inclined to agree. Pseud 14 (talk) 20:47, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

RE: List of Terminator characters, I know it looks weird but that's how it's meant to be, I don't have the link to policy but it's something that was brought to my attention on a previous FAC, the italics are inversed for some reason.

Fair point. And seems to be very minor and nitpick-y on my part. Pseud 14 (talk) 20:47, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

RE: "or came from advertisement backgrounds", is modelling the same? I'm not clear on that. The specific reference is relating to kids who star in adverts specifically because they're taught to smile and laugh and be positive about the product. Do these count as models?

I believe any individual who appears in advertisements whether print or screen would be considered models. But I think the use of advert in this context is fine too. Pseud 14 (talk) 20:47, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

RE: "A team of up to 35", the source just says "experts" it doesn't specify their roles beyond them working for ILM.

Should be good then. Pseud 14 (talk) 20:47, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

I believe I've done the other ones so let me know your thoughts on the above responses. I will also aim to take a look at Angel Aquino in the next few days, I just need to catch up on some sleep! Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 20:26, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for providing your responses. Changes all look good and rationales are satisfactory. Happy to support on prose. Pseud 14 (talk) 20:47, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you Pseud 14!! Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 21:33, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Daniel Case

I came by this after I had finished making the GA reviewer's requested changes to The Exorcist which, full disclosure, I am hoping to bring here before the end of the year with the aim of getting it on the Main Page on the 50th anniversary of its release.

One of the issues had been that article's length, at the time of nomination almost 280K. I had defended it at the time by pointing to Aliens and Back to the Future, both recently promoted to FA and both over 200K, and while seminal films in their own small ways nowhere near as seminal as The Exorcist, so, to me, that justified being longer. Another editor who said the article's length had dissuaded them from taking the review pointed out that both of those articles had a lot less total prose.

So, the earliest work was focused on trimming down the article. I was thus proud to note when I was done that The Exorcist is now a little shorter than this article.

But I thought, to be fair, I should look at this article to see how it handled the length issue. And that's how I found the first FAC, from earlier this year, and ... guess what? The same conversation had taken place!

I think Harry is being a bit hardline ... nothing in either of those criteria he cites says anything about a specific maximum length contributing to readability, or detracting from it if exceeded. And to be fair he more or less concedes this later on.

But he was right on most of his points. So I was surprised when I saw that you'd done nothing to address that issue in the months since. The article is still weighing in at 231K ... a little bit longer, in fact. If Harry comes around again to take a look, he's not going to be impressed.

So ... What I suggest you do is what I did at The Exorcist: split off the production and themes sections into separate subarticles, while leaving shortened versions behind, contrary to the wariness you expressed about that idea here. I really think you could do this without damaging the article as much as you think you would have to. I did. Because without taking more action to make the article shorter, I don't think it has a chance of getting to FA.

Another thing that has occurred to me right now on just flicking over it is that you could stand to use some more video clips. If there's any categories of articles where we should be using video, indeed need to, it's on movies. As you can see The Exorcist has three clips at the moment (and I will be adding a fourth after the GA process is complete). The informal limit to fair-use media in articles is four, so you have the room accounting for the one video you have and the music. Granted in The Exorcist those video clips are of iconic scenes in the film, and I don't know that you could say Terminator 2 has as many, if any, but you've still got the room. And even without them, you might be able to get away with a still or two as long as there's enough accompanying sourced commentary on what's in them.

Also, I think that if you're going to say in the article's intro that some people consider the film to be among the greatest ever made, that's a sufficiently extraordinary claim as to require that it be cited right there as well as where it is restated in the body (cf. a similar claim in the intro of The Exorcist). Daniel Case (talk) 06:07, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Harry, from what I have seen, deals in cases that are relatively short about specific incidents, he left his opinion last time and I disagreed because we are operating in two completely different worlds, he deals in small real world incidents and I'm writing articles on culturally significant media. You're comparing this to the Exorcist for some reason when the Exoricst is nearly twice as long? Like I a can copy and paste the Exorcist article into wordcounter.com and its 17000 words so I'm not sure what you think you've trimmed but you're clearly focusing on the wikitext size I assume? Terminator 2 us only 11,000 words at the last FA including the Themes section which I HAVE to include but I do not count because it's not core to the film I am writing about. As it is now, after the last FA, others copy edited and reduced the word count to less than 10,000, again including hte Themes section which is 1,141 words of text I HAVE to include, so the actual content is about 8,700 and minus the lead it's 8,300. The article is not too long while it is still incredibly comprehensive and well re-searched. I'm not splitting off the production section when that is the meat of the article, it'd be ridiculous, it's not Avengers Infinity War/Endgame, in part because if it's in another article noone will ever read it, people read spin offs far less than the main article, they can skim the article and pick up interesting factoids which they won't if it's split off, and I have elevated multiple articles of similar and greater length without issue. More non-free content is also not needed, the Exorcist is probably outside of copyright at this point but the Terminator 2 is certainly not. Also prose size is 115 kB. I'm not sure what people's particular bugbears are with this one specific article but it's tight, well-written, and comprehensive and Wikipedia is not a 1997 Geocities website. Thanks for your suggestions but no. Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 09:05, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Also refer to WP: SIZE. Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 09:14, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Again, no one is saying you have to cut the entire section out of the article. Given that you have a short leftover section on the special effects on top of the spinoff article, I don't see why you can't just add the entire production section, and leave a similarly shortened section in the article (it can certainly be longer than three grafs!). I know "themes" is relatively short; if you have a separate production article you might not even need to create a separate themes article. Daniel Case (talk) 22:31, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

• Hi Daniel Case, 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) 14:09, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Coordinator comment

More than four weeks in and just the single general support. Unless this nomination makes significant further progress towards a consensus to promote over the next two or three days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:52, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Comments from Thebiguglyalien

I love a good "one per year" set up. Let's see if we can get a star in that 1991 spot. I've seen this movie, though it's been a while. I'll post some comments by tomorrow. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:23, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

General:

• This article is missing a lot of commas. First, there are many places where two independent clauses are joined by a conjunction without a comma. For example: "The T-800 and the T-1000 converge on John in a shopping mall and a chase ensues." This includes several instances where the comma comes after the "and" or "but", but none appears before. Second, commas should also be used in situations like "In 1996 T2-3D: Battle Across Time, a live-action attraction", where a comma needs to go after "In 1996".
• Don't overuse semicolons; they're great and all, but it's often better to start a new sentence if one doesn't perfectly lead into the next. This will also fix some of the run-on sentence issues.

Done Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:01, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

• For the portraits, is it possible to find ones from closer to 1991? James Cameron in 1991 (or even in 2001) is more relevant to the film than James Cameron in 2016.

Someone asked this last time and I found the oldest ones I could get with them still being fair use, of a reasonable quality size, and either looking forwards or into the article Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:56, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

• I see that there's a debate about whether the articles is too long. I'll add my opinion that it is not too long, but it approaching the upper limit of acceptable length.
• Check the use of "however". I think all four of them could be removed without changing the meaning.

Done Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:14, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

• I notice information about the budget is spread throughout the article. This is entirely a style decision and it's fine either way, but one idea would be to collect all of it into a single "budget" section. Then the other sections would focus on the aspects that aren't related to budget (e.g. casting would focus purely on the selection of actors, while their salaries would be covered under budget).

Not done a budget section but this is done Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:28, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Plot:

• Some of the plot feels editorialized. Things like "Earth has been ravaged" and "her violent, fanatical efforts" present opinions about the plot. These are totally fine if they're clearly described or depicted as such in the film, but they should be used carefully.

They are this way in the film. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:11, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Do they actually use the word fanatical to describe her in dialogue? If so, then it's probably acceptable. If not, then that's just your interpretation of her actions, and the plot summary should have no interpretation. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:45, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

She's obsessively trying to blow up places to prevent Judgment Day to the point she turned her son into a mini survivalist, I wouldn't say it's interpretation, it's the facts, but I've removed the word because I'm tired. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:21, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

• "John and the T-800 escape together. John calls to warn his foster parents" – Two sentences in a row start with "John", and the first sentence feels choppy.

Done Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:11, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

• "who teaches it catchphrases and hand signs" – What does "hand signs" mean in this context? Is that important enough to include?

I'll see if there's a better term than hand signs, its relevant to why he does the thumbs-up at the end, demonstrating he has learned to be more human. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:11, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

• "Sarah plans to flee with John to Mexico until a nightmare about Judgment Day convinces her to kill Dyson, whom she assaults in his home, but finds she cannot kill him and relents." – This sentence runs on.

Done Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:11, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Cast:

• Is there any defining aspect that lets some cast members have bullet points but not others?

It's the people who are named both in the opening credits and the start of the end credits, the more prominent positions. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:04, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Then maybe this should be made clear by saying in the article that they were the top billed actors. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:45, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't think that's necessary? No other modern article I've seen does that, I think it's obvious it's top billed people. I can throw a hidden note in there but adding "The following are the top billed actors" feels like I'm treating the reader like an idiot. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:21, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Development:

• "making director James Cameron a credible director" – Vague and doesn't really mean anything.

Done Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:56, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

• "because he had said everything he wanted to with the original" – "He" is an uncertain antecedent

Done Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:56, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

• "due to a fallout with rights holder" – "fallout" is informal and unclear

Done Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:56, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

• "persuaded Carolco Pictures to pursue the purchase" – Maybe just me, but I find three uses of per/pur like this distracting.

Done Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:14, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

• "most-difficult" – Unnecessary hyphen

Done Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:14, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

• "the figure would increase because of Cameron's previous work" – This could be read as "Cameron has a body of successful previous work that makes him more expensive to hire" or "Cameron has historically increased the budget as he directed a film".

Done Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:14, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Writing:

• This section might benefit from trimming. Some of the information here retreads the plot or content in the other sections. Much of the content here is repeated in the "themes and analysis" section.

This is inevitable, I cannot talk about themes in the writing section or writing in the themes section but theme commentary is going to have to discuss the narrative. I have trimmed it down a bit. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:56, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

• "With a set scheduled release date" – "set scheduled" is strange wording

Done Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:14, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

• "the printed copy was still warm when Cameron boarded Carolco's charter jet on the way to Cannes" – unnecessary

It speaks to how rushed it was. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:56, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Then you can just say that it was rushed. Wording like "was still warm" is informal. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:45, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Done Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:21, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Casting:

• Another section where it might help to trim minor details. The article doesn't need to cover everything that happened, just the main ideas.

Done

• "although he found portraying a fearless, emotionless machine difficult" – Unclear how this is supposed to alter the previous idea. Did he have reservations about taking the role? Was this problem more applicable in the second movie?

Done Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:28, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

• "He extensively rehearsed action scenes with stunt coordinator Joel Kramer" – This sentence doesn't seem relevant where it's placed

Done Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:28, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

• "which she described as "quite a bit more" than her earnings for The Terminator" – It might be better to just say what her earnings in the first movie were.

There's no source I have been able to find that confirms her T1 salary Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:28, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

• "She requested Sarah to be 'crazy'" – Needs rewording, and the quotes immediately follow it might work better paraphrased in a single sentence.

Done Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:04, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

• "Over the course of the six-month shoot" – This sentence and the next one aren't relevant to casting

Done Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:04, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Filming:

• This second paragraph goes into excessive detail about Cameron's directing style and personality and uses too many examples. Most of this information should be trimmed down into a brief summary.

DOne Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:43, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

• The "male stripper night" gag is funny, but that might be more suited to IMDb than Wikipedia. It doesn't contribute to a reader's understanding of the film or its production.

It doesn't add to understanding of the production but it does speak to the atmosphere on set and it is, as you say, a fun addition that doesn't take up much space.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:43, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

• Much of the fourth paragraph feels like a prosified list, and it doesn't flow very well. The fifth paragraph has some of the same issue, though not as much.:

DOne Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:43, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

• "the on-foot T-1000" – Awkward wording

DOne Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:43, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

• The hearing loss and shell shock come from an interview, so they should probably be attributed to her (especially since shell shock hasn't been a legitimate medical term in a long time).

Done Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:43, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

The hearing loss is now attributed to her, but the shell shock is still stated in wikivoice. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:45, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Done Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:21, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Post-production:

• The first sentence runs on way too long.

Done Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:41, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Special effects and design:

• "practical limitations of staff numbers" – Unclear what this means.

Done Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:41, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Music:

• "Fiedel justified it as an accompaniment to Cameron"– Unclear what this means.

Done Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:41, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Context:

• Not sure how much in this section is relevant. We don't need to know about all of the other movies that happened to be released at the same time. I suggest taking the fact that Terminator 2 was expected to do well for international appeal, putting that in marketing and promotion, and then losing the rest. Maybe a sentence about how competition was expected to be strong can be added as well, if it's directly relevant to Terminator.

As with my commentary with the box office section, I try to approach the article content from a historical view and I think context is helpful because ultimately while T2 might be meaningful to me, there are millions of people born after 2000 who will never have seen it and have no context for cinema in 1991. It's kind of like the time I mentioned Jurassic Park to a zookeeper and she had no idea what I was talking about, shortly before I crumbled to dust. It's very brief, measuring only 179 words, some of which are explicitly about T2 and others are surrounding the context of its release, and like with the BO section, it provides more organic internal links to promote other articles as well. I do stand by the section. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:41, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

I maintain that everything in this section except for the expected performance of Terminator 2 is out of scope. If readers want more information about 1991 in film, then the link to 1991 in film would be fine in a see also section below the article. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:45, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

I welcome your feedback but I'm not removing this section, it is perfectly within scope and it makes up 1.83232674788% of the article content. The majority of box office sections are dry and only interested in figures, I'm trying to convey more historical context than just numbers. It's easy to just say it made $500 million in 1991, but that is a lot more today, and if its competition was Porky's that changes how notable the accomplishment was. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:21, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Marketing and promotion:

• "the marketing was mainly aimed at younger audiences" – Do any sources specify? Anyone from 0 to 34 years of age could probably be considered "younger audiences".

Done Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:41, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

• "Collaborations with fast-food restaurants and soft-drink manufacturers" – What sort of collaborations?

Done Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:41, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

• The private screenings might be relevant, but they're not really "marketing and promotion".

Done Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:41, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Box office:

• "about 25%–30% of whom were females" – Using "female" as a noun can be seen as derogatory. Change to "women" or to "female viewers".

Done Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:41, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

• This section also lists a lot of other movies that happened to be playing at the time. I don't think it's relevant what the other movies are unless Terminator is in second or third place, in which case it would be appropriate to mention the movies that did better.

I include the closest competitors because it gives context for what the film was competing against plus it allows for organic links to relevant articles. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:41, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

As with the context section, most of this is out of scope. The article is about Terminator 2, and comparisons to other movies should only be included if they're directly relevant to Terminator 2. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:45, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Reception: No notes, I just want to say that this is a refreshingly well-written reception section.

Aftermath:

• "Furlong became in high demand" – Strange wording

Done Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:23, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

• The second paragraph uses "despite" twice in the same sentence.

Done Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:23, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Home media:

• "the aforementioned alternate ending" – Try to avoid referencing other parts of the article, especially if they're not close by. Maybe change this to say that it was the original planned ending.

Done Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:23, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

• "the film's legacy to special effects" – I don't know if "legacy to" is grammatically correct or not.

Done Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:23, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

• Maybe the score's release should be moved up so this section can be in chronological order. It's a bit jarring going from 2017 back to 1991.

Done Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:23, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Other media:

• There's a ")" but not a "(". Was this supposed to have parentheses?

I can't find this, CTRL+F shows an even amount of ( and ) parentheses? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:23, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

It looks like Bneu2013 got it with this edit. And it looks fine without parenthesis, so problem solved. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:50, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

• "making it the most-expensive film per minute" – Ever produced?

Done Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:23, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Family and humanity:

• This probably doesn't need to go into the specifics about Aliens and Ripley, just mentioning the similarity will get the point across.
• The part about the Rodney King videotape seems like WP:TRIVIA.
  • Comment - I feel like this is worth mentioning considering what a major event this was in LA's history. Remember, this led to the LA riots the following year, one of the worst events of civil unrest in the country's history. It is also ironic, considering the subject matter of the film. That being said, I think the production section is a better place for it. Same for the male stripper night tidbit. I feel like this helps to reinforce the fact that this was a real club, likely a local landmark, and not just a set up for the film. Bneu2013 (talk) 01:24, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
    • It's a major event in LA's history, but it's not a major event in The Terminator's history. It's just a passing coincidence that did not affect the film in any way. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:10, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

      It looks like what constitutes trivia can be hard to determine, but WP:TRIVIA primarily covers lists of miscellaneous facts, often presented in bulleted form, which are no longer used on Wikipedia. I want to make it clear that if a scene in this movie had been filmed near some other police incident that only got covered in the local news, I would be opposed to including this information. While the Rodney King incident may not have had any direct affect on the film, I think it is relevant, considering the fact that the T-1000 masquerades as a police officer, and some people have interpreted this as a commentary on police misconduct. Even people who don't know about the Rodney King connection have noticed the irony that this film was released around the same time as this incident and the subsequent riots. Bneu2013 (talk) 08:03, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

This remains, but at best this is only tangentially relevant to the film. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:45, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Violence: This section is just criticism of the violence and a passing thought by Cameron. I suggest that the former go into critical response (where it appears to already be duplicated to some extent) and the latter go into writing.

Masculinity and femininity:

• "as well as females displaying masculine traits" – Females to women.

Done Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:52, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

• The opinions of individual critics might have undue weight here. I've found that a good rule of thumb is that if an interpretation isn't explicitly stated by the writer/director, then it's probably not due unless multiple critics have expressed the same idea.
• Likewise with undue weight toward opinions. Duckenfield for example might have something interesting he thought about when watching the movie, but it's hardly an accepted interpretation worthy of inclusion if no one else says the same thing.

Ok so I have bundled these into sections for explicit themes and analysis to separate opinions. Ultimately the themes sections are the interpretations of accredited people, there may be other sources out there that say something similar and if the opinions were massively out but those that are present are sensible and logical conclusions. I can reword it a little bit to say "according to" instead of it coming across more as gospel but I think losing the content entirely would be detrimental. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:24, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm not satisfied by the analysis and themes section. We don't get to decide whether ideas are "sensible and logical". They should be included based on how well represented they are in reliable sources. If it's just the opinion of one person and it's not shared by anyone else, then it's probably undue. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:45, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Take my commentary out, the themes/analysis section is meant to be commentary by accredited people even if they're not famous, and these are accredited people published in reputable journals. There has never been any rules that I had to supply multiple sources saying the same thing for an interpretation to be valid. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:21, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Cultural influence:

• "became the most expensive movie" – "was" might be more appropriate than "became"

Done Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:41, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

• "and it remains Schwarzenegger's highest-grossing film" – Avoid stating facts subject to change in the present tense. Consider using Template:As of and make sure that the source is as recent as possible.

I'm not psychic but Schwarzenegger is not churning out a film that tops T2 this late in his career. I've added the as of template. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:41, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

• "one of the most-iconic and best" – these are a bit redundant to each other. I suggest removing one.

Done Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:41, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Retrospective assessments:

• The first three sentences of this section could be tightened up. It repeats itself and uses separate sentences to give information that overlaps.

Done Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:41, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

• Some of the content here, particularly film ratings, might fit better in the reception section.

I keep the critical reception section reflective of contemporary reviews, the legacy section is for perception since its release, i.e. Rotten Tomatoes didn't exist when Terminator 2 came out and some rankings are 20-30 years after its release. I think it would muddy up the critical reception section and throw off the chronological behind-the-scenes book style I'm aiming for. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:41, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:07, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

OK, I think that's everything.

I've left replies above for things that need further consideration. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:45, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Partial support. I'm neutral on the "release" and "themes and analysis" sections, but I support on prose everywhere else. I believe that these two sections have a significant amount of undue content and excessive detail, but this is subjective enough that I'm not willing to oppose either. If the consensus of other reviewers is that there is no undue content in either of these sections, then I'll accept that conclusion. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:56, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

• Hi Thebiguglyalien, any further thoughts on this one, one way or the other? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:10, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

  My opinion is unchanged. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 15:57, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

  I just want to add that the article is pretty comprehensive and for a film that definitely has a significant cultural impact... I personally think the two sections are fine and also of great interest. What matters more if it's encyclopedic in tone and cited accordingly. ZKang123 (talk) 01:09, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Comments by Bneu2013

I'm new to the FA process, but I will take a look at this one. I think it is very close, but I need to take a closer look before I can support. That being said, I will have comments promptly. Bneu2013 (talk) 06:28, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

• I see some people have raised the length in the past, but I would be perfectly fine if it ran a little about 10k words, as long as none of the sections are too long. A movie this big is bound to have a longer than average article, and what entails constituting a complete article is bound to evolve over time. It's also important to remember that all articles are different; WP:Summary style isn't a one-size-fits-all rule. Bneu2013 (talk) 06:33, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

• MOS:DATECOMMA after "July 3, 1991" in the lead.

DoneDarkwarriorblake (talk) 21:58, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

• Was the $519–520.9 million during the initial theatrical run?

Yes, different sources report different figures in that range Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:58, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

• Change "It is also seen as one of the most influential visual effects films of all time" to something like "it is also seen as one of the biggest influences on visual effects in films".

Done Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:58, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

• I would change "beginning the transition from practical effects to reliance on computer-generated imagery" to "helping to initiate the transition from reliance on practical effects to computer-generated imagery".

Done Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:58, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

• I would add "human" before "tissue over a metal endoskeleton."

Done Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:58, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

• Should the cast list include Dr. Silberman's first name?

I don't think he's given a first name in the first two films but I've added a source to cover it. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:58, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

• Link "biker bar".

Done Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:58, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

• "Cameron said Schwarzenegger had always been more enthusiastic about a sequel than he was, because he had said everything he wanted to with the original." I think I know what "he had said everything he wanted to with the original" means, but this is a bit ambiguous, and I would elaborate.

I changed it to "because Cameron considered the original a complete story." is that any better? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:58, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, much better. Bneu2013 (talk) 23:43, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

• "Prior to development, the total cost of the acquisition came to $17 million after factoring in incidental costs." - change "came" to "rose".

Done Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:58, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

• Why did Kassar think Cameron's previous work would result in an increase in the production cost?

I've removed this as it's not clear why he thought that, it might be because The Abyss went over budget but it's not stated and that was a one-off at the time as Aliens was on budget, it might be hindsight when looking at films that came after such as True Lies and Titanic. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:58, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

• I don't think "six-to-seven" needs to be hyphenated. You could also change to "between six and seven weeks".

Done Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:58, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

• Was the Uziel Gal who trained Hamilton the same Uziel Gal who invented the Uzi?

I don't believe so, it would've probably come up in the sources discussing him but he'd also have been like 67 at the time. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:58, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

• Hamilton's son wasn't twenty months old for six months.

Done Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:58, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Still says she spent time with her twenty month old son during the six month shoot. The source says he was twenty months old in July 1991, the date of the film's release. I would change it to this, as calculating his age during the shoot would be original research. Bneu2013 (talk) 23:56, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

• Does "Hell" need to be capitalized in "sheer Hell"?

Done Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:58, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

• "he received specialized training from Gal."

Done Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:58, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

• What is the deal with the filming date discrepancy? Do multiple sources report different days?

Yes, AFI says 8th, BFI and TCM say 9th. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:58, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

• "The production was long and arduous, in part because of Cameron, who was known for his short temper, and uncompromising and "dictatorial" manner that resulted in the crew making T-shirts bearing the slogan "You can't scare me—I work for Jim Cameron"." consider splitting into two sentences.

DoneDarkwarriorblake (talk) 21:58, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

• "Schwarzenegger described him as a supportive but "a demanding taskmaster" with a "fanaticism for physical and visual detail"."

I'm not sure this one makes sense? Would be using "a" before supportive and before demanding, "as a supportive but a demanding"? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:58, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

My bad, I missed the "a" before supportive; was also confused by the source. Please disregard. Bneu2013 (talk) 23:50, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

• "The production filmed in many locations in and around California" were there actually scenes filmed outside of California. If I'm not mistaken, most scenes were filmed in and around Los Angeles.

DoneDarkwarriorblake (talk) 21:58, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

• Consider mentioning that the biker bar was near where Rodney King was beaten. I know the filming of this is mentioned below, but it would be interesting to include that this scene was filmed nearby.

DoneDarkwarriorblake (talk) 21:58, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

• "When the on-foot T-1000 chases John on a bicycle, Patrick's training made him faster than the bicycle and so its speed was increased" - if I remember right, John is on a dirt bike, not a bicycle.

DoneDarkwarriorblake (talk) 21:58, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

• Change "shut" to "closed to traffic" or something appropriate.

DoneDarkwarriorblake (talk) 21:58, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

• " Cameron limited filming on Terminator 2 to five days a week so he could edit the film on weekends from the start of filming" but the first sentence in this paragraph says Cameron didn't edit the film.

DoneDarkwarriorblake (talk) 21:58, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

• I would cut "The film runs for 137 minutes."; this information is in the infobox and I don't see a need to mention the runtime here unless it is unusually long.

It's a catch-22, we need to source everything in the infobox and avoid sourcing IN the infobox. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:58, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

• "According to Carolco executives Peter Hoffman and Roger Smith, the film cost $75 million figure before marketing"

DoneDarkwarriorblake (talk) 21:58, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

• Remove hyphen in "North-American".

DoneDarkwarriorblake (talk) 21:58, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

• "Four main companies were involved in creating the 150 visual effects:" I would change the colon to a period.

Done Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:58, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

• "The cost of producing CGI and practical limitations of staff numbers meant the effect was using sparingly, appearing in 42–43 shots, alongside 50–60 practical effects." - changed "using" to "used".

Done Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:58, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

• Change "would take up to ten days" to "took up to ten days", per WP:INTOTHEWOULDS.

Done Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:58, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

• "Release dates repeatedly changed as studios attempted to avoid strong competition and maximize their films' successes at a time when the cost of film production had increased 20% in a year, in part due to costly salaries for stars who also commanded a percentage of the film's profits, and declining revenues from box-office receipts, video sales, and television-network deals." run-on sentence.

Done Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:58, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

• "The films most expected to do well included Backdraft and Terminator 2, which were seen as having international appeal, Dying Young, and the year's predicted top film Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves." I would change this to something like "Terminator 2 was among the films expected to to well, along with Backdraft, Dying Young, and the year's predicted top film Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves. It was also seen, along with Backdraft, as having international appeal."

Done Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:58, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

• "restricting audiences to over-17s unless accompanied by an adult" - change to something like "which restricted the film to audiences aged 17 and over unless accompanied by an adult".

Done Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:58, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

• I would removed the "R-rated" link, as this is linked in the previous section.

Done Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:58, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

• No need for hyphen in "opening-week".

Done Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:58, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

• I would combine the last two paragraphs in the box office section. Single-sentence paragraphs aren't recommended.

Done Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:58, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

• I would change "began the careers" to something like "launched the careers".

Done Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:58, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

• No need to hyphenate "video-game".

Done Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:58, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

• "Sarah's acceptance of the T-800 as John's surrogate father is such that she leaves it in control of John"

Done Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:58, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

• Un-hyphen "visual-effects".

Done Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:58, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

• Un-hyphen "most-iconic".

Done Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:58, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

• Un-hypnen "science-fiction".

Done Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:58, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

• Update Rotten Tomatoes rating.

The score is pulled automatically with the RT Templates that are in place Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:58, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

• Unhyphen "time-travel".

Done Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:58, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Support pending all of my comments are addressed. Please let me know when you have addressed them. Bneu2013 (talk) 08:31, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

I think that's everything for Bneu2013 Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:58, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Support After reviewing this, I think it is fair to say that this article now meets the FA criteria, and is ready to appear on the main page. The only things I would change are the tidbit about the age of Hamilton's son's age mentioned above and combine the two paragraph about the biker bar in the filming section, but I am confident that these will be addressed promptly and am happy to support. Bneu2013 (talk) 00:01, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Image review - pass

I will be doing an image review and also a source review. I will do the image review first, since that's usually quicker.

Most images here (with the exception of the movie poster, the visual effects video and T-1000 theme) are under free use. Non-free media included in the article are labelled accordingly with source and rationale mentioned.

• Video caption: The visual effects used for the T-1000 were highly advanced for the time, combining state-of-the-art CGI, prosthetics, and editing to allow the T-1000 to demonstrate its shapeshifting ability. (0:20). I suggest shortening by rewriting to: "The visual effects used were highly advanced for the time, such as combining CGI and prosthetics to demonstrate the T-1000's shapeshifting ability". Also the video is 19 seconds.
• "Fiedel created the T-1000 theme using samples of brass instrument players warming up and improvising, encouraging them to play like they were in "an insane asylum. You're a bedlam of instruments"." - I suggest shortening to just "The T-1000 theme by Fiedel" since the caption is already in the body (and cited).

Otherwise everything is alright for the image review, with alt text provided for the images.--ZKang123 (talk) 10:36, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

These are all done ZKang123 Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:18, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Looks good. Pass for image review. ZKang123 (talk) 07:16, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Source review - pass

Will be doing source review soon.--ZKang123 (talk) 10:37, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Version reviewed: [4]

Initial review:

• The sources used are reliable and appropriately used. Source formatting is consistent for most sources cited
• For the NYT archives, I might suggest adding the page numbers of the original editions (e.g. Ref 28, the original article is from page 10 of that day's edition). Though I would say it's optional given it's behind a paywall and that quickly hid where the original article is from.
• Ref 155: Suggest Academy of Science Fiction, Fantasy & Horror Films as |publisher= instead of |website=, given website is by said organization.
• Ref 158 live URL redirects to a pretty dodgy website; please mark |url-status= dead. Similarly for ref 155, suggest British Academy of Film and Television Arts as |publisher= instead of |website=.
• Ref 292 to 294 also similar remarks as above
• Ref 294: URL is dead.
• I personally find the notes section of "Attributed to multiple references" a little excessive per WP:OVERCITE, though I say it isn't any official policy or guideline against multiple citations. You have bundled them pretty well, but I suggest maybe shortening the list and cutting some to two or three citations.

More to come, especially spotchecks.--ZKang123 (talk) 11:09, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

I've done most of these ZKang123, regarding the use of publisher, per the discussion at Template_talk:Cite_Rotten_Tomatoes#Italics from 2022, we're not meant to use publisher to avoid italicing the names and I'm not meant to use something like Bafta.org in place of the British Academy of Film and Television Arts Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:21, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

It's definitely something of debate, but tbh that doesn't really matter. If there's consensus to retain it as such, then just go with it. I personally also don't have strong opinions whether you use publisher or website, as long as it's consistent within the article. ZKang123 (talk) 07:19, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Spotchecks:

• Note a: I think it can just be left as is within the article instead of as a footnote. e.g. (Also promoted and abbreviated as T2[1][2]).
• Ref 2 is fine
• Ref 13 is fine (with full list of actors)
• Ref 19 checks out
• Ref 4 checks out on "confirming Schwarzenegger's status as a lead actor and establishing James Cameron as a mainstream director" (rewritten from "made Schwarzenegger an A-list star and gave its director instant Hollywood cachet")
• Ref 21 has the quote.
• I think for note c you can drop ref 4 which doesn't seem to support much of the statements before beyond mentioning Cameron need to secure the rights, not who were holding the rights. Just leave refs 24, 25, 26.
• Also, the URL for ref 24 is dead. Please update accordingly. Archived version supports statement on the lawsuit.
• I don't see the relevance of ref 27 regarding the total costs of the rights acquisition. Neither for ref 4. Only ref 26 supports those statements.
• I suggest regarding the statement on TriStar Pictures, ref 26 to move to end of the clause "U.S. distribution deal with TriStar Pictures,"
• Neither refs 26 nor 32 supports statement on the film needing to be released by Memorial Day.
• Ref 33 supports statement on the tight schedule to write
• Tin Man statement supported by Ref 4
• Ref 36 URL redirects to some main page. Please mark as dead. Archived version supports statement on phrase origin.
• Ref 45 supports Schwarzenegger's views on the terminator he reprises.

More spotchecks to come.--ZKang123 (talk) 07:57, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Done. Regarding "I don't see the relevance of ref 27 regarding the total costs of the rights acquisition. Neither for ref 4. Only ref 26 supports those statements." ref 4 does under the section "Part 1: “If We Pull It Off, It Will Be Huge.”".

Regarding "Neither refs 26 nor 32 supports statement on the film needing to be released by Memorial Day." yeah I'm not sure what happened there, the two sources are for the Tri-star deal but it appears all the copyediting and merging to hit an arbitrary word count for complaints above has led to a reference going astray, I've re-added it. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 13:02, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Spotchecks continued (this version):

• $12–$15 million for his involvement.[46][4][47][48] - switch them around and compact.
• Ref 26 on the jet checks out.
• Ref 56 on the actor's role as the T-1000 checks out (training etc)
• Ref 4 on Furlong checks out.
• Just want to add about the paragraph for Furlong and his role as Cameron - I suggest you first mentioned that "Furlong, among hundreds of other prospects, secured the role as John Connor at his last audition." then continue talking about the other candidates and so on. For a moment I wasn't sure how Furlong is relevant
• Ref 70 supports that rather hilarious statement.
• "his short temper, and uncompromising "dictatorial" manner." - remove the comma.
• Ref 19 supports cancellation of visit
• Refs 19 and 73 support the improvisation of the line
• Ref 74 also supports.
• "and John hacking an ATM at a bank in Van Nuys. and his foster parents' residence is situated in the Canoga Park neighborhood, deliberately chosen for its generic appearance. " - I have a feeling something is cut here.
• Ref 71 also supports.
• Ref 78 also supports.
• Refs 4 and 26 also supports cautionary tales of Calco's bankruptcy.
• Suggest for the first paragraph of the post-production section to split from: several scenes were deleted... Felt that's a point worth of a paragraph alone.
• Refs 43 and 56 supports on cut scenes.
• Ref 98 is good on describing the music and sound effects.

More spotchecks to come. -- ZKang123 (talk) 07:56, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks again ZKang123, these are done. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 12:13, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Final spotchecks:

• Refs 142, 143, 150, 155, 159, 161, 169, 183, 208, 209 - all checks out. I shall say with confidence that the rest of the article is sufficiently attributed to other high quality sources.
• (Cameron and Wisher Jr.)[161] - please place full stop outside of brackets
• What are the differences between Refs 167 and 168? Seems to be reporting similar things, though the dates are different. I might suggest keeping one. I personally suggest unpacking footnote (fn) ad and attribute to the various separate sentences/clauses of the material it cites, since the references seem to allude to various different parts taking place at different times.
• their own violent natures.[77][72] - swap around. Ref 77 checks out.
• This is pretty minor, but for consistency, standardised the capitalisation of ref titles, preferably in title case. (How they appeared in their original is irrelevant.)
• Once all above are resolved, I will give a pass.--ZKang123 (talk) 14:03, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Done, thanks again ZKang123 Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:27, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Pass for source review. ZKang123 (talk) 00:17, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

• Hi ZKang123 and thanks for the work on the image and source reviews. Do your recent comments above imply that that you also support the nomination's bid for promotion in a more general sense? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:36, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
• Yes I do. The article is pretty comprehensive and well cited, and I don't think there are really many outstanding issues that would prevent it from being an FA. ZKang123 (talk) 00:28, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:40, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

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) 27 July 2023 [5].

---

Title (song)

Nominator(s): NØ 21:32, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

This article is about Meghan Trainor's song "Title". Snubbed from a single release in favor of "Lips Are Movin" back in 2014, this doo-wop song became one of the most important ones in Trainor's catalog nearly seven years after its release, when it went viral on TikTok and sowed the seeds for her eventual comeback. Somehow this album track was a top 10 hit in New Zealand and went Platinum in Australia, a rare feat before the streaming era. I hope you enjoy reading another title titled "Title" from me. Thanks a lot to everyone who will take the time to give their feedback here.--NØ 21:32, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Image review

Apologies in advance as I will be unable to do a full prose review, but to help alleviate at least some of the pressure from editors who normally do image reviews for FACs, I will handle this part.

• File:KK Fano.JPG has a clearly defined purpose in the article with a clear and informative caption. The image has appropriate WP:ALT text, and I would assume good faith that it is the uploader's original work.
• Everything checks out with File:Meghan Trainor (15812368967).jpg. A clear purpose in the article. A clear caption. Appropriate ALT text. The author and source links are still active and accessible. No issues here.

This passes my image review. Best of luck with your FAC. Aoba47 (talk) 17:11, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the media review, Aoba47! You've already gone above and beyond by reviewing all other FACs from this album so it is more than understandable if you want to sit this one out :) --NØ 20:56, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

I am glad that I could help. I am happy to see this article at the FAC space. Thank you for understanding, and I hope you have a great rest of your week. Aoba47 (talk) 21:55, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

CommentsSupport from Chris

• "Trainor demands her partner to define their relationship more clearly and call her his girlfriend in its lyrics." => "Trainor demands in its lyrics that her partner define their relationship more clearly and call her his girlfriend."
• "Trainor performed the song at the 2014 iHeartRadio Music Festival, in sessions for MTV and the National Post, and included" => "Trainor performed the song at the 2014 iHeartRadio Music Festival and in sessions for MTV and the National Post, and included"
• "Kadish and Trainor began working on more songs immediately as the label wanted her to record an entire album.[1] It was released as Trainor's debut single...." - what's "it"? The previous sentence didn't mention a song......
• "She revealed in October that it was nearly scrapped in favor of "Dear Future Husband" (2015)" - she revealed in October (apparently of 2014) that her next single was (maybe) going to be a song from 2015? That doesn't seem to make sense.....
• "The song fuses the horn" - I think "The song fuses horns" would work better. And link horns to Horn section
• "and climb a bike without using his hands" => "and ride a bike without using his hands"
• That's what I got on a first pass...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:40, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

• Thanks for another great review, ChrisTheDude! All addressed :-) --NØ 20:56, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

• Anything else, Chris?--NØ 06:24, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

• Support - apologies for forgetting to check back...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:49, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Support from Unlimitedlead

• "song by American singer-songwriter Meghan Trainor from her 2014 debut EP of the same name": This may be just me, but I thought you meant the debut EP was called Meghan Trainor.
• "...with commentary directed towards its lyrics, production, and rap verse": what kind of commentary? Mixed? Positive? Negative?
• "...he video was uploaded online in December 2021": What video?
• "...posted a cumulative 4,659 videos dancing to it": What year does this figure date to? Surely this is not current.

Overall not much to say. Another lovely, short article as always. Cheers, Unlimitedlead (talk) 23:30, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks a ton for the review and compliment, Unlimitedlead! I decided to do a somewhat shorter one after two consecutive album articles, lol. Everything should be addressed now.--NØ 02:48, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Always happy to review. I will now support this nomination. Unlimitedlead (talk) 03:19, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Support from Gog the Mild

Recusing to review.

• "but it was eventually scrapped". "it" wasn't scrapped. Maybe 'this plan was scrapped'? "scrapped" also seems a little dramatic. Maybe "but eventually decided on "Lips Are Movin" instead.
• "some defended the lyrics." This comes across a little oddly, as you haven't said that anyone was attacking them or suggested why they may need defending.
• "in various other countries." Maybe 'in several other countries'?
• "It received a Platinum certification". Why an upper-case P?

• This usage is consistent with my other FAs. The logic is it should be capitalized as an award title, in the same way we would capitalize "Grammy Award", "Video of the Year", etc.

• Is "Big Yellow Dog Music" worth a red link?

• Based on other articles, this does not seem to be linked

• "She recounted being ill-treated by her romantic partners in high school". Is it known who she recounted these to and when?

• Yes, added.

• "That month, the website reported". What or whose website?
• "Patois" should have a lower-case p.
• "She refuses to be friends with benefits". Might this read better as 'She refuses to be a friend [singular] with benefits'? Given that it is her [singular] who is so refusing.
• "ride a bike without using his hands". Ok, so this has lost me. Does it make sense in American. And either way, is it a highly risque innuendo?

• No no, this is about her literally wanting him to just get up on a bike without using his hands. I made this a direct quote to the lyrics if it helps...

• "L.V. Anderson". The MoS requires a space between "L." and "V.".
• "if he treats her like a casual hookup. Trainor asks him to "treat [her] like a trophy [and] put [her] on a shelf" and ride a bike without using his hands. L.V. Anderson of Slate described the song as "the cri de coeur of a woman who's tired of being seen as a casual hookup". "... a casual hookup ... a casual hookup ..." Synonym time?

• "while sporting a sparkling dress and lime green fur". *Trivia alert*
• "Inspired by the AAU Mr. America pageant ... at a Miss America–style pageant". I am confused.
• "She teased the music video on TikTok". Is teased a technical term? Is there a link?
• "received a Gold certification". Upper-case G?

• This usage is consistent with my other FAs.

Very neat - anyone would think that you had done this before. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:23, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

I see this is my lucky nomination that finally gets a review from Thee Gog :) I have satisfactorily addressed your comments, I hope.--NØ 20:00, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't think you need "the luck of the Gog" with writing like yours. Fine work and I am happy to support. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:10, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Pseud 14

The article seems to be in good order. Just a few suggestions.

• link EP to extended play. Also worth linking in the first instance in the Background section
• became a trend on video-sharing service TikTok -- on the video sharing service TikTok. Also worth linking trend to viral phenomenon.
• believe it should be self-worth with a hyphen
• at the 2014 iHeartRadio Music Festival in September 2014. -- perhaps you can omit the first instance of 2014. Pseud 14 (talk) 00:15, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

• Done on all points. Thanks for highlighting these, Pseud 14!--NØ 17:57, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

• Support. Great job on another Trainor series, as usual. Btw if you have spare time and inclination, would appreciate feedback on my current FAC. Pseud 14 (talk) 19:04, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Source review

• The sources used in this article are appropriate for its subject matter and are for the most part high-quality and appropriate for a FA. I just have a quick comment. I would replace the Idolator source as it is not considered a high-quality source for FAs.

• It's revenge time, I see, lol. Just kidding. After some digging, I was able to replace this.

• The citations are structured appropriately. I appreciated that things are archived to avoid potential headache with link rot and death and that items with subscriptions are marked appropriately. I have done a spot-check and the items in the sources match the information in the citations. I have also done a spot-check and the information from the citations I have checked matches with and supports the information in the article. I just have a few comments below.
• For Citation 27, I would specify that it is from Vulture.
• There appears to be a typo in Citation 30 that prevents me from accessing the source (i.e. ww2. and not www.). I would check the other citations to make sure this is not repeated elsewhere.
• In Citation 34, I would link Meghan Trainor as the author of the tweet.
• Just out of curiosity, have you checked to see if there was any unique coverage in newspaper sources, such as on Newspapers.com. I am doubtful as this song is relatively modern, and a majority if not all of the coverage would be available online, but I still wanted to ask you anyway to make sure. I am having issues with my Newspapers.com account as the way to get into it now unnecessarily complicated on my end. I have checked for scholarly coverage on Google Scholar, and I could not find anything.

• I did another skim, and those sites seem to be replicating album reviews found online so you are correct about this. Nothing new to add from there.

I hope this source review is helpful. Let me know when everything is addressed, and I will look through the sources one more time, but more likely than not, I will pass the source review at that time. Hopefully, this review will help push the FAC along. Best of luck with the FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 01:26, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the source review, Aoba47. I believe I have addressed everything. Feel free to take another look when you have some time.--NØ 04:16, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for addressing everything. It all looks good to me. This passes my source review. Aoba47 (talk) 16:11, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Query for the coordinators

@FAC coordinators: I'd like to move foward with a new nomination in a while if that's okay, since this one seems to be in good shape.--NØ 05:34, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Sure, go ahead. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:37, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 13:48, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 25 July 2023 [6].

---

Pope Sisinnius

Nominator(s): Unlimitedlead (talk) 23:02, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

I have just wrapped up Henry II of England, and it was quite the doozy, so I thought it would be a good idea to nominate a smaller, simpler article. This pope reigned for only 20 days, a fascinating story indeed. The article recently passed through GA thanks to Pbritti and received a PR from Aza24. Please keep in mind that I will be embarking on a month-long international trip on the 28th, so responses to queries after then will be met with a delayed response. Apologies for any inconveniences, and enjoy reviewing. Unlimitedlead (talk) 23:02, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Image review

No images (t · c) buidhe 23:27, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, Buidhe. Unlimitedlead (talk) 23:29, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

No images, but are there no images that could be added? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:04, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

This discussion came up at the GA review, where it was decided that any image would be anachronistic and inappropriate for usage in the article, seeing as no contemporary/near-contemporary depictions of Sisinnius are extant. Unlimitedlead (talk) 12:43, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Comment: When I read this as a GA, I was impressed with how much this article felt like a typical short FA. Short of UL, Aza24, and me somehow missing a major source on this topic, I have a hard time imagining this doesn't meet the FA standard. ~ Pbritti (talk) 00:33, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

• I think I've got Déjà vu; has anything been changed in the matrix...? SN54129

@Serial Number 54129: Pardon? Is something the matter? Unlimitedlead (talk) 13:35, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

CommentsSupport from Chris

• Did he not technically hold the title of Pope as we use it now? I only ask because you twice refer to his holding the post of "Bishop of Rome" but don't actually use the word Pope to refer to him..........

The terms are practically synonymous, but I have seen other GA-class Pope articles say "Bishop of Rome" instead of "Pope", so I have done so here as well. Unlimitedlead (talk) 20:31, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

• "He was likely not a member of the upper-class (like many of his immediate predecessors)" - does the bit in parentheses means that his predecessors were upper-class or weren't? There's a hint of ambiguity, at least to me....

It means they were not. I was actually unsure about the wording myself, but then I realised that "He was likely not a member of the upper-class (unlike many of his immediate predecessors)" would actually mean that his predecessors were upper-class. But I do understand the confusion; let me know if I need to reword. Unlimitedlead (talk) 20:31, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

How about "Like many of his immediate predecessors, he was likely not a member of the upper class"......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:39, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Done. I can't believe I didn't think of that! Unlimitedlead (talk) 20:46, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

• Also, when used as a noun, "upper class" does not have a hyphen

Fixed. Unlimitedlead (talk) 20:31, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

• That's it, I think -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:23, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

@ChrisTheDude: Thanks for the review. I believe all your comments have been addressed. Cheers, Unlimitedlead (talk) 20:31, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:51, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Support from Tim

• I'd read the article last month, just after it had been GA-nominated. I found it a good, concise, informative read. Taking a quote from the GA review "it fulfills the elevated FA standard of "comprehensive". Comparing the article against its sources and two other good sources on popes, the article provides all major points and reflects the limited primary sources involved while avoiding speculation". I will assume that the sources verify the text; aside from that, I have just one query: could you de-capitalise the "The" from Levillain's quote and remove the preceding comma? i.e., "Philippe Levillain stated that "[t]he concision of ...". Otherwise, the capital T sticks out like a sore thumb (per MOS:CONFORM: "It is not normally necessary to explicitly note changes in capitalization. However, for more precision, the altered letter may be put inside square brackets: "The" → "[t]he".") Whatever happens, support. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 21:21, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

  Not a problem, Tim; it has been done according to your word. Thanks for dropping by the review to offer your comments and support. Unlimitedlead (talk) 21:24, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Support by NØ

I support this article for promotion based on the high-quality and engaging prose. I'll leave the assessment of comprehensiveness, etc. to others due to low familiarity with the subject matter. Regards.--NØ 09:52, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Oppose from Serial

Opposing per Unlimitedlead, who has previously stated, "unfortunately, I do not believe this article fufills the FA standards... there is very little information on the [topic] itself". Which I very much agreed with, and my previous remarks are as accurate here: "While there are no strict length requirements (but then, WP:FA? only has eleven requirements of anykind; everything else you see here is frankly custom and practice), WP:GVF makes it pretty clear that the criteria for FAs is basically that of GAs but writ large. Supersized in quality; but also, presumably, in quantity. At the moment, our lowest-length FA is Miss Meyers, at 680 words; [a different article] is ~20% less than that. As a GA, it only has to be "Broad in its coverage"; as a FA it has to "stay... focused on the main topic" as well as contextualize it. At the end of the day, we have to follow the reliable sources. If RS have not covered a subject, however niche, then we cannot. We cannot write the RSs for them. If, in future, the topic is picked up in (high-quality) RSs, we can (and should) follow suit. But until then, we cannot write an article without the sources, and we certainly can't write a featured article without multiple high-quality ones."

There are two ironies. Firstly, the article Unlimitedlead previously opposed was actually longer than this one; secondly, they subsequently agreed with my opposition on similar grounds to their own (or, or, "my underlying attitude towards this article are exactly what SN expressed concerns about"). Normally I would recommend revising and resubmitting, but if reliable sources haven't found much more to say about him than this, then it's unlikely they will ever do so—even the Vatican's own archives, which run to something over 50 miles of manuscript—aren't particularly useful before Innocent III (now there's a pope to get your teeth into: was he vicar of Christ, or lord of the world...?).

In a nutshell: this is even less comprehensive than another FAC the nom opposed; I am not so blessed as to establish such a shade of nuance. Even so, nice article; cheers. SN54129 14:05, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129, I am sorry that you feel that way. However, I feel obligated to defend my position. My primary reason for opposing the Cross of St James FAC was that the heraldic symbol has never had, and probably never have, noticeable academic coverage. In this article, as @Pbritti said, there is pretty much every single aspect of comprehensiveness one could find about Sisinnius. While constructing the article, I ran through several RS, and they absolutely mentioned Sisinnius; due to the subject's short reign, of course the article would be shorter, but by no means does that indicate a lack of notability or comprehensiveness. Length has never been a significant matter of concern at FA; rather, an article's quality determines its eligibility to be classified as FA. Unlimitedlead (talk) 14:16, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

@Aza24 @ChrisTheDude @Tim O'Doherty @MaranoFan As past readers of the article, did any of you feel any concerns over the article's length and/or comprehensiveness? If multiple users feel this way then perhaps a withdrawal would be in order. Unlimitedlead (talk) 14:21, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

No, as a matter of fact. The article seems comprehensive to me, as a.) the article states that little is known about Sisinnius before his election to the papacy (the last 20 days of his life), and b.) because he only had a 20-day papacy, there won't be loads to write about. The requirement for FAs is that they are well-written, well-researched, neutral, and stable; this article passes all of them. Looking between Cross of Saint James and this article, it is clear that there is a quality canyon between the two; the former is mostly images, and is tagged for unreliable sources, whilst this article is a short, well-written and comprehensive piece of work, and something I would expect to find in a proper encyclopaedia, like Britannica or the ODNB. I don't see why it should fail due to length, of all things. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 14:37, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

There is a very disappointing thread to read, and illustrates clearly a common problem in FAC: Un-Actionable opposes. Giving actionable suggestions is clearly possible, as done by Gog below, but these statistics comparisons in page lengths and all of the Wikipedian jargon does not seem beneficial to the FAC process. If an article is on Wikipedia, it can certainly be a featured article—otherwise it should be nominated for deletion. Unless someone is going to nominate Pope Sisinnius for deletion, why are we talking like this? For the record, the example of Cross of Saint James has major blaring issues to begin with; there are three major academic sources completely uncited in further reading, while three sources of 100+ years ago are used instead.

Can't we view this process as "how can we help this article improve" instead of "here's why this article isn't good enough"? We are trying to build! SN, I have seen your incredible initiative for article improvement; you brought Óengus I back to FA standard in the blink of an eye. I really hope this is not the future of FAC. Aza24 (talk) 19:38, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

• Returning to address a common misunderstanding: I have been mis-cited. I am not opposing on length, but per WP:FA? 1B: comprehensiveness. Mistaking comprehensiveness for length, as above, is sloppy and hardly reassuring.
  But I agree it's unactionable: as I noted, the nom can hardly be expected (even if it were allowed!) to write up their own sources. Unfortunately, not all opposes can be actioned. In this case, nothing short of an expansion of the secondary literature would save it.
  One particular point: I have to draw attention to If an article is on Wikipedia, it can certainly be a featured article—otherwise, it should be nominated for deletion as such an out-of-process argument that fundamentally misunderstands the FA processes (which represent some of Wikipedia's finest work, my emph.) It would probably be raising the point at various policy pages--deletion and notability spring to mind--to see what they think. In the meantime, perhaps you could nominate either The Eagle (1918 film), Haraboti River or Gongs East! for either FAC... or nominate them for deletion. So I'm afraid the argument hardly holds water.
  Thank you Aza24, for Óengus; your work has been noted also. SN54129 14:42, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by Gog the Mild

Recusing to comment.

Attracted by the fuss, I am going to add some comments. I am not fussed by the brevity of the article, I am fussed by what I see as a lack of context. Sisinnius is notable because he was elected as Pope. So:

• What was the status of the papacy at the time? Politically, theologically, geographically, ecclesiastically.
• What were the theological debates and disagreements of the time? Where did the papacy and/or Sisinnius stand on them?
• What was the mechanism by which he was elected? Who were the electors? Is anything known about any of them? Who else, if anyone, "ran" for the position? Who else was even eligible to run?

Some further information has been inserted in the Background section regarding this matter. Unlimitedlead (talk) 21:35, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

• Why was Sisinnius elected? Several of his qualities are mentioned, did any of these effect how the electors voted?

No sources outright say, so the reader is left to infer. Afraid there's not much I can do about this one :( Unlimitedlead (talk) 21:34, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

• The papacy was then, as it usually was, an intensely political position. What is known of his political views? Eg what was his opinion on approving some or all of Emperor Justinian's 102 Canons? Or on Justinian's recent blinding of the Archbishop of Ravenna. Whatever his political views were, did they help or hinder his election?

This information is not known to us, so your following point is what I will focus on. Unlimitedlead (talk) 20:48, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

• If nothing is known of Sisinnius's political - or other - opinions, it still seems useful to lay out the contemporary situation in so far as it effected the papacy, so a reader can gain an impression of what he found in his in tray.
• Why did so "many such early medieval popes who were ill and of old age" get elected to the position? What made these qualities attractive ones to the electorate?

Fixed. Unlimitedlead (talk) 21:27, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Apologies if this is a bit disjointed or if there are duplications. It is straight off the top of my head as to what seem to me things I would like to see in the article, I may come up with more given time to think. IMO it sorely needs a couple of short paragraphs of "Background". Gog the Mild (talk) 17:39, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

• "Sisinnius was elected to become the bishop of Rome, likely in October 707, and was consecrated on 15 January 708". That seems a long delay. Any reason why? Gog the Mild (talk) 17:55, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

  The sentence after that one offers an explanation. And thank you, Gog, for your constructive comments. I will try to address them as quickly as I can. Unlimitedlead (talk) 20:47, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

  @Gog the Mild I have created a new Background section in the article; please take a look and see if it addresses all of your concerns. Thanks, Unlimitedlead (talk) 21:53, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

  Hold that thought: I have more to add Unlimitedlead (talk) 22:45, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

  Okay, now I think I have said everything I wanted to. Unlimitedlead (talk) 23:09, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

  @Gog the Mild, feel free to take a look whenever you are free; my internet access is sporadic currently due to all the airport-hopping I am doing, so any responses on my part will be rather delayed. Thanks, Unlimitedlead (talk) 21:02, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

• "claims of overlordship over the Church!. Perhaps one less "over"?

Changed "overlordship" to "dominance". Unlimitedlead (talk) 15:52, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

• "and its stationed armed forces". Who does "its" refer to - probably best to specify.

Fixed. Unlimitedlead (talk) 15:49, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

• "During the Ostrogothic kingdom's rule over Rome". Which was when?

Added. Unlimitedlead (talk) 22:34, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

• "Sisinnius was elected to become the bishop of Rome, likely in October 707, and was consecrated on 15 January 708. The confirmation of Sisinnius' election by the exarch of Ravenna caused delay of his consecration by nearly three months". Consider 'Sisinnius was elected to become the bishop of Rome, likely in October 707, and was consecrated on 15 January 708; the delay being due to waiting for confirmation of the election by the exarch of Ravenna' or similar.

Done. Unlimitedlead (talk) 14:48, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

• Why did so "many such early medieval popes who were ill and of old age" get elected to the position? What made these qualities attractive ones to the electorate?

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:44, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Does the following sentence clarify your concerns? Unlimitedlead (talk) 14:51, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

• Sisinnius's position is referred to as both pope and bishop of Rome. Did he have any powers over and above those of any other bishop. If so, what were they and over what geographical area did he exercise them? Was there any discrepancy between the powers and geographical area he claimed and those in which he could exercise such powers in practice?

The two terms are used interchangably in the article and one does not necessarily imply a different connotation from the other. As pope, Sisinnius would have had nominal authority over all of Christendom and its clergy, though I doubt the Eastern patriarchs would have hapilly went along with this agreement. That is the best answer I can provide using my brain, but I have limited access to sources currently, so citing may become an issue. Unlimitedlead (talk) 15:03, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Could we include something on just what the powers the pope had? Ie, could he appoint bishops? If so, in which areas? (And what powers did a bishop have?) Excommunicate people? What else?

• I think it would be helpful if it were explicitly stated that the city of Rome was politically and militarily part of the Exarchate of Ravenna. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:30, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Done. Unlimitedlead (talk) 14:54, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: I think I have responded to all your queries. Please take a look and see if everything is to your pleasure; if not, let me know so I can make the necessary changes. Apologies for the delay and for any future delays; it is not easy to edit on a phone while hiking through the mountains of Canada! Cheers, Unlimitedlead (talk) 15:03, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

You are hiking in Canada! Arrgh! I may have to oppose out of sheer jealousy. Sounds great. Enjoy it and don't worry about Wikipedia - it isn't going anywhere.

I will do that, Gog. Surely the mountains and lakes of Canada put those of the British Isles to shame :) Unlimitedlead (talk) 15:54, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Citation needed for that claim, I'm afraid. Jokes aside, I drove through the Lake District yesterday; surely one of the greatest parts o' Merrie England. Considering that and the Irish Cliffs of Moher, Canada must be quite something. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 22:23, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

@Tim O'Doherty: "You are hiking in Canada! Arrgh! I may have to oppose out of sheer jealousy. Sounds great": If the Brit admits, you must acquit! Unlimitedlead (talk) 22:31, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

As another famous Brit said: "We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, [...]; we shall never surrender." I would like to add "we shall fight them over their mountains" to that list. Seems fitting. Mind you, the Canadians are too well-tempered and mature to fight. And, as a representative of the UK, I wouldn't want to flare up any tensions... Tim O'Doherty (talk) 22:37, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

I think that parts of Highlands of Scotland stand comparison with pretty much anywhere. Eg, see the image on my user page, part of a wild camping trip which included pitching on a frozen lake. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:15, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

I am content, I think, with everything except your responses to my last two bullets. Which may just be me being dim. Could you point me to them?

The Ravenna bit is in the first paragraph of the Life and papacy section; the part about the papacy's power has not been added to the article as I am unable to access sources at this time. Unlimitedlead (talk) 15:54, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild I have added some information regarding this matter. Feel free to take a look when you have returned from your vacation. Cheers, Unlimitedlead (talk) 17:16, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

In your own time. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:24, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

PS I loved your summary style summary of the Council of Chalcedon. It seriously cracked me up. (Don't change it, it's fine. And I'm giggling again.)

• I am still not really happy about the lack of information on what the role of the pope was at the time. Could we include something on just what the powers the pope had? Ie, could he appoint bishops? If so, in which areas? (And what powers did a bishop have?) Excommunicate people? What else? Gog the Mild (talk) 18:34, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

I am having difficulty locating a RS outlining the pope's powers (especially at this early time period), but is it really necessary? I do not believe any other biographical articles detail the position of the subject, and I feel uncomfortable making this article more off-topic than it already is. Unlimitedlead (talk) 22:14, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

"Off topic"!? Sisinnius's only claim to fame, the only reason you are writing an article about him, is that he was pope. I am not sure that a reader can understand anything much about him if they don't know - ie, are told - what a pope was and did. I mean, we know little of what he did, but it seems reasonable to put in that space what he could have done, ie some idea of his authority. If not readers are likely, probably certain, to assume that the job description was the same as it is today.

@Gog the Mild: You are correct: sometimes I forget that my readers are not also geeks like myself! I have added a new paragraph to the Religious section. Please give it a look and let me know what else I need to do. Cheers, Unlimitedlead (talk) 22:21, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

• I believe that Sisinnius's successor, Constantine, was his brother. Is that correct?

I vaguely remember this possibility being floated around before, but I scoured all the sources I have and no mention of this pops up. Unlimitedlead (talk) 21:50, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

• Is it known if Sisinnius was a given or a regnal name? Gog the Mild (talk) 18:34, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

It is not known: I have not seen this matter mentioned in any sources. Unlimitedlead (talk) 21:50, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: I have tried to address all your comments. Please take a look when you are free. Unlimitedlead (talk) 22:14, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

All looks good and much more rounded than the original nom, IMHO. Just the job description bit outstanding, then I am pretty sure I'm done. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:15, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

• "Richards argues that from 476 to 752, the "prestige, power and influence" of the pope augmented under the protection of the Western Roman Empire and later the Holy Roman Empire, noting in particular the papacy's growth in power during the sixth and seventh centuries." You have misread the source. The Western Empire had fallen by 476 and the Carolingian empire did not expand to Italy until 752. It was in these periods, either side of the sixth and seventh centuries that "the "prestige, power and influence" of the pope [was] augmented". See the sentence in the source starting "But in the intervening ..." (p 2). I am also struggling to find a source for "noting in particular the papacy's growth in power during the sixth and seventh centuries"; could you quote the text in the source you are relying on to cover this? Thanks.

I have just reread all of the article and otherwise it is looking good. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:58, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: Fixed (feel free to reword/ce); the quote is: " of inevitability that the facts themselves belie. What eleventh-century canonists may or may not have made of the writings of Pope Gelasius I is utterly irrelevant to any realistic appreciation of how the papacy changed in the sixth and seventh centuries. The papacy’s power and responsibility unquestionably grew during this period...". Unlimitedlead (talk) 23:09, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Just double checking. The sentence is meant to communicate that the papacy grew in prestige, power and influence prior to 476 and like wise after 752; and in power and responsibility between 500 and 700. Yes? Gog the Mild (talk) 17:22, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Indeed. Apologies for the delays: I am due to go on another hike to see a lake with some companions. Cheers, Unlimitedlead (talk) 20:02, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

• Sisinnius had an extremely short stay on the papal throne, but that is no reason why there shouldn't be an article about him or why it shouldn't, in principle, be featured, IMHO. I note that other opinions exist. The article includes every scrap of information known about Sisinnius and sets this thoroughly in political, ecclesiastical and historical context and so I am supporting promotion. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:18, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Support from John M Wolfson

I'll get to the meat of the article in due course, but I'm here to "counteract" SN's oppose and affirm the idea that any article that passes the GNG can, in theory, become an FA regardless of how much or little there is to say about it. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 06:32, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

{{rep[ly|John M Wolfson}} You're "here to 'counteract'" me. I look forward to your doing so. However, please attempt to do so with more than an eight-year-old essay, with less than 30 page watchers, that's been used around 60 times in that period and clearly doesn't have the clear support of the FAC community let alone the broader project. Si tacuisses, philosophus mansisses etc. SN54129 08:03, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

"Pope Sisinnius ... was the bishop of Rome from 15 January 708 to his death on 4 February." Consider changing this to "Sisinnius ... was the bishop of Rome, and thereby the pope, from ..." (EDIT: I've added something to that effect both for this and for Chris's earlier comments. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 18:56, 8 July 2023 (UTC))

This is a good idea, but I would like to keep the Pope articles on Wikipedia consistent in terms of prose/formatting. Unlimitedlead (talk) 01:15, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Eh, fair.

"had a father named John" consider changing to "his father's name was John" or something to that effect given that people generally only have one (biological) father.

Done. Unlimitedlead (talk) 21:28, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

What do either the monophysite controversy or the Ostrogothic kingdom have to do with Sisinnius, his immediate predecessors and successors, or his legacy?

The information was added in response to another FA reviewer; I believe it offers useful geopolitical and religious context. Unlimitedlead (talk) 21:29, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

"Out of worry of displeasing the Emperor, the Pope sent the decrees back to Justinian." Did he approve them, reject them, or defer them for later? Why was there tension between the state and church as is implied in the sentence?

I have clarified the sentence. As for the latter concern, I believe this could be explained by the Background section. Unlimitedlead (talk) 21:38, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

"Rome, the papal capital" if this really needs to be said at all, say it earlier in the "Background" section.

Fixed. Unlimitedlead (talk) 21:38, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Other than that, this is short but sweet. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 18:41, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

(Also, just an afterthought, but is Sisinnius's rule one of the shortest papacies on record? If it's in the top 5 or so for brevity, I think you should add that. I'm aware that there are probably shorter-ruling popes, but I was just curious. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 18:45, 8 July 2023 (UTC))

@John M Wolfson: I believe all your concerns have been addressed. Unlimitedlead (talk) 21:38, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Upon further inspection, you did, yes. If you don't mind, I have an FAC of my own right now, one for the old British practice of ministerial by-elections. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 22:48, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

@John M Wolfson Thank you kindly for reviewing and supporting. I would be glad to review your FA sometime; I will be travelling until around August so if the FAC is still open then, remind me. Cheers, Unlimitedlead (talk) 22:53, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

@Unlimitedlead: No worries at all; also, come Saturday (or really late Friday), this FAC will be as long as Sisinnius's papacy. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 22:54, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Second comment (support) from Pbritti

Several editors have raised concerns about the lack information on this historic figure and whether this subject is capable of fulfilling the FA standard. As it stands, this article already utilizes the best modern references on the life of a man who briefly held one of the most important secular and ecclesiastical offices of the early Middle Ages in the West. While it would be lovely to have additional context, adding some contextual elements approaches original research. Instead, having such a succinct, comprehensive encyclopedic article on an important historic figure should be considered a triumph. Unlimitedlead has written/rewritten a good number of GAs and FAs, many of which far exceed the length of this article. Because of this experience, if this article was incapable of becoming an FA I believe UL would have not nominated it. Not every historic figure requires what would amount to a four- or five-page biography. Some, such as Sisinnius, are wholly understood in a few hundred words. If anything, I would argue this article is a model that similar limited-scope articles should follow. ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:36, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words. Unlimitedlead (talk) 21:40, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Comment from Username6892

I've been watching the development of this article since it was a GA nominee and during that time, I have not seen any expansions of the lead. I think it should be expanded to include a summary of the background section per MOS:INTRO which requires the lead to summarize the article's most important points. I'm new to FA, so if my assessment is incorrect please let me know. ~UN6892 ^t_c 23:33, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

@Username6892 Most of the expansion since the GA nomination has been in regards to context, and I do not believe that adding all that to the lead would be beneficial. Let me know if there is something specific you are looking for in the lead. Thanks, Unlimitedlead (talk) 23:11, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Source review

Pass. The sources are all reliable and high-quality as far as I can tell; the Pocket Guide seems to be a condensed version of a longer work, rather than a popular account. No formatting issues that I could find. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:28, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Coord note

I plan to promote his but not without acknowledging Serial's opposition with which, to be honest, I have some sympathy, as I occasionally find myself questioning the real difference between our short-short FAs and a lot of GAs out there. That said, the name of the game is comprehensiveness, not length; the featured content community has long accepted that and the FAC coords are the stewards of the process. FTR I'll note that consensus to promote is not a matter of several expressions of support outvoting a single voice of opposition -- an actionable oppose can trump any number of supports -- but the process involves resolving critical comments, and I think that's been done as far as is possible. Thanks all for their efforts here. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 20:51, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 20:53, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

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 2023 [7].

---

Not My Responsibility

Nominator(s): ‍ ‍ Elias 🌊 ‍ ‍ ^{💬 "Will you call me?"}
_{📝 "Will you hang me out to dry?"} 02:34, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

This will be the last Billie Eilish article I take to FAC, at least for a while. The article's about a short film she did in which she addressed the awful comments about her body she got while she was still a minor. It is on the short side, so I hope reviewing it shan't be super tedious. ‍ ‍ Elias 🌊 ‍ ‍ ^{💬 "Will you call me?"}
_{📝 "Will you hang me out to dry?"} 02:34, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Comments

• "in March 9, 2020" => "on March 9, 2020"
• "commentary and tone, which they wrote was empowering" - did they say both were empowering? If so, the verb should be plural. If it was just the tone, then I would suggest changing to "commentary and the tone, which they wrote was empowering"
• "feeling like it lost" => "feeling that it lost"
• Think that's it - nice work! BTW I have another FAC of my own up at the moment if you fancied taking a look - I really appreciated your review of my last one. If you don't fancy it or don't have the time, that's honestly not a problem! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:30, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

  Thank you @ChrisTheDude for the review. Unfortunately, Ive recently returned to classes, with lots of work I have to catch up with, so Im afraid i cant provide reviews atm ... i hope you understand . sorry ‍ ‍ Elias 🌊 ‍ ‍ ^{💬 "Will you call me?"}
  _{📝 "Will you hang me out to dry?"} 02:24, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

• Support on this one, no worries on the other one :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:53, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Heartfox

• "in a dark room, where" → in a dark room where
  • "where she delivers a monologue..." is a non-restrictive relative clause in this context, so I wrote it with the comma
• "caught the public's attention and scrutiny" → attracted public attention and scrutiny
• "She had been wearing such clothes" → She wore such clothes
  • Done both
• "Many people saw her as undesirable and unfeminine because of what she wore" → Consequently, many people saw her as undesirable and unfeminine
  • Trimmed. I moved the sentence to the left to improve the flow
• "or called" → and called
• "room, and it begins" → room and begins
• "showcasing her" → showcasing of her
• "towards women's appearance" → towards women's appearances
• "felt like it" → felt that it
  • Done all five
• "On a more positive note, NME's Sophie Williams regarded "Not My Responsibility" as one of Eilish's "most powerful and haunting songs" in her discography." → doesn't fit with the paragraph
  • Moved to previous paragraph

I limited my review to prose. Best, Heartfox (talk) 18:39, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Sorry I did not get to this in time; real life stuff. Everything should be addressed now - the comments were solid! Thank you @Heartfox! ‍ ‍ Elias 🌊 ‍ ‍ ^{💬 "Will you call me?"}
_{📝 "Will you hang me out to dry?"} 03:18, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Support based on the prose ~ Heartfox (talk) 21:31, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Support from Gog the Mild

Recusing to review.

• "It premiered during the Where Do We Go? World Tour". Optional: "the" → 'her'.
• "Some music journalists labeled it as the album's centerpiece". You haven't, IMO, clearly established what "it" is. Suggest either rephrasing to clarify or "it" → 'this'.
• Lead: "the double standards and body shaming she has received as a public figure"; article: 'a response against body shaming and the double standards placed upon young women's appearances.' The lead states the piece is a response to personal criticism while the article says it is about criticism of young women in general.
• "in her career to date". To date being today or the - unspecified - time of writing?
• "Uproxx music editor Derrick Rossignol wrote that the film marked Eilish's "biggest statement" about body shaming in her career to date." You haven't overtly said that she had made any previous such statements. "had been using her platform to spread a message of body positivity" might or might not have included such.
• "Is my value based only on your perception? Or is your opinion of me not my responsibility?" I am not sure that this merits being quoted twice.
• "she felt inspired by the continuing drive to speak out against unfair standards towards women's appearance". I am not sure that this works grammatically. "the continuing drive" to what?
• "felt like it could have" → 'felt that it could have'.
• "Larocca, as a reply to Ahgrim, added". Added to what?

A neat little article. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:45, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Gog the Mild! Thank you for the comments. Everything here should be addressed now. Let me know what you think. ‍ ‍ Elias 🌊 ‍ ‍ ^{💬 "Will you call me?"}
_{📝 "Will you hang me out to dry?"} 07:58, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Good stuff, supporting. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:06, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Image and source review

File:ALTer EGO 1 18 2020 (50740816801).jpg needs to have its description cleaned up a bit. File:Billie Eilish - Not My Responsibility.png is sourced to a Youtube video; it'd be easier to check if the video link pointed to the exact moment. Source #29 and #42 are a bit unusually formatted, source #14 lacks author information. Otherwise source formatting seems to be consistent and feature the required information. Didn't notice anything outstanding in terms of source reliability, but keep in mind that popular culture is not my strong suit. Spot-check upon request. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:17, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

• Image descriptions have been updated, and the timestamp for the YouTube link has been added
• #29 and #42 are that way because that is how the cite magazine and the cite AV media notes templates produced the references. I simply fed the template with all available parameters I could get from the sources, and whatever it outputs really was out my control. It looks out of place I agree, and I'd have formatted it differently, but such is the imperfection of how our current cite templates are
• Re. Source 14, the author is "Team Elle", but citing the collective staff of a publication as the author is unadvised per Help:Citation Style 1#Authors.

Thanks for the review, @Jo-Jo Eumerus :) should be done now ‍ ‍ Elias 🌊 ‍ ‍ ^{💬 "Will you call me?"}
_{📝 "Will you hang me out to dry?"} 14:26, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Seems OK then. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:09, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Hey @FAC coordinators: . since there seems to be enough reviews already, I will be nominating a new article for FAC . I hope that's ok! Regards, ‍ ‍ Elias 🌊 ‍ ‍ ^{💬 "Will you call me?"}
_{📝 "Will you hang me out to dry?"} 23:02, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, you can nominate another -- pls always wait till a coord responds to such a request though (we have to earn our pay!) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:11, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Aoba47

• I was uncertain about this part, many people saw her as undesirable and unfeminine, since the "many people" wording seemed rather vague to me. I checked the source to see if there was anything more specific, but this seems to be supported by a general statement by Eilish. I think it would be best to provide that context in the prose (i.e. that Eilish said this) and the "many" part is slightly misleading as her quote does not explicitly say this view was held up by a majority of people or a large number of people.
  • i believe a better way to convey what i was trying to say is that she received several comments about her fashion style - she explicitly says she has, and it just is obviously true . hopefully it addresses your concern
• I have a similar comment to this sentence: She continued to receive negative comments about her appearance, getting called a slut and a "fat cow" among others. The article presents this critiques as fact, but the quote reads somewhat more ambiguous to me. The quote could read more like abstract examples or a larger discussion on the issues and not necessarily things that really happened to her. Like my above point, I would clarify that this is something she said. I think this kind of contextualization is important.
  • Yeah, I agree
• I have a comment for this sentence: Uproxx music editor Derrick Rossignol wrote that, at the time of its release, the film marked Eilish's "biggest statement" about body shaming in her career. It struck me as odd on my first reading since at this point, Eilish was still a relatively new artist so it did not seem like there was a lot of comparison or history to draw from or compare to. I read the source, and it contextualizes this as her biggest statement amongst her other work on body shaming. I know you mentioned this earlier in the section, but when I read this part, I thought career was focused more on her music. I think this sentence could be better worded to give clarity on what the author means and why it matters.
  • I'm a bit stumped on this - can you provide a suggestion of what I can do wrt this situation ?
• For this part, whereas the "intense" manner in which, I would paraphrase the quote. I have been told in past reviews that single-word quotes like this could actually take away from the effectiveness of other quotes, and this word does not seem particularly illuminating enough to warrant a quote on its own, at least in my opinion.
  • Is "zealous" a better word choice ?
• Just a clarification question, but does the song use the spoken-word piece from the film with different (or even the same production) or did Eilish rerecord it as a song (i.e. singing it rather than speaking it)?
  • The audio you hear in the film is the audio you hear in the track . Well most of the track . In the film, everything ends when Eilish says the title, but the album track has additional music at the end (which transitions into "Overheated") . This YouTube video illustrates what I mean .
• The contributions from Dave Kutch and Rob Kinelski to the song should be presented in the prose, and not just in the "Credits and personnel" section.
• The chart information should also be presented in the prose and not just in a separate table.
  • Addressed both

I hope this review is helpful. I have only focused on the prose, as image and source reviews have already been conducted. Hopefully, my review will give this FAC the push that it needs for promotion. Once everything has been addressed above, I will read through the article a few more times just to make sure that I have not missed anything. Best of luck with the FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 23:34, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Elias? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 18:20, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Your Power, nudge. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:25, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild @Ian Rose: sorry, life became extremely busier these past few days, and I need to stall this nom for a couple more ... I'll try getting back to this nomination in a week and get everything sorted out ‍ ‍ Elias 🌊 ‍ ‍ ^{💬 "Will you call me?"}
_{📝 "Will you hang me out to dry?"} 01:00, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

• Take as much time as you need, but I would request that you ping me when you address my comments. Aoba47 (talk) 01:35, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

• Your Power Apologies for the double-response and ping. Just wanted to check in on you as it has been a while since there has been an update. Aoba47 (talk) 02:13, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Sorry sorry sorry sorry :( i've already responded to the first two comments; let me know @Aoba47 if the changes I made sufficiently satisfied your concerns . i'll get to the rest in a moment, after I have lunch ‍ ‍ Elias 🌊 ‍ ‍ ^{💬 "Will you call me?"}
_{📝 "Will you hang me out to dry?"} 04:44, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

No need to apologize. Life happens and should take priority over Wikipedia. I am honestly just glad you are doing better and I hope you (and everything else) continue to do well in the future. The first two responses and the corresponding edits make sense to me. Thank you for addressing them, and I hope you have a good lunch. Aoba47 (talk) 14:37, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you so much @Aoba47 . Conversely I hope all is well on your side of the world . life feels uncertain and directionless at times, but the reality is we all have to persevere and have resilience to get through shit . sending positive vibes ur way . we all need it this month , anyways , onto the actual purpose of this page lol . my responses to everything should be complete ! :) ‍ ‍ Elias 🌊 ‍ ‍ ^{💬 "Will you call me?"}
_{📝 "Will you hang me out to dry?"} 15:54, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the responses and for your kind words. I am not sure if it helps, but I can relate to how you are feeling. I've been feeling directionless myself, which is why I am taking a WikiBreak to recenter and find my direction again. I completely agree it is really a matter of perseverance, and I hope things go well with you. I appreciate the good vibes, and I return that same good energy to you in return.

Upon further reflection, I think the "biggest statement" part works in its current wording. It passed through multiple, experienced reviewers without any note, and I believe it was a case of me just over-thinking it if that makes sense. Zealous works as a good paraphrase substitution in my opinion, and thank you fro addressing my question about the audio for the film and the song.

I was initially uncertain about the chart information as in a majority of my experiences with music FAs/FACs, I have seen the chart placements more explicitly stated in the prose, but upon further reflection and research, your edit makes sense. I was mostly convinced by how "I'm Goin' Down" handles this information (i.e. with being as explicit in the prose), and since that was done by an editor that I highly respect, I believe this case is appropriate. I do like how you incorporated the note. I think I was just less familiar with this aspect as I work on more obscure songs that do not get this kind of chart placement normally lol.

Anyway, apologies for rambling, I support this FAC for promotion based on the prose, and I hope that this is the push it needs to get a FA level. Best of luck with your future work on here. I look forward to seeing and reading it. Aoba47 (talk) 17:22, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

<3 ‍ ‍ Elias 🌊 ‍ ‍ ^{💬 "Will you call me?"}
_{📝 "Will you hang me out to dry?"} 04:49, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Comment

• Billie Eilish Not My Responsibility's background, narrative, and musical aspects are well divided, so I think the composition of the article is good.--GeonwooLee (talk) 07:33, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Coordinator note

Hi Your Power. I note that you haven't been on Wikipedia for a couple of weeks, or posted here for longer. I hope that everything is ok with you in RL. This nom could do with some responses posting before too long, or it is liable to be timed out. Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:34, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the reminder @Gog the Mild ... tbh real life, especially my bipolar disorder, has drained my ability to do anything productive . the amount of meltdowns I've had is too many to count ... everything around me seems to be falling apart . but with a newly rejuvenated state of mind, I promise I'd get to @Aoba47's responses soon . first I'll get to the "Ex Pack" nomination :) ‍ ‍ Elias 🌊 ‍ ‍ ^{💬 "Will you call me?"}
_{📝 "Will you hang me out to dry?"} 11:12, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 10:07, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

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 2023 [8].

---

Southend-on-Sea War Memorial

Nominator(s): Harry Mitchell (talk)

I've been going back through some of my older war memorial articles to see if any of them can be improved with the sources I've acquired during my project. There's not a great deal written about this one sadly but Lutyens's handiwork, an interesting design, and a prominent location, plus a detailed newspaper report on its unveiling, and a bit of recent history give us just under 1800 words and a comprehensive summary of the (relatively few) sources available. I first wrote the article way back in 2016 but decided to overhaul it recently after Thryduulf and I took a day trip there while I was passing through London a few weeks ago. Most of the photos in the article are from that trip! I hope you like it, but I'm more than happy to address any feedback. Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:38, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Comments by ChrisThe Dude

• "A committee appointed Lutyens, the architect of The Cenotaph, to design a permanent memorial as a replacement for temporary shrines. He originally proposed a variation of the Cenotaph" - The Cenotaph or the Cenotaph?
• "In front the monument is a garden" => "In front of the monument is a garden"
• "and the for the North Eastern Railway" - ?
• "The town was bombed by German Zeppelins" - link Zeppelin
• "later plaques are affixed" - new sentence so needs a capital
• Think that's it! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:53, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks Chris! All fixed, I think! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:36, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 22:07, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Support by Nick-D

Great work as always. I have the following comments:

• "Thereafter, he dedicated much of his time to commemorating its casualties" - this makes it sound like he did this as a charity. As I understand it, Lutyens was getting paid for this work.
  • Fair point. Reworded; see what you think.
• "and home to a military installation and to the north was an aerodrome " - bit clunky
  • Fixed.
• Most of the material on Southend-on-Sea seems to not align well with this memorial, given it commemorates people from the town who were killed in the war, not people who were based in the town or passed through it. Can you say how many people from the town enlisted? (even roughly)
  • You're right of course but I think a bit of background to a town's role in the war can help explain why they erected the memorial they did. An inland town of the same size not quite so exposed to the war might have gone for a smaller-scale memorial, for example. That stat might be difficult because of the number of different regiments/corps/etc that they could have joined but let me see if I can dig something up.
• "Instead of engraving the names of the dead on the memorial, the committee decided to emboss the 1,338 names on tablets which would be fixed to the walls of Prittlewell Priory" - do we know why? This seems unusual.
• It's not massively unusual; the sources don't explicitly say it but it's usually because there's not enough room for all the names and the names are quite often accessible somewhere like a library or a town hall (cf Norwich or Hove).
• Has there been any commentary on the 2019 soldier statue? From looking the memorial on Google Street view, its addition seems to compromise the design of the memorial, and it isn't in line with Lutyens' approach. I presume that the council would have needed to have obtained approval from the heritage authorities for this change? Nick-D (talk) 23:59, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
  • I really struggled to find anything on it. I didn't know it was there until I visited and had to dig to find reliable sources to confirm its existence; nobody seems to have picked up on it yet. I would imagine it's a removable addition (ie isn't affixed to anything listed and could be removed without disturbing anything) and therefore wouldn't need listed building consent. I agree it adds an element of literalism that's at odds with Lutyens' classicism; I like the idea but it's maybe not the best site for it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:53, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
    • Fair enough. I'd be pretty sure that this kind of change to a heritage listed memorial would be banned here in Australia. Nick-D (talk) 10:35, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Support Apologies for the slow response here: I spent most of May travelling, and am only getting back to this review now. My comments are addressed. Nick-D (talk) 02:11, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

SC

I have to say I agree with the biographer about the words in the grass – less is more! Ditto with the overkill of the 2019 statue too! Anyway, that's just me being a curmudgeon. Your article has far fewer and less noticeable blemishes and there are just two comments from me:

I don't disagree you. The writing is at least tasteful and in keeping with the the garden. The statue is over-egging the pudding a bit.

Background

• "Immediately to the east is Shoeburyness, a garrison town and home to a military installation and to the north was an aerodrome (now Southend Airport) which became a naval air station." I had to read this a couple of times, tripping up on the double "and" before I realised what it was saying. It may be worth replacing the second "and" with a semi colon, but I don't press the point.
  • Reworded per Nick; see what you think.

Appreciation

• "The laurel wreaths on the north and south faces are reminiscent of The Cenotaph": Are they not "reminiscent of those on The Cenotaph", rather than the Cenotaph itself?
  • Can it not be both? The design of the memorial has some echoes of The Cenotaph but the wreaths are the most obvious similarity.

That's really all I have to pick up on here. Another fine article in an excellent series. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:56, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, SchroCat! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:53, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Support I'm happy with that - it was the Shoeburyness sentence that was the stumbling block for me, but it looks good now. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 19:08, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Comments Support by Hawkeye7

Looks good to me, but the MilHist bot reckons that it is Good Article quality rather Featured. Probably something to do with the article size. Some comments to prove that I read it:

• "Prittlewell Priory, a former religious building and now a museum." Consider saying when it became a museum.
• "D Company of the 6th battalion, Essex Regiment" Capitalise the "B"
• Do they ever take the flags down?
• Link garrison town, Zeppelin, 21 gun salute, borough corporation
• Consider using the {{inflation}} template

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:59, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

@Hawkeye7 all addressed, thank you! I don't think the inflation template produces a useful comparison because so much has changed in that time. I'd love a comparison for what it would cost to build something like this today. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:22, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

All good. Moved to support. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:39, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Image review - pass

• File:Southend-on-Sea war memorial - geograph.org.uk - 734140.jpg - CC-BY-SA 2.0 licence -okay
• File:Southend War Memorial 12.jpg, File:Southend War Memorial 09.jpg, File:Southend-on-Sea War Memorial - wreath on south elevation in April 2023 02.jpg, File:Southend War Memorial 11.jpg, File:Southend-on-Sea War Memorial - soldier from north in April 2023 01.jpg, File:Southend-on-Sea War Memorial - wreath on south elevation in April 2023 01.jpg - Wikipedian created CC-BY-SA 4.0 licence - okay

All good. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:59, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Support from Gog the Mild

Recusing to review.

• "A committee appointed Lutyens". Is it known when this happened?
  • The sources don't give an exact date, frustratingly. The closest I've got is the year the design was approved.
• "which contributed to the war effort". Should there be a 'had' in there?
  • Sure, why not?
• "organisations which contributed to the war effort in the area." I think you mean 'organisations in the area which had contributed to the war effort.'
  • That seems like a distinction without a difference. They contributed in the area and were presumably based in the area.
• I don't see the Historic England page covering "unprecedented casualties". Could you help me out and quote where you are taking this from? Thanks.
• " Lutyens ... later built much of New Delhi". I had thought that Indian labourers had done that.
  • It's a fairly common turn of phrase but reworded nonetheless.
• "the British government began internment of German citizens" → 'the British government began the internment of German citizens'?
• "twice in May 1915. A second bombing raid in 1917". Would the 1917 raid not be the third?
  • So changed.
• "a site at the top of the cliffs, which was previously used for a flagpole." Perhaps a tweak to the phrasing?
  • Reworded.
• "for which Lutyens quoted £5,500." For the design, or was Luytens also in charge of the construction?
  • The sources aren't explicit but Lutyens usually supervised the masonry work but not necessarily the installation on-site.
• "on the north and south faces on the middle stage of the pedestal." Should that second "on" be 'of'?
  • Yes.
• Having the image in "Design" left justified seriously messes with the layout of the dedication in several settings.
  • Adjusted.
• "involved in the local war effort" again. Just checking that the sources don't include any representatives of local organisations who were involved in the national war effort?
  • Still not sure there's more than a semantic difference here?
• "he mayor and the borough corporation". Can a "borough corporation" be present?
  • I don't see why not, but reworded.
• "The statue was created by a local sculptor". Is their name known?
  • Added.

Nice work, as usual. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:42, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi Harry. Any chance of some TLC for this nom before one of my colleagues times it out? Ta. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:30, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm limited to my phone at the minute but as soon as I can get to a proper keyboard it's top of my list. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:39, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi Harry, how are we looking now...? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 17:40, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi Harry, are we still waiting for you to address the last, uncommented upon point of mine, or is it done? Gog the Mild (talk) 14:10, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Source review

I presume that "Southend-on-Sea in the Great War" and the 1921 newspaper are a high-quality reliable source? Otherwise, I see no issue with source reliability and formatting. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:35, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to doubt their reliability. The newspaper could count as a primary source if we're worried because the only bits I'm using are a first-hand account of the unveiling. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:44, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Support Comments by JennyOz

Hi HJM, just a few minor points...

• are recorded on plaques at Prittlewell Priory - nearby Prittlewell Priory?

  Hmmm, what I was suggesting here was to locate the priory in relation to the memorial.

  Further down has "1,338 names on tablets which would be fixed to the walls of Prittlewell Priory". Cite 1 HE entry has "A memorial tablet bearing 1,338 names of the fallen was erected at Prittlewell Priory". So we have "near", "fixed to" and "at".

  All I was originally getting at was the location of the priory itself - "on plaques at Prittlewell Priory" --> on plaques at nearby Prittlewell Priory. JennyOz (talk) 12:01, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

  Ah - got you! I've changed so that both have "be fixed to the walls of nearby PP", which covers both the location of the plaques and the relative location of the priory. Hopefully that covers all aspects, but please let me know. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:13, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

• Shortly after the declaration of war, the - add August 1914 and/or pipe link to United Kingdom declaration of war upon Germany (1914)
• Southend en route to the front lines - on the Continent or similar?
• As the war drew on, Southend became an evacuation point - also became? it is referring to soldiers returning from France etc? (just trying to give a picture of coming and going across Channel)
• Lutyens' war memorials were recognised - Lutyens's per others
• image soldier statue alt=Bronze statue of of a soldier - remove of
• image The White Ensign (west side)|alt=Flag carved from stone and painted as the White Ensign (a red cross on a white background with the Union Flag in the top right quadrant) - the Union Flag should be left not right? (top left canton - top left quadrant ie next to staff?)
• poss categories

  Category:1920s in Essex

  Category:Obelisks in England

  Category:Military history of Essex

That's my lot. JennyOz (talk) 15:14, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Jenny - all covered, I think: please let me know if I've missed anything or you see anything else that needs sorting. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:36, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks SchroCat. Those changes for my comments are all great, except I've added a note above on the first re the priory.

• New, caption "The laurel wreaths on the north and south faces are reminiscent of The Cenotaph" - is a sentence needs a full stop?
• re the "removed the questionable phrase" ie "unprecedented casualties" - on this HE entry, which Harry used (cite 1) in The Cenotaph FA, there is "The losses in the Great War were unprecedented:" (not that he actually used "unprecedented" in The Cenotaph article). So we could return that phrase and add that ref. I don't mind either way. I'll happily add my s'port after seeing what you say about the priory location. JennyOz (talk) 12:01, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
  • I think I'll leave it out, even though it's in the source. I can see where Historic England are coming from: it was certainly "unprecedented casualties" as far as the UK was concerned (we hadn't had loss of life through war as great as that), but it certainly wasn't "unprecedented casualties" as far as global matters are concerned - the Mongols and the Taipings both top the overall losses. - SchroCat (talk) 12:13, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you SchroCat, all my minor concerns now solved. Thanks also to Harry and Ian of course! JennyOz (talk) 13:07, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Coord note

This isn't that far from promotion but with outstanding comments from Gog and Jenny, and no sign of Harry for a fortnight on WP and over a month at this nom, I'm afraid I'll have to archive it. Harry can certainly re-nom in due course and ping all the reviewers here to expedite the process. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:01, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

• Ian, I've sorted what I think was Gog's remaining comment and done JennyOz's ones too: is it possible to reverse the close until they have had a second chance to look at this again? If not, that's all fine, and I'm sure it will have a smooth ride when Harry returns, but if it's possible to reopen for 24 hours, that would be great. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:56, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Hi Schro, we really need people to stay on top of their noms but I appreciate your efforts and don't want to be a hard-arse about it, especially as FACbot hasn't processed yet, so okay. Gog has in fact just gone on hols for a few days so won't be able to check but since you've removed the questionable phrase I don't think that's an issue; I'm sure Jenny will be onto this soon as well. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:25, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
    • Cheers Ian, that's great. If any more comments come in, I'll deal with them the best I can. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:36, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
      • Damn right you will, I think this is the first time I've been convinced to change my mind about a closure and you're responsible...! Anyway I suppose it's good to maintain some flexibility in one's advancing years... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:44, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
        • I'll look in tomorrow. Thanks to Ian and SchroCat for the above exchanges. It's so good to work in such company. Tim riley talk 22:11, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
        • Thanks for the stay of execution on this one Ian. Jenny and Gog's comments all now dealt with and both are happy enough to support; KJP, Tim Riley and Cass have also popped in too, so I hope this has cleared any bars to it (unless anyone else spots anything or visits!) Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:35, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

CommentsSupport from KJP1

I’ll also review, but it may be a day or so rather than today. As an immediate comment, I share Nick-D’s surprise that the council was able to place the “Tommy” statue in front of the memorial without any fuss. It certainly holds a prominent position, [9] and I’m rather surprised that Historic England doesn’t appear to have had a view. But if there’s nothing on it, then Harry’s coverage is likely as good as we’re going to get. KJP1 (talk) 08:05, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Lead

• "The town was a stopping point for soldiers en route to the front and, as the war drew on, several buildings in Southend were converted into hospitals" - this, the last sentence of the first para. in the Lead, doesn't quite work for me. It's because it's trying to cover two points - Southend as an embarkation point for troops going out to the front, and Southend as a disembarkation point for injured troops returning from the front. It was the latter flow that prompted the growth of hospitals in the town. I'd suggest something like: "The town was a stopping point for soldiers en route to the front and, as the war drew on, it also became an important disembarkation point for the evacuation of injured troops. This saw the conversion of several buildings in Southend into hospitals."
• "Invited guests included the mayor, local clergy, local veterans, and organisations which had contributed to the war effort in the area" - to avoid the duplicate "local", suggest, "Invited guests included the mayor, local clergy, veterans from the district, and organisations which had contributed to the war effort in the area."

• Both these done as suggested - SchroCat (talk) 09:25, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Commissioning

• "On Peace Day, 23 July 1919" - I don't have the Clamp Source, but are we sure that Peace Day was on 23 July 1919? This, [10], suggests it was the 19th. It's also a little confusing, as the war ended the year before. Perhaps re-write the opening of the para as; "The formal end of the war, brought about by the signing of the Treaty of Versailles on 28 June 1919, saw celebrations in Southend and elsewhere. Four days of commemorative events began with a military parade in London on 19 July<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.thegazette.co.uk/all-notices/content/100215|title=This month in history: Peace Day, July 1919|publisher=[[The London Gazette]]|access-date=21 July 2023}}</ref> and on 23 July a fleet review was held in the Thames Estuary and the assembled warships fired a 21-gun salute."

• I've got Clamp, and they have 23 July, which is a bit odd. I can't find anything through the British Newspaper Archive that would clarify things (the weekly Southend Standard and Essex Weekly Advertiser doesn't seem to cover it all for either date! I've reworded per your suggestion. - SchroCat (talk) 09:25, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Design

• "The only sculpture on the obelisk is a laurel wreath on the north and south faces of the middle stage of the pedestal" - being picky, aren't there two wreaths, i.e. "The only sculptural features on the obelisk are two laurel wreaths on the north and south faces".

• Done - SchroCat (talk) 09:25, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

History

• Following on from User:Nick-D's comment on the "Tommy" statue, I did a little digging and unearthed this, [11]. It's clear that planning permission was required, that the listed setting was considered, and that Historic England didn't object, although somebody did. I'd probably include the citation. <ref>{{cite web|url=https://democracy.southend.gov.uk/documents/s35728/Report%20of%20Deputy%20Chief%20Execurtive%20Place.pdf|title=Erect bronze statue of soldier in front of Cenotaph War Memorial (Listed Building Consent and Planning Permission)|publisher=Southend City Council|date=13 September 2019|access-date=21 July 2023}}</ref> If there was a Footnotes section, I might also put something in there but I don't want to stray too far from Harry's overall structure.

• I've added their opinion about it "adding a further layer of meaning" with the citation. I'm not sure I agree with them at all, but I think that view should probably be reflected. - SchroCat (talk) 09:25, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Overall, this is indeed on a par with Harry's usual standard, and I'd be pleased to support its promotion to FA when the above have been reviewed. Any queries, just ping me. KJP1 (talk) 08:53, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks KJP1. The changes all made in this series of edits, hopefully appropriately, although please feel free to tweak and/or amend where you feel appropriate. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:25, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

SchroCat - They fit the bill admirably, and I'm very pleased to Support. And thanks to you for picking it up. As to the "Tommy", on a personal level, I'm astonished HE liked it. I think it seriously detracts from the monument and from its setting. It's slam-dunk in the middle of the flight of steps which form the base of the memorial! And, for me, sentimental and mawkish to boot, in contrast to the classical severity of the original design. But as our personal opinions count for naught on here, I think you've reflected the Source very well. KJP1 (talk) 09:46, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

That's great - thanks very much KJP! - SchroCat (talk) 09:52, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Comments Support from Tim riley

The article seems to me of the high quality we have come to expect from Harry on such topics. A few quibbles:

• Lead

• "the writing in the grass detracted from it" – in the Appreciation section it is described as "the lettering in the grass" which seems to me far preferable. I don't think you can write in grass, but "lettering" is clear and accurate.

• Done - SchroCat (talk) 09:11, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

• Background

• "a seaside resort on the Thames Estuary, 40 miles (60 kilometres) east of London" – later on we have "a height of approximately 11 metres (36 feet)" – might it be as well to have metric first and imperial second – or vice versa – for both measurements?

• Done - SchroCat (talk) 09:11, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

• Commissioning

• "previously the location a flagpole" – missing an "of" I assume.

• Done - SchroCat (talk) 09:11, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

• "an obelisk, for which Lutyens quoted £5,500" – not clear what the £5,500 covered. Was it just the architect's design fee or did Lutyens contract to provide the finished structure for that sum? I'm guessing it was the latter, but if we are quoting a sum it ought to be clear what it was for.

• According to the Clamp source, it was for the design only. - SchroCat (talk) 09:18, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

• I say! A nice little earner for Lutyens. I've tweaked your revision, for grammatical reasons, but by all means re-tweak if wanted. Tim riley talk 09:49, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

• History

• "It was dedicated by the Right Reverend Dr John Watts Ditchfield, Bishop of Chelmsford" – do we usually give a bishop his "Dr" when mentioning him?

• It appears so - SchroCat (talk) 09:11, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

• By "we" I didn't mean the Church of England, but Wikipedia, but I don't press the point. Tim riley talk 09:49, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

• Appreciation

• "The laurel wreaths on the north and south faces are reminiscent of The Cenotaph" – says who? I know it's in a caption, but I don't think there is a mention in the text of this specific comparison (the "subtle echoes" discerned by Alan Borg are hardly so specific).

• Nothing I can see. I've tweaked it for now, but if there is a source, Harry can add it back in later. - SchroCat (talk) 09:24, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

That's all from me. I'm not sure where these comments leave matters if Harry is not around at present. I'd like the third and fifth points addressed before I add my support; the other three are of minor importance and wouldn't affect my support. – Tim riley talk 08:53, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

• Many thanks Tim riley. All these are addressed now. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:24, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Happy to support. Tim riley talk 09:49, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Tim - much obliged. - SchroCat (talk) 12:28, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Comments from Cassianto

• Mentioned elsewhere, but “…the words "lest we forget" are written in stone on a lawn”, to me, is far inferior to “… the words "lest we forget" are set in stone on the lawn”. We even go on to describe it as “lettering in the grass” later in the same paragraph, and elsewhere in the article.
  • I swapped it out for "set in stone". - SchroCat (talk) 19:03, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
• “...the names of the 1,338 dead from Southend are recorded on plaques fixed to the walls of nearby Prittlewell Priory.” It would be misleading for the memorial to be described as being "nearby" the priory as they are 1.6 miles apart.
  • OK, took out "nearby" twice. - SchroCat (talk) 19:03, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
• “Southend-on-Sea War Memorial was designated a Grade II listed building on 23 August 1974.” – Do we need the full name of the memorial, given that there are no mentions of any others memorials and we start the previous paragraph with “the memorial”? Cassianto^Talk 13:31, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Swapped "Southend-on-Sea War Memorial" with "The memorial" so the section begins with the full name. - SchroCat (talk) 19:03, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
• Cheers Cass, great to see you back at FAC again. - SchroCat (talk) 19:03, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
  • It's a support from me; thanks for saving this from being archived, G - great to see such team work. Cassianto^Talk 19:52, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 22:29, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
• Cheers Ian - all your actions here are much appreciated. - SchroCat (talk) 22:40, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 21 July 2023 [12].

---

Taxi Driver (Alexander McQueen collection)

Nominator(s): ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:17, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

There once was a man named McQueen,
whose fashion was nearly obscene
Hid the clothes in some junk
while he went and got drunk
Lost it all to the trash man's routine

♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:17, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by Chris

• Just a couple of UK English tweaks from me....
• "believed it was named to honor...." => "believed it was named to honour...."
• "recalling that the collection was named for the film" => "recalling that the collection was named after the film"
• That's it! Another excellent McQueen article -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:55, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

• Both done, thanks as always for your comments! ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:52, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:59, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Aoba47

• In the lead and the body of the article, the "the" in the Ritz should not capitalized.

• Tweaked

• I would encourage you to add WP:ALT text to the images

• Added

• For "a pattern cutter", I think it may be helpful to add a link for pattern for readers who may be unfamiliar with the concept.

• Done

• Is there a way to link "masters-level course" to help non-U.K. readers?

• I don't think we have an article about British masters degrees, so I've linked Master's degree

• Thank you for addressing this point. Aoba47 (talk) 01:09, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

• If read literally, this part, (Concerned about the difficulty involved in launching a brand-new business, McQueen's preference), reads that his preference was the one concerned. I would instead use something like (McQueen preferred to land a job...).

• Untangled

• For this part, (McQueen used liquid latex), is there a reason why liquid latex is not linked directly instead?

• Different product - liquid latex the article refers to a specific latex compound used in special effects, but this is more like cheap industrial latex in liquid form.

• Thank you for the clarification. That makes sense to me. Aoba47 (talk) 01:09, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

• I have a question about this sentence: (The collar alone apparently took two weeks of work.) I found the "apparently" word choice a bit odd. I looked at the source and found that it presents this timing as more of a fact. Is there any reason why "apparently" was added? It just makes the timing seem more uncertain than the source lets on.

• That's fair, I removed it

• I have a question about how items are linked in the citations. Citation 3 does not have The Daily Telegraph linked, Citation 4 does not have GQ linked, and Citation 5 does not have The Independent linked. I know that different editors link items differently in citations (whether only on their first use or in each citation), but I would think that these items should at least be linked on the first use.

• Not intentional, just oversight. All sites should now be all linked in all citations.

• Thank you for the clarification and the revisions. It happens to the best of us. Aoba47 (talk) 01:09, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

• Citation 9 should have The Daily Telegraph, not just The Telegraph. Citation 32 should have The Sunday Telegraph for the same reasons.

• Fixed

I hope these comments are helpful. Once everything has been addressed, I will read through the article a few more times just to make sure I have not missed anything. Best of luck with the FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 18:58, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello Aoba, always lovely to see you at my FACs :D Everything above has been fixed (I hope). Cheers! ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:31, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

I am glad that I could help. I always enjoy reading your work on here and I found this article to be very engaging and interesting. I will read through the article again tomorrow. Aoba47 (talk) 01:09, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

I have read through the article again, and everything looks solid to me. I support this FAC for promotion based on the prose. Aoba47 (talk) 11:00, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Source review by Vat

I reviewed this article at GAN, and I see it's already getting plenty of prose attention, so I'll focus on a source review instead.

• Personal preference, but: ref order at In an effort to promote McQueen's work to buyers, they held showings of Taxi Driver at their agency in Covent Garden in late February 1993.[b][27][16][25] is disordered.

• Fixed

• Sources all have reliable publishers, seem to be within normal variance of opinions on the subject, and are archived where required.
• Formatting is acceptable until we repeal citevar

• you'll never defeat the efficient power of sfn, villain

• Article links for notable writers all seem to go to the right place, and none of them say anything like "wrote a hitpiece about Alexander McQueen after trying to murder him" or something.
• In-depth spotchecks not required, but I checked a couple out of curiosity and saw nothing amiss.

Source review is a pass. As a general note, I'd recommend doing something with the monetary figures -- there are two different currencies used in the article, so converting between them would be worthwhile, and it'd also be nice to have inflation-adjusted amounts. (Per GAN, a clarification that the intended price of the jacket was £800 is still probably reasonable to avoid the whiplash of nothing actually having actionable prices.) Vaticidalprophet 16:03, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

• Thanks for taking care of the source review, Vati! I feel like including both GBP-US and 1994-present conversions would be really cluttered and confusing, so I'd prefer not to. Also, I still don't get what you mean when you say nothing had actionable prices. The items were for sale to retail buyers, that was the whole point of the exhibition. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:28, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

PCN02WPS

• "by British designer Alexander McQueen" → recommend changing to "The British fashion designer..." to avoid a false title
• Same false title issue as above is present to begin the body

• I prefer the less cluttered version without the "the" and I don't see anything in MOS that prohibits it. It also has not been an issue at previous FACs.

• "sometimes controversial designs, and dramatic fashion shows" → I think the comma should be after "controversial" since "and dramatic fashion shows" doesn't need a comma before it on its own

• Hm, ok

• "Journalist Dana Thomas describes the exhibition" → this present-tense sounds a bit odd in a paragraph of all past tense

• Tweaked

• "had come by and removed everything" → "come by" seems redundant to me; I think this would be better as "had removed everything"

• Yeah, removed

• This may seem silly but I think a link to nightclub would be helpful upon the first reference of "clubbing" or a "club" since some readers might not know what that's referring to

• Reworded to accomodate this

That's all I got on my first readthrough, not much to complain about at all. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 16:23, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

• Thanks for the review PCN02WPS! I've responded above, let me know how it looks. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:10, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Awesome! That's honestly all I had so I am happy to support - very well done. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 14:39, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

SC

• Putting down a marker. - SchroCat (talk) 21:03, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Background

• “London's notoriously poor East End” Not sure about the description here. Having lived in East London over 30 years ago, I can assure you that while there are some parts that are poor, there are other bits that are quite well-to-do (and “notorious” is even more of a stretch!)

• Yeah, on review of the source I did go a bit off-label there. I've tweaked it

Creation of label

• “nothing panned out” is a bit slangy: “but nothing came of them” would be a bit more formal

• Yup, fixed

Sales efforts

• “coat-check fees”: it’s a cloakroom in English

• Fixed

Reception

• the Sunday Times should be The Sunday Times

• The'd

• “unequivocably” is normally spelled “unequivocally”: which way does the quote put it?

• Double checked and it is indeed "unequivocably"

That’s it: scant fare from another excellent article in the series. - SchroCat (talk) 22:11, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

• Thanks as always for your comments, SC! ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:49, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Support. Excellent work again. - SchroCat (talk) 14:55, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Comments from HAL

• went clubbing -- is there a more encyclopedic way to word this?

• wikt:clubbing is the usual noun to describe going out and engaging in various nightclub activities. Both Webster's and OED define it this way.

• sharp tailoring that would become a McQueen signature --> "sharp tailoring that became a McQueen signature" per WP:WOULDCHUCK

• Revised

• Ditto both would be recurring elements in McQueen's designs

• Also revised

• sometimes controversial, -- subjective, but I don't think that comma is needed. Feel free to disregard.

• I tried it without but I think it reads better with

• brand-new - should that be hyphenated? Also, why not just say "new"?

• Trimmed

• Ditto brand-new silhouette, and what is a silhouette?

• I changed it to "completely new"; it really should be emphasized what an unusual thing it was to do at his age and experience level. In fashion, the silhouette is the outline of a garment on its wearer. Think an A-line dress, or bell bottoms. We don't have an article on the concept because our coverage of fashion is monstrously bad, although I've just added it to wiktionary.

• a slumping economy -- would 'the' be more appropriate?

• Sure

• With When he returned the next day, the entire collection was gone., the lead makes it sound as if it was stolen rather than taken by garbage collectors.

• Revised the lead

• What are couture pieces? Could you link it?

• I had this whole explanation of couture typed up and then I looked at the source again and just reworded it.

That's all. Nice work. ~ HAL333 14:32, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

• Hi Hal, thanks for the comments. Responded above. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:29, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

• Hi HAL333, 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) 18:30, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

• Oops, forgot about this one. I'm happy to support. ~ HAL333 18:58, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Image review—pass

• File:McQueen feather corset from Watt.png non-free image has appropriate WP:FUR for its inclusion.
• File:Bumster skirt highland rape.jpg non-free image has appropriate WP:FUR for its inclusion. While not required, suggest archiving to avoid link rot.

That should complete image review. Pseud 14 (talk) 14:36, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Support

I focused on the prose while reading the article and everything seems good to go. Really enjoying this series!--NØ 04:57, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Drive-by comments

• In the bibliography, Frankel seems to be out of alphabetical order.
• Is there a publisher location for Thomas?

Gog the Mild (talk) 14:15, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

• • Hi Gog the Mild, both are now fixed. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:51, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:00, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

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) 19 July 2023 [13].

---

Smoking on My Ex Pack

Nominator(s): ‍ ‍ Elias 🌊 ‍ ‍ ^{💬 "Will you call me?"}
_{📝 "Will you hang me out to dry?"} 06:03, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Within the past five months, you might have heard of a musician called SZA. Her most successful single yet, "Kill Bill", has been topping charts, and she had the blessing of one of the actors from the namesake films to make a cameo in its music video. Last December, she released an album that spent 10 weeks atop the US albums chart, and now she's selling out arenas on tour. Or you're been around for a while.

Here is one of the songs from the aforementioned album. It's a rap song in an album full of varying genres --- from country and acoustic ballads to trap and rock. One of my personal goals has been, for a long while, to bring more articles related to music by Black women to the highest possible quality, which makes me especially elated to nominate this for FAC. With that said, let the comments commence. ‍ ‍ Elias 🌊 ‍ ‍ ^{💬 "Will you call me?"}
_{📝 "Will you hang me out to dry?"} 06:03, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

@ChrisTheDude @MRN2electricboogaloo @Ippantekina - it's been a week since y'all last left comments; i would appreciate an update :-) ‍ ‍ Elias 🌊 ‍ ‍ ^{💬 "Will you call me?"}
_{📝 "Will you hang me out to dry?"} 01:02, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Image review

• File:SZA CTRL Tour Toronto 2017 8 (cropped).jpg has a clear purpose in the article and appropriate WP:ALT text. I would recommend putting the specific year the photo was taken in the caption rather than having the year range for the tour, and I would put the location as well. See how "I'm Goin' Down" does this for the "Background and recording" section for what I mean. I think this kind of clarity is useful for readers to more easily get a complete context of the image. The author and source links work for me.
• Would it be beneficial to include an audio sample in this article?
• This is outside of the scope of an image review, but I am uncertain about the placement of the "Release" section. I think it would be better before the "Critical reception" section.

I hope this image review is helpful. I have a few comments about the image caption (mostly nitpick to be honest), and once they are addressed, this should pass my review. I have also asked about the possibility of an audio sample and one prose question outside of the scope of an image review. Unfortunately, I will not be able to do a prose review so apologies for that.

The above blurb is very engaging, and I can understand and appreciate bringing more attention to music by Black women. I have hopefully done some of that myself with my FAs. I have actually never heard a SZA song before, but I am so completely and utterly disconnected from the now lol. Best of luck with your FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 23:51, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

@Aoba47: thank you for reviewing another of my work! Grind keeps on going. Re. the use of a sample, I don't really see any merit to one --- rapping is a fairly straightforward concept to grasp (fast delivery of lyrics, cunning wordplay), drum beats sound what you expect them to, and it is unnecessary to get a sample of the sample IMO. ‍ ‍ Elias 🌊 ‍ ‍ ^{💬 "Will you call me?"}
_{📝 "Will you hang me out to dry?"} 08:13, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the responses above. Your explanation makes sense to me on why an audio sample is not used in the article. This FAC passes my image review. Best of luck with the FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 14:49, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Just as a note, and feel free to ignore this, but an audio sample may be helpful in identifying the chipmunk soul production style, which I could see readers not fully understanding. To be clear, I do understand your rationale for not including an audio sample, and it does fit in with the site's overall preference to avoid non-free media usage when possible. Just thought it may be helpful to point this part out. Apologies if this comes across as rude or excessive because again, it is likely a matter of preference. Aoba47 (talk) 15:17, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

CommentsSupport from Chris

• Chipmunk soul (used in both the lead and the body) redirects to hip hop music, where the term isn't even mentioned, so there is very little value in the link
• "Before SOS, SZA had been known as an R&B artist who makes" => "Before SOS, SZA had been known as an R&B artist who made" (as we are talking about the past)
• Image caption: "SZA performing in Ctrl the Tour (2017–2018)" - an artist doesn't perform "in" a tour. I would say "during" would be the right word here.
• "Versace was inspired by the boom bap music he had heard from his childhood, many of which reminded him of songs that would play on the car radio during drives with his father" - the music he heard in his childhood reminded him of music he heard in his childhood? Something seems a bit off here......
• "According to her, many songs in the album" => "According to her, many songs on the album"
• "to dispel a narrative that she only makes "sad girl music"" => "to dispel a narrative that she only made "sad girl music""
• "In the song's verse, SZA communicates her desirability to other men" => "In the song's verse, SZA communicates her desirability to men"
• "because her lesser side loves "all the cap"" - is there a way to elaborate as to what "all the cap" means? It means literally nothing to me, a middle-aged white man......
• "Certain music journalists wrote it" => "Certain music journalists wrote that it". Also, why "certain journalists"? That implies (to me at least) that there's something significant about the specific journos in question, but then you don't elaborate. Maybe simplify to just "Some music journalists".....?
• "Fondren recommended its readers to play it on repeat" => "Fondren recommended that readers play it on repeat"
• "SZA revealed the album's release date was scheduled for sometime next month" => "SZA revealed that the album's release date was scheduled for sometime during the following month"
• "Three examples of such music journalists include" - you can't really say "N examples include" and then list all N, because the word "include" indicates that it's not an exhaustive list. Maybe simply lose the word "three".
• Notes 7 and 8 don't need full stops as they aren't complete sentences
• Think that's it :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:41, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
  • An IP has addressed most of the above. At a glanc, the wikilink to "chipmunk soul" has been removed, which now just leaves it as a descriptor in this article with no explanation as to what this (IMO) obscure term actually means (I certainly have no idea). Also, the "all the cap" query hasn't been addressed...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:08, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
    • @ChrisTheDude: thank you for the comments! Chipmunk soul is any record that takes a sample of a song (usually a soul song as the name suggests), speeds and pitches it up, and loops it to create a beat. "fusing hard-hitting drum beats..." supplements the "chipmunk soul production style" part of the sentence, so anyone can infer what the term means. Re. "all the cap", cap here is AAVE for roasting or making fun of someone, although interestingly the more recent, more popular definition of the AAVE term is to lie (e.g. no cap) - which is funny because fans like to joke about SZA being a chronic liar :) ‍ ‍ Elias 🌊 ‍ ‍ ^{💬 "Will you call me?"}
      _{📝 "Will you hang me out to dry?"} 07:23, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
      • Further comments

• "Before SOS, SZA had been known as an R&B artist who makes "sad girl" music" should be "Before SOS, SZA had been known as an R&B artist who made "sad girl" music" as I set out above.
• "a narrative she wanted to dispel because she viewed them...." - doesn't work gramatically as "narrative" is not plural
• "Built around a chipmunk soul production,[22] it incorporates a looped, sped-up sample of "Open Up Your Eyes" (1981) by Webster Lewis" - I don't think this makes clear that the second part is what "chipmunk soul" is. It could be interpreted as saying that it is chipmunk soul (unexplained) and also features the sample. I would suggest changing it to "Built around a chipmunk soul production,[22] a style which typically incorporates a looped, sped-up sample, the track features such a sample of "Open Up Your Eyes" (1981) by Webster Lewis"
• Suggest linking "being pissed" to this, as in my country (and possibly other parts of the world) "being pissed" means something totally different
• "The lyrics contain a comparison between SZA's former romantic partners and a character from The Simpsons named Sideshow Bob, a clown and a criminal" - this could be interpreted as meaning she is comparing her past partners with three different people. Maybe "The lyrics contain a comparison between SZA's former romantic partners and Sideshow Bob, a criminal character from The Simpsons" (not sure that he was once a clown is especially relevant) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:12, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

@ChrisTheDude all done. thanks for these follow-ups :) ‍ ‍ Elias 🌊 ‍ ‍ ^{💬 "Will you call me?"}
_{📝 "Will you hang me out to dry?"} 11:50, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

You haven't linked "being pissed" to wiktionary, not sure if that was an oversight or if you disagree with the suggestion.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:52, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Oh yeah, that. I disagree with the suggestion; the article is written in American English, so I don't see the need for the change ‍ ‍ Elias 🌊 ‍ ‍ ^{💬 "Will you call me?"}
_{📝 "Will you hang me out to dry?"} 01:09, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough, I just thought it might be helpful to add a link for people in countries where "being pissed" means something totally different, without actually altering the wording of the article itself in any way, but I'm not going to get hung up on it. Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:17, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Comments by MRN2electricboogaloo

• “it is a rap and boom bap song with a chipmunk soul production style” -> “it is a rap song with a boom bap and chipmunk soul production style” unless there’s something setting boom bap apart as more than a production style that I’m unaware of
  • Boom bap is a genre that critics have used to classify Ex Pack, so in this case it's more than just a "production style" or an "influence". I've clarified the prose to more clearly distinguish boom bap from chipmunk soul
• ”As such, she wanted to experiment with "aggressive" hip hop music for SOS—"Smoking on My Ex Pack" was conceived out of that desire.” The portion of this sentence after the em-dash feels awkward, maybe replace it with “, which led to “Smoking on My Ex Pack” being conceived” or something along those lines.
  • Tweaked
• The lyric stated in the lede to be about an ex is actually about an undefined “your favorite rapper”, as stated later in the article. Stopping the sentence at “insults her ex-lovers in various ways” would probably be sufficient.
  • Actually, no. "your favorite rapper" is heavily implied, both by the song and by the sources that analyse it, to be part of the ex-lovers that are being insulted. Take the NPR source used --- "the singer-songwriter channels lethal bars into a perfect anti-ex anthem ... in 90 seconds, she flexes effortlessly on the dudes falling over themselves in her DMs — she blocked your favorite rapper (she heard "the d*** was wack") and she won't text anyone's favorite athlete back either (no exceptions)."
• ”Critics in contemporary reviews felt otherwise” this doesn’t seem encyclopedic to me
  • I'm sorry, but I'm not sure what you are talking about. How is "felt otherwise" unencyclopedic?
• ”It was three years after the two first met up for the album's recording sessions.” I’d merge this into the previous sentence as “, three years after the two first met up for the album's recording sessions.”
  • Not done. Both are okay, but i prefer this one because the sentences are relatively short and thus more pleasing to read
• ”She deliberately ignores many athletes who try to flirt in her messages and insist she text them back; because her lesser side loves "all the cap", SZA refuses to make exceptions for any of the men she does not acknowledge.” Sentence needs to make note of the fact that this is what she’s rapping in the song, like the preceding and succeeding sentences
  • I have found what I hope to be a good workaround that makes that fact clearer
• ”Sideshow Bob, a conservative TV personality and clown who becomes a criminal as the series progresses” -> something like “Sideshow Bob, a clown and criminal” I think clown and criminal are all the context needed to understand the comparison.
  • Makes sense!

This is my first time doing anything FA related, so take this with a grain of salt MRN2electricboogaloo (talk) 17:03, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

• @MRN2electricboogaloo: All above addressed. Much thanks for stopping by --- no worries, the comments were constructive and well thought out enough! ‍ ‍ Elias 🌊 ‍ ‍ ^{💬 "Will you call me?"}
  _{📝 "Will you hang me out to dry?"} 07:52, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

  @MRN2electricboogaloo: I see you're active here again. Can I get a status update? ‍ ‍ Elias 🌊 ‍ ‍ ^{💬 "Will you call me?"}
  _{📝 "Will you hang me out to dry?"} 01:50, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

  Sorry for the delay, I’d say support, it all looks to me MRN2electricboogaloo (talk) 06:47, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Support from Ippantekina

• Not sure if its position as the 11th track lead-worthy.
  • The intent was to show that it was a rap song in the middle of an album that is interestingly bookended by other rap songs. I switched to something else that is closer to communicating that message
• "labels she wanted to dispel" shouldn't this be "a label" as this is... singular (from what I see)?
  • Mhmmm
• I was advised to always attribute direct quotes to inline citations, and I see here in the lead we have "sad girl" and "aggressive" unattended to
  • MOS:LEADCITE says this is completely redundant when the information in the lead is cited later in the prose anyway
    • That is actually helpful!
• "such as by saying one had a "dick [that] was wack"" ehh,, not sure if this can be paraphrased
  • Well ... I tried. I don't think there's a less facetious way of putting it
• "the song charted in the United States and Canada, with a number 71 peak on the Billboard Global 200" grammatically I think this is incorrect, should be something like "charted in the US and Canada and reached number 71 on the Billboard Global 200"
  • An IP got to this before me (thank you, by the way!)

Those are my first-impression comments upon reading the lead. Will examine the prose later :) Ippantekina (talk) 09:13, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

@Ippantekina!!!! Quality comments, as always, coming from a quality music editor! These should all be addressed now. Ready for the yet-to-come stuff :> ‍ ‍ Elias 🌊 ‍ ‍ ^{💬 "Will you call me?"}
_{📝 "Will you hang me out to dry?"} 08:04, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay!!! Here to continue...

• "Her next studio album was highly anticipated" by whom?? News? Media? Journalists? Music fans? etc etc
• "of various disparate musical styles"
  • Done both
• "is a boom bap song,[26] built around hard-hitting drum beats." missing final ref, and the comma is redundant
  • Hard-hitting drum beats are the core of boom bap, so the phrase is non-restrictive and hence the comma is necessary
• Might be a personal preference but shouldn't it be "by contrast" instead?
  • that's okay

No other prose issues for me! :) Ippantekina (talk) 07:46, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

@Ippantekina: done with everything . Thank you kindly for your comments! Good luck with the "You Belong with Me" article - would really love to see a childhood classic get a FA ‍ ‍ Elias 🌊 ‍ ‍ ^{💬 "Will you call me?"}
_{📝 "Will you hang me out to dry?"} 02:39, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Happy to support this article for promotion on prose. Elias be killing it with every FAC as always! Ippantekina (talk) 02:18, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Source review

Footnote numbers refer to this version.

• What makes exclaim.ca (FNs 22 & 52) a reliable source? It appears to be a freesheet; those can be reliable but I can't see anything about contributors or editorial policy on the website.
  • @Mike Christie - its list of contributors are over here, and Metacritic includes Exclaim! in its list of publications used to weigh Metacritic scores
• The archive link for FN 33 is not for the same URL as the link for FN 33.
  • That's odd... should be fixed now . must be a copy-and-paste error on my end .
• FN 33 has a publisher link, but I think the intention is that that's the publisher of the song. The publisher field in cite web is for the publisher of the website.
  • Done

I was unable to check some of the archive links as archive.org is responding very slowly at the moment, but otherwise that's everything I can see to complain about. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:06, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Your Power, nudge. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:56, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you @Gog the Mild for the reminder ! and all comments should be addressed. sorry for not being around for so long :( ‍ ‍ Elias 🌊 ‍ ‍ ^{💬 "Will you call me?"}
_{📝 "Will you hang me out to dry?"} 11:20, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

No worries Your Power. RL happens, and obviously takes priority. Thanks for the update. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:51, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Pass; fixes to the source review issue look fine, and exclaim.ca seems OK to me. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:02, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Coordinator comment

I was reading through this with a view to closing and have a couple of queries.

• The lead is meant to be a summary of the article, but in one area it seems to be the other way round, with the article summarising and the lead giving the detail. Article: "she finds various ways to insult her past lovers." Lead: "ridicules her past lovers in various ways, such as by insulting the quality of their penises." Perhaps these could be swapped?
  • Not really . the part of the prose from which you got the quotation gets expounded upon in the next paragraph:

  SZA raps about having "your favorite rapper" blocked on social media, saying she heard a rumor that his "dick was wack". Certain athletes, who try to flirt in her messages and incessantly ask she text them back but to no avail, are other subjects whom she targets}}

• "Select music journalists". What or who made them select?
  • I used it as a synonym for "some" or "a few", but on second thought yeah they don't really have anything in common apart from "they said the same thing" . reworded
• "Meanwhile, a few others argued the song's primary weakness was its length, feeling "Smoking on My Ex Pack" did not reach its full potential due to this." It is not clear whether the perceived weakness is because it is too long or too short. Perhaps ' Meanwhile, a few others argued the song's primary weakness was its length, feeling "Smoking on My Ex Pack" did not reach its full potential due to its brevity' or similar?
  • done . @Gog the Mild

Gog the Mild (talk) 13:28, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

ty for these ! hopefully my responses have been helpful ‍ ‍ Elias 🌊 ‍ ‍ ^{💬 "Will you call me?"}
_{📝 "Will you hang me out to dry?"} 04:10, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:15, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 18 July 2023 [14].

---

Tinder Fire

Nominator(s): –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 03:58, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

This is another wildfire article and another from the state of Arizona. This is also a briefer one, without any ecological tail that any sources I saw bothered to note. In April 2018, parties unknown lit a campfire in a no-fire zone of the Coconino National Forest. A month later, 16,000 acres of National Forest and 96 structures had burned. The responsible parties were never caught. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 03:58, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Image review

• File:2018_04_30-17.41.49.915-CDT.jpg: source link is dead. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:01, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

• Found a copy of it posted by the Forest Service on Flickr and replaced. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 04:37, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Sammi Brie

• "the Governor of Arizona" — should be "governor of Arizona" per MOS:JOB.
• Use lowercase "am" or "a.m." per MOS:TIME.
• "13 fires" Since this begins a sentence, use "Thirteen"
• Add a comma in "1000"
• "By May 3, 625 firefighters worked on containing the Tinder Fire" maybe "were working"?

It's short, but it's exhaustive. Also see one item I note in the source review. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 05:45, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

All addressed. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 12:41, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Support. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 22:20, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Sammi Brie: Source review

No issues with the reliability of supplied sources.

• It looks like the article Tinder Fire grows but weather conditions improve is an AP wire story. It has an AP copyright instead of a Scripps one like the other KGUN story.
  • Officials have estimated that the fire about 50 miles (80 kilometers) south of Flagstaff has burned 30 buildings and threatened about 1,000 homes and other buildings. The other reference here corroborates the acres; neither has the "destroyed at least 20 homes".

Fixed :) –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 12:41, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Source review passed. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 22:20, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Comments Support by Pendright

Lead:

• The Tinder Fire was a wildfire that burned 16,309 acres (66.00 km2) of the Coconino National Forest in the U.S. state of Arizona in April and May 2018.

"during" April and May 2018

Done. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 22:33, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

• The fire was detected by a United States Forest Service (USFS) lookout tower on April 27, 2018.
• The USFS immediately began efforts to contain the spread of the Tinder Fire, which benefited from high winds, low humidity, and high temperatures.

immediately is ordinarily defined as at once or instantly. The Fire section tells readers that

"Within the day, 100 firefighters had arrived to combat the Tinder Fire"...?

Fixed. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 22:33, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

• Investigation determined that the Tinder Fire was caused by an illegal campfire.

"An" or "the" investigation

Done. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 22:33, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Fire:

• Winds as fast as 50 mph (80 km/h) fanned the fire and hindered firefighting aviation—which was grounded on April 29 by a civilian drone flying over the fire—over April 28 and April 29.

Winds as fast as 50 mph -> suggest - Winds "up to" 50 mph

OK Done –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 22:33, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

• By May 3, 625 firefighters were working on containing the Tinder Fire, a process then estimated to be 48% completed.

Why shouldn't it be "the" process

Sticking my nose in here, but "the process then estimated" doesn't work grammatically. You could rejigger the sentence to avoid using "a process", I suppose, but simply subbing "the" for "a" here is incorrect. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:00, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Went more with PMC's comment here and reconfigured the sentence to omit "a process" and that estimate. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 22:33, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

• Evacuation orders began to lifted on May 4, by which time the fire had grown to an area of 15,841 acres (6,411 ha) but was believed to be 79% contained.[18][19]

"The" evacuation

Done. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 22:33, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Aftermath:

• About 10% of that area suffered total foliage mortality.

"this" area

Done. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 22:33, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

• Investigation into the cause of the fire began on April 27 and was determined by May 1 to be an abandoned, illegal campfire.

"The" investigation

OK –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 22:33, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

• Investigators were unable to determine the responsible party.

• "The" investigators
• responsible party or "parties"

Both done. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 22:33, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

This it for now Pendright (talk) 01:51, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

I support the nominaion - Pendright (talk) 20:45, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Support from PMC

• Hey maybe I missed it but where did the name "Tinder Fire" come from anyway? Is it for tinder the firemaking substance?

• I don't know. Sometimes people report why a fire was named like it was and sometimes it doesn't. This, as far as I know, was not one of those. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 22:35, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

• Ooh - found something while Googling how wildfires get named: [15]. Apparently it was supposed to be the Kinder Fire but someone made a typo. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:01, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

• As a note, I added a USFS source for the trail name and tweaked the phrasing a bit. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:02, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

• "four red flag warnings had been issued" - who issues these?

• The National Weather Service; added. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 22:35, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

• "In June 2019, the Ecological Restoration Institute" - this seems like it belongs in Aftermath, since it happened after

• Axed instead. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 22:35, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't get why you axed it. It makes sense for it to be in the article, just not in the place where it was. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:03, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

I put it in #Background because it's background for the fire season. It doesn't belong in the aftermath for this particular fire. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 08:29, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

For the record I still disagree, but I think it makes more sense to retain it in a weird location than to remove it, so I'm not going to fight it. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:02, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

That's really it, not much to complain about. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:00, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm a support here. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:02, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Comments from HAL

• "The investigation into the fire's cause determined that the Tinder Fire was caused by an illegal campfire." --> Would anything be lost by removing the repetitive "cause" so that we have "The investigation into the fire determined that the Tinder Fire was caused by an illegal campfire."

• Done. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 08:35, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

• "In January 2018, Doug Ducey, the governor of Arizona, warned that Arizona..." --> "In January 2018, Doug Ducey, the governor of Arizona, warned that the state..." to avoid repitition

• Done! –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 08:35, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

• Also, what entity conducted the investigation?

• The Forest Service. Clarified now. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 08:35, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

• "The evacuation orders began to lifted on May 4" isn't grammatical

• Oh, oops. Fixed. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 08:35, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

• "by May 24, it was declared to be 95% contained" --> Is it known when the fire was declared entirely out?

• No. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 08:35, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

That's all I got. ~ HAL333 23:51, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

• Happy to support. ~ HAL333 15:12, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Comments/questions by CT55555

I'm new to FAC, so take this input as amateur comment, not expert review. My comments and questions:

1. Of course climate change doesn't cause any fire, but its impacts do make things dryer and warmer, and so I was surprised there was no mention of that context. Of course, that's a bit WP:OR so my question is, did you find any sources that addressed this? My comment is informed by Tim Bousquet's comments at after the 9 minute mark on this podcast

There is plenty of press coverages about the impact of climate change on wildfires in Arizona, but not on this specific fire. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 06:04, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

1. Why is 2,000 wildfires redlinked? Is there going to be a list of the 2,000?

That is a piped link leading to the 2017 Arizona wildfire season. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 06:04, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

1. The article talks about 30 buildings being damaged. It doesn't mention how many animals were killed (of course, I could only imagine an estimate). Does that mean you could not find that info?

Correct. For an example of a fire whose effect on local wildlife was noted, see Frye Fire. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 06:04, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

It's great to see forest fire articles being considered at FAC. This one does seem short. I wonder if it could be expanded in terms of climate change context and impact on wildlife. I'm too new to FAC to offer a support or oppose. CT55555(talk) 03:13, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

This is my... third or fourth? wildfire article at FAC. When I have information about climate conditions leading up to a fire, I do make note of them. Unfortunately, I don't always have it and always update these articles when I do obtain that information. I anticipate that after the articles for the 2017 and 2018 seasons are filled out, there will be some more information to add to this and other wildfire articles. Lastly, welcome to FAC :) –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 06:04, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

• Hi CT55555, 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) 17:04, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

  Until a just little more time has passed (for my own learning), I feel unqualified to firmly state support or opposition. I lean towards support. CT55555(talk) 17:31, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 21:04, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 18 July 2023 [16].

---

The First Vision

Nominator(s): Heartfox (talk) 06:07, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

I started work on this in summer 2021 but for some reason only returned to it now. In the same two-year time frame, Mariah Carey had six number-one songs on the US Billboard Hot 100 chart. You can learn about her rise to fame by watching the video this article is about (at least from the record label's point of view ... for a better option, choose her memoir lol). Thanks in advance for any comments :) Heartfox (talk) 06:07, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Image review

I believe the article's singular image is properly licensed; it has ALT text and has an acceptable caption. This article passes the image review, methinks. Unlimitedlead (talk) 12:19, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Aoba47

• For this part of the lead, (snippets of the album's other singles, "I Don't Wanna Cry" and "There's Got to Be a Way"), I would use something along the lines of "future singles" to give further clarification that this video album was released prior to the release and promotion of those singles. The current wording is somewhat unclear, especially if someone is not completely familiar with the timeline and dates with this album and its singles.
• For this part, (promotional music videos), remove "promotional". It is a redundancy as music videos by their very nature are promotional.

I hope these comments are helpful so far. I am not seeing anything major that needs attention in this article. I have two nitpick-y comments, but that is it so far. I will re-read the article a few more times over the weekend to make sure I have not missed anything. Best of luck with this FAC. Aoba47 (talk) 17:16, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

All done :) Heartfox (talk) 18:36, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the response. I will look through the article again tomorrow, but I do not imagine finding anything major though. Aoba47 (talk) 00:11, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Everything looks good to me. I support this FAC for promotion based on the prose. Just out of curiosity, did Carey address this video album in her memoir? I have a copy of the book, but I have not gotten around to reading it yet. I am doubtful that she would mention this so it does not interfere with my support in any way. Hope you have a wonderful rest of your weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 20:18, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

There's no mention of it in the book. Thanks for the comments, Heartfox (talk) 21:15, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thank you for the clarification. Aoba47 (talk) 21:40, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Fieari

I have a prose concern for the 2nd paragraph of the lead. The sentences are disjointed and stilted, without flow from one sentence to the next. Everything in the paragraph is related to a single subject as they should be, but each sentence is entirely separate from the others. You could rearrange most of the the sentences without anyone noticing. While the FA criteria no longer states "brilliant prose", I still think this could be worded in a more engaging way that isn't quite so stiff. Fieari (talk) 05:27, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Can you quote something specifically that seems stiff so I can better understand what you are noticing? Heartfox (talk) 12:47, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

• As an off-the-top-of-my-head example "Critics focused on Carey's depiction and performances in The First Vision. Some critics considered it insightful and others opined it projected her in a sexual manner. They praised Carey's live performances as an effective vocal showcase." could be recast as something like 'Critics focused on Carey's depiction and performances in The First Vision, with some considering it insightful and others opining that it projected her in a sexual manner; there was general praise for Carey's live performances as an effective vocal showcase.' Fieari, is this the sort of thing you meant? Gog the Mild (talk) 17:02, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Comments from SNUGGUMS

• It feels odd to have "The First Vision received reviews regarding Carey's depiction and performances." without anything on general reception level. Unless you can find a piece discussing how that was overall favorable/mixed/unfavorable, I'd rework this into something along the lines of "Critics focused on Carey's depiction and performances in The First Vision".
  • Done
• No need to link commonly recognized terms like "digital download" or "Platinum" per WP:OVERLINK
  • Unlinked
• If you can find when the live performance at Club Tatou took place, then I'd add such detail
  • Added
• Per WP:REPCITE, there's no need to use the same citation more than once in a row within a paragraph like you did with the Rolling Stone review under "Critical reception"
  • Removed
• For those unfamiliar with the "CIN" acronym, I'd spell it out like you did with CRIA
  • Spelled out
• Since "Video Insider" doesn't have an article or appear likely to warrant one in the near future, let's unlink that
  • Unlinked

Once the above is all addressed, you should be good to go, and I'm not sure either what Fieari meant about the prose being "stiff". SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 14:58, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the comments! I believe I have addressed everything. Heartfox (talk) 16:01, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

My pleasure, and now I support the nomination! :) SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 17:22, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Source review

• The citations are all structured well and use reliable, high-quality sources that I would expect for a music article. I appreciate that the citations are archived when possible.
• I did a brief spot check, and the information matches the citations and supports the information cited in the article. I have a few questions about the citations below though.
• I have a question about the Chris Nickson book. Open Library uses Mariah Carey Revisited: Her Story as the title, but the cover image does not match that. When I look elsewhere, I see Mariah Carey Revisited: The Unauthorized Biography or some variant of that used instead which seems to be a better match to the title. I do not see Her Story on the cover.
  • The copyright page shows the title Mariah Carey revisited. Her Story is given as a subtitle.
    • That is what I get for judging a book by its cover lol. Thank you for the clarification about this point. Aoba47 (talk) 19:16, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
• Citations 12 and 13 appear to be the same. I do not see a clear reason to repeat them.
  • Oops; removed duplicate
• This is more of a clarification question. I looked at the Dennis Hurt review during my spot-check and I think it was interesting how he identifies Carey as white and talks about her connection with gospel music and "black culture". Obviously, she is biracial and not just white, but looking at this review made me wonder if other critics commented on this part of the interview footage or commented on her race as related to this video album.
  • The review itself received coverage but I consider it out of scope for this article and I did not read any other comments about her race in regard to the video
    • I am not surprised that this review received coverage, but I agree that would be outside of the scope of the article. Thank you for the clarification that other reviewers did not discuss this in their coverage. Aoba47 (talk) 19:16, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Everything looks solid to me. I just have a few minor questions/comments. It is impressive that you were able to find all of this for an older video album. Let me know if you have any questions, but once everything is addressed, this would pass my source review without any issues. Aoba47 (talk) 18:49, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for doing this, I hope I have addressed everything. Heartfox (talk) 19:10, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

I am glad that I could help when and where I can. Thank you for addressing everything. This passes my source review. Aoba47 (talk) 19:16, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Support from Gog the Mild

Recusing to review.

• "The Canadian Recording Industry Association certified it Gold in that country". Is "in that country" necessary? Is a reader likely to think that the Canadian Recording Industry Association was certifying sales for anywhere else? I note that this additional explanation is not present in the main article.
  • Removed
• "Gold ... Platinum". Why the upper-case initial letters?
  • Removed
• "she began singing as a young girl". Do we have an actual age?
  • She doesn't say a specific age, just before she could talk and at "a very young age"
• Link "background singers".
  • Linked
• "In non-VHS releases, her performances of "Love Takes Time" and "Vision of Love" at Club Tatou are subsequently provided." Might this be better as 'In subsequent non-VHS releases, her performances of "Love Takes Time" and "Vision of Love" at Club Tatou are provided'?
  • Yes
• "Carey's live performances received positive reviews." Just checking that means what it says. Ie, not something like "The recordings of Carey's live performances received positive reviews.' or 'Carey's live performances in the video received positive reviews.'
  • Added "the recordings of"
• Link cover - to cover version.
  • Linked
• "the Chart Information Network (CIN) Music Video chart". Why the initial upper-case letters for "Mucic Video"?
  • Converted to lower-case

Clear, concise, well written - fine work. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:10, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks so much for jumping into this one. Heartfox (talk) 00:10, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

My pleasure. An easy read and in such good shape there was little for me to suggest. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:52, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 21:18, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 18 July 2023 [17].

---

Iron Gwazi

Nominator(s): Adog (Talk・Cont) 17:50, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Can you believe one of the world's most recently acclaimed roller coasters is located in the wetlands and jungles of Tampa, Florida? That is a bit of a stretch, but the attraction's history is fascinating. Before my parents were born, Anheuser-Busch (A-B) built a brewery in Tampa, which opened in 1959. To stand out, August Busch Jr. also built landscaped gardens that opened with the brewery to attract community members. The park was such a hit that it began to add more; years and decades passed, transforming the simple brewery and gardens into a fully functional theme park: Busch Gardens Tampa. In time, A-B built more significant and better breweries, making its Tampa plant obsolete.

As part of an ever-innovating industry, the owners closed and demolished the brewery, building two dueling wooden roller coasters in its place, Gwazi. Each side was named lion and tiger, respectively, representing a (presumably made-up) African mythos of a fabled creature with a tiger's head and a lion's body and its inner conflict. Gwazi opened in 1999, initially received well by the public. In time, the ride became rougher, with one side closing in 2012 and the other in 2015. The roller coaster sat dormant in the middle of the park as an eye-sore for years.

A roller coaster manufacturer business prominently emerged when it sat dormant, transforming old wooden roller coasters into steel behemoths. Rocky Mountain Construction (RMC) began giving life to expired wooden roller coasters, who were soon hired by SeaWorld Entertainment to revive Gwazi. RMC re-used portions of both dueling track support structures and concrete footings to create a single roller coaster. Once having a reputation for two rough, uncomfortable rides became a smooth, fast-paced, and thrilling steel-track roller coaster, Iron Gwazi. The name is uninspired, but after two years of delayed openings, the roller coaster was one of the most well-received attractions because of the drastic difference between its former wooden predecessor and its eccentric elements. The roller coaster went on to be voted as the best new roller coaster for 2022 in Amusement Todays Golden Ticket Awards, one of the highest achieving awards in the amusement industry.

Having improved the article to WP:GA status, this will be my first attempt at an WP:FA ever. I have completed a peer review but will avoid a mentor to feel the process out. I wish for all constructive criticism/inquiries/feedback, as I know there will be some, and I want to learn from this process. Hopefully, in time, this will be WP:APARKS first roller coaster article to reach FA status in a while and could potentially be the third attraction at the park to reach this status (others being SheiKra and Falcon's Fury). Adog (Talk・Cont) 17:50, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

First-time nomination

• Hi Adog, and welcome to FAC. Just noting that as a first time nominator at FAC, this article will need to pass a source to text integrity spot check and a review for over-close paraphrasing to be considered for promotion. Good luck with the nomination. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:50, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

  Thank you for the welcome! Looking forward to what is next. Adog (Talk・Cont) 00:59, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

• @FAC coordinators: Per a helping guide, since this FAC is reaching the bottom of the list and is nearing a possible third judgment, I wanted to inquire whether one of the coordinators would be interested in providing a source-to-text integrity/close paraphrasing/another review? Any and all help would be appreciated. If possible, thank you in advance. Adog (Talk・Cont) 00:00, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Comments by Epicgenius

It's nice to see this article at FA, and I'd like to thank Adog for his monumental efforts in improving the Iron Gwazi page. I have seen this page grow tremendously over the last several years (well, at least over the last four years). That said, I'm leaving this as a placeholder because I intend to leave some comments later. – Epicgenius (talk) 21:55, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Lead:

• "The ride, named after a fabled creature with a tiger's head and a lion's body, was built by Great Coasters International (GCI) as Gwazi" - This seems like it should be two sentences Alternatively, the bit about the ride's etymology should be moved to the end of the sentence. But see my next point.
• "Named Lion and Tiger, the tracks were 3,508 ft (1,069 m) long and 105.4 ft (32.1 m) high, with trains reaching a maximum speed of 51 mph (82 km/h)." - A few points here:
  • Am I correct that both tracks had the same measurements?
  • Perhaps the bit about the etymology and the names of both tracks should be a new sentence, creating three sentences. E.g. "The ride was built by Great Coasters International (GCI) as Gwazi, a wooden dueling roller coaster with two separate tracks. It was named after a fabled creature with a tiger's head and a lion's body, and it has two tracks, named Lion and Tiger. Both tracks were 3,508 ft (1,069 m) long..."
• "Gwazi, which was constructed on the former site of an Anheuser-Busch brewery, opened to the public on June 18, 1999." - I'd move this to the second paragraph. Also, can you briefly mention when plans were announced and/or when construction started?
• "The park operated both tracks until 2012, with the closure of the Tiger side." - The first part of the sentence is slightly redundant. This can be rephrased as "The Tiger side closed in 2012."
• "with various replacement attractions considered by the park" - I'd put this in active voice, i.e. "and the park considered various replacement attractions".
• "In 2018, the park indicated it would refurbish the wooden structure, with Rocky Mountain Construction (RMC) listed as the roller coaster manufacturer [...] RMC was hired to retrofit the existing layout using portions of the original structure." - So RMC was hired in 2018 and was hired again in 2019? Or is the latter sentence merely referring to what RMC was contracted to do (as opposed to the fact that RMC was hired and that it did these things)?
• "passholder members" - Why not just "passholders"?
• Ideally, the lead should have a sentence or two about reception and legacy, since one of the page's level-2 sections is devoted to the topic, but the lead doesn't mention any reception at all.

More later. – Epicgenius (talk) 17:51, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Hello Epicgenius! Thank you for the comments so far and I appreciate another familiar face! Split the sentences into two, both tracks should be clarified from previous edits, and added more about debut, award, and construction plans. Rephrased Tiger track, active voice, and removed RMC mention to clarify their role. Keep them coming if there is more and let me know how it looks! Adog (Talk・Cont) 14:14, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

History:

• "In October 1995, Anheuser-Busch announced the closure of its Tampa brewery located in the middle of Busch Gardens Tampa Bay, which had operated since the park's inaugural year in 1959" - Presumably you mean the brewery operated since the park's inaugural year, but right now the sentence is structured as though the park has operated since its opening year (which needless to say is a self-definition). I'd rephrase this as "In October 1995, Anheuser-Busch announced the closure of its Tampa brewery in the middle of Busch Gardens Tampa Bay; the brewery had operated since the park's inaugural year in 1959." Also, "located" is redundant in this context.

Great suggestions for History but just wanted to offer an alternative for this item: "In October 1995, Anheuser-Busch announced the closure of its Tampa brewery, which had operated in the middle of Busch Gardens Tampa Bay since the park's inaugural year in 1959." Accomplishes the same without a semi-colon or stating "brewery" twice. --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:26, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

That's a good point. I'd go with your alternative instead. – Epicgenius (talk) 13:49, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

• "freeing up the land" - This might also be a little redundant if the brewery was demolished.
• "The park wanted to differentiate itself from other Florida theme parks with modern ride technology" - Did BGT have modern ride technology, or was it the other parks with such technology? I assume it's the latter, so I'd change it to "The park wanted to differentiate itself from other Florida theme parks, which had modern ride technology".
• "after touring several amusement parks over 17 days" - There's a missing period.
• "Washington University in St. Louis helped name the new roller coaster, selecting Gwazi" - I was trying to figure out why a university in the Midwest would help name the roller coaster, but it seems that Washington University merely did the research, while A-B named the ride based on WashU's research.
• "In early June 1998, Busch Gardens Tampa Bay considered on-site expansion for a resort " - I'd rephrase this in active voice, e.g. "In early June 1998, Busch Gardens Tampa Bay considered adding a resort on the site" or something like that.
• "Busch Gardens announced it that day" - What is being announced? The groundbreaking, the ride's existence, or the name of the ride?
• "with the tracks themed as a Lion and a Tiger" - If the tracks were merely themed to a lion and a tiger, these should be lowercase. However, these were the actual names, so I'd clarify this too.

More in a bit. – Epicgenius (talk) 16:47, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you Epicgenius for the comments/questions/concerns! Addressed all these points with edits for clarification, addition, or subtraction of statements. Let me know how it looks! Adog (Talk・Cont) 12:54, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

I haven't forgotten about this nomination. I'll look at it tomorrow. – Epicgenius (talk) 00:14, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

It is all good from my standpoint. I attempted to get a better image of the roller coaster for this article and relatively succeeded in the mean time! Adog (Talk・Cont) 02:57, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Operation:

• "of the 5,700 tickets sold, 3,500 tickets went to passholders" - BGT passholders?
• "Approximately 500 guests from American Coaster Enthusiasts were in attendance." - ACE members, I presume, rather than random folks who were invited by ACE
• "The last part of the renovation" - Was this after the Lion and Tiger sides were retracked?
• Come to think of it, we both know what retracking is, but I don't know if the public may be familiar with it.
• "included the installation of four GCI-designed Millennium Flyer trains to replace the trains originally supplied by Philadelphia Toboggan Coasters (PTC) in 2011" - I would move up the "in 2011" part, or else it sounds like PTC designed new trains in 2011. I.e. "included the installation of four GCI-designed Millennium Flyer trains in 2011..."
• "Following the 2012 season, the Tiger side closed, and soon after, the park built a bridge across its loading platform" - I'd rephrase this slightly so there are fewer commas, e.g. "The Tiger side closed following the 2012 season, and soon after, the park built a bridge across its loading platform"
• "that the termination of Gwazi's operation was in the near future" - I would also rephrase this to active voice, e.g. "that Gwazi's operation would be terminated in the near future"

Refurbishment and relaunch:

• "Within three years of the closure" - Was there no news about Gwazi for three years? If so, I'd just say "Three years after the closure..."
• "Busch Gardens revealed the roller coaster's name as "Iron Gwazi" the following month, being 206 feet (63 m) tall with a 91-degree drop and a maximum speed of 76 mph (122 km/h)" - The second half of the sentence is a bit awkward, and the first sounds like it can be rewritten in a more direct manner. I'd go with "Busch Gardens revealed the following month that the roller coaster would be named "Iron Gwazi" and that it would be 206 feet (63 m) tall with a 91-degree drop and a maximum speed of 76 mph (122 km/h)"
• "RMC completed track work on March 8" - March 8 of which year?
• "construction halted at the testing phase after a week." - Was it structurally complete and just testing, or was construction still going on when the ride was being tested? I assume it's the former, in which case you can just say "testing halted after a week".
• "In September, the park said it scheduled to open Iron Gwazi in 2021,[60] releasing a point-of-view video of the roller coaster two months later" - I similarly would rephrase this as the second half of the sentence is also awkward, in the sense that the POV video is mentioned basically as an afterthought. I.e. "The park said in September that it scheduled to open Iron Gwazi in 2021,[60] and it released a point-of-view video of the roller coaster two months later"
• "The park hosted a media day to preview Iron Gwazi" - Should this just be "The park hosted a media preview" or something similar?
• "Iron Gwazi is tied in height" - Worldwide?

More later. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:05, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Awesome, after some technical hurdles addressed these lines for clarification, re-wording, or omitting. Let me know how that looks! :) Adog (Talk・Cont) 18:29, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

"Three years after the closure..." – The source talks about rumors that had been circulating, indicating over the course of the three years. Not sure how you want to rephrase that, but they didn't just start happening 3 years after the closure! --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:25, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Good point. I didn't actually check the source, but now that you mention it, I would suggest "In the three years after the closure" if the plans for Gwazi's replacement/refurbishment/retracking/etc. had actually been ongoing since 2015. – Epicgenius (talk) 16:10, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

The speculation probably wasn't directly tied to actual plans, not sure, but "In the three years..." sounds good to me! -- GoneIn60 (talk) 16:30, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Just a quick update - I've looked through the article and have mostly found only syntax/grammar issues. I will post these remaining comments over the weekend since I'm currently at work. – Epicgenius (talk) 15:48, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

No problem! Awaiting further corrections when ready. Hope all is going well! Adog (Talk・Cont) 22:45, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

As an added bonus, I did find two more articles and added them into the "Refurbishment and relaunch" surrounding the ride's history if you want to glance at that. Adog (Talk・Cont) 17:26, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

@Epicgenius: Courtesy ping. Adog (Talk・Cont) 13:13, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I had a very heavy workload this past week. I promise this time that I'll finally leave my remaining comments by this weekend. – Epicgenius (talk) 13:25, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

No problemo. I am reading books in the mean time and researching the bits and pieces that might still be out there. Adog (Talk・Cont) 14:51, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Ride experience:

• Before I get into the grammatical nitpicks for this section, I notice that in the paragraphs about the Lion, Tiger, and Iron Gwazi's respective ride experiences, all the references are clustered at the end of the paragraph. This might cause problems with regards to verification. For example, the YouTube video doesn't really have height and speed statistics, while the RCDB source only lists statistics. I would instead just put the sources immediately after the sentences that they're supposed to cite.
• I also notice that the Iron Gwazi paragraph has five sources. I'd spread them out to prevent WP:CITEKILL.
• "in which the two roller coaster trains pass each other in opposite directions at high speeds, giving the false impression they will collide" - I would change "pass" to "passed" and "will collide" to "would collide". Although I understand that the "fly-by" as a concept still exists, they are not on Gwazi anymore, so they should be in the past tense for consistency.

More in a bit. – Epicgenius (talk) 00:54, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Word, heard. I will note GoneIn60 suggested a change to the source layout for the "Ride experience" sections where the sources appear at the end. I am ok with either and have reverted it to the cited inline layout. :) Adog (Talk・Cont) 01:28, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

To clarify, the original problem was that there was a mixture of sentence and paragraph citations. Either are fine, but you typically don't want to mix the two, as it makes it harder to figure out which sources support which statements. Moving them all to the end of the paragraph would have been fine ONLY IF every citation supported the entire paragraph. Epicgenius seems to have identified that wasn't the case, so changing to sentence-only citations is the better option here. --GoneIn60 (talk) 05:59, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Sorry for the late response. GoneIn60 precisely identified what I was alluding to. If the citations support every detail in the paragraph, it's the editor's choice whether to put these citations after every statement or only at the end of the paragraph. If the citations only support certain details, they generally should be placed directly after the statement that they're supporting. Epicgenius (talk) 14:29, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

My apologies. I did interpret the suggestion wrong at the time. Adog (Talk・Cont) 16:47, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Characteristics:

• "Gwazi's footprint covered eight acres" - I'd just say Gwazi covered eight acres, or Gwazi had an eight-acre footprint.
• "Gwazi was given a sealant coat instead of being traditionally painted" - Was this done for a specific reason, e.g. hurricane protection?
• "arranged with two seats across in two rows" - I'd suggest "arranged in two rows of two seats each" to be more concise.
• "12 cars with a single row that was two seats across" - Similarly I'd say "12 cars, each with a single row of two seats". This gets the point across more concisely.
• "Gwazi's theme depicted the struggle between two territorial wildcats; the African lion and the Asian tiger." - this should be a colon, not a semicolon, since "the African lion and the Asian tiger" can not be a standalone sentence, and since this sentence isn't a list. Furthermore, I'd say "Gwazi was themed to" rather than "Gwazi's theme depicted", as generally, themes do not depict something on their own; they contain motifs that depict something.
• "using the same loading station from Gwazi" - I'd say "using Gwazi's loading station"
• "Director of Design and Engineering, Andrew Schaffer" - I recommend either removing the comma or adding another comma after Schaffer. Also, his job title should be lowercase, per MOS:JOBTITLES. Epicgenius (talk) 14:29, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Reception and legacy section looks all good to me.

Incidents:

• "In 2022, a guest riding Iron Gwazi during its preview hit their hand on a beam, prompting Busch Gardens to remove two beams. The guest refused medical treatment" - I'd mention that the guest refused medical treatment before mentioning that the beams were removed. Otherwise it sounds like Busch Gardens removed the beams before asking the guest if they wanted medical treatment.

Overall, this is a very good article, and I only had a few relatively minor issues with the article, which I think could be resolved quickly. After these are fixed, I'd be happy to support. Epicgenius (talk) 14:33, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you again and I appreciate the review! Fixed the last remaining bits, tell me what you think and let me know if there is anything else that should be changed or checked! Adog (Talk・Cont) 16:48, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Support - everything looks good to me now. If I find anything, I'll bring it up, but so far I don't see any more major issues. Epicgenius (talk) 17:47, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Comments from Airship

Welcome to FAC. Nice article, and I had the same mentor-avoiding thought process when nominating my first FA last year. As always, these are suggestions not demands—feel free to decline, with adequate justification.

• As a first-timer, you'll have to go through the spotchecks and source review, so I won't comment on that front.
• Some questions about the article's adherence to MOS:LAYOUT, keeping in mind I generally don't think much of single-paragraph sections. What do you think of making the comparisons section a subsection of the characteristics section, and similarly incorporating the incidents into the history section? I think that would help the article's flow.

• On a somewhat similar note, if I were you I would remove the lion and tiger subsection-headings from the ride experience section. As it stands, it feels a bit disjointed, and smoothening the layout is a great way to make the prose seem more professional (FA criterion 1a).

I merged the comparison section since that is not officially covered by Wikipedia:WikiProject Amusement Parks/Standards#Roller coasters. I am a bit reserved about incidents and accidents merging since we try not to gloss over these happenings and to serve some equal weight regarding the history. I also went ahead and removed the subheadings and added some words in each paragraph to clarify each course. :) Let me know how this looks. Adog (Talk・Cont) 03:28, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

General prose

• The first paragraph could be streamlined, especially the four short sentences at the end. How about: "Iron Gwazi (formerly Gwazi) is a steel-track hybrid roller coaster at Busch Gardens Tampa Bay, a theme park in Tampa, Florida, United States. The ride, named after a fabled creature with a tiger's head and a lion's body, was built by Great Coasters International (GCI) as Gwazi, a wooden dueling roller coaster with two separate tracks. Named Lion and Tiger, the tracks were 3,508 ft (1,069 m) long and 105.4 ft (32.1 m) high, with trains reaching a maximum speed of 51 mph (82 km/h). Gwazi, which was constructed on the former site of an Anheuser-Busch brewery, opened to the public on June 18, 1999." or something.
• Standardise whether the article uses capitalised (Lion and Tiger) or uncapitalised (lion and tiger) for the two sides.
• "Following" repetition in second paragraph. Similar streamlining needed there; six sentences in one 3.5-line paragraph is a bit bullet-pointy.
• Were refurbishing plans announced in 2018 or 2019? Lead is very unclear.
• I have no clue what "I-Box track" is, and I doubt many readers do either. Is that detail needed in the lead?
• "The refurbished attraction was marketed as the tallest, steepest, and fastest hybrid roller coaster in North America." ....... is it the tallest, steepest, and fastest hybrid roller coaster in North America?
• I suspect that with many of the events in the Refurbishment and relaunch section occuring recently, there might be slight WP:RECENTISM bias in the weighting of the history section. What do you think?
• Bit too much "Gwazi" in the first paragraph of the characteristics section. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:31, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the comments so far! Addressed lead concerns regarding points 1, 3-6. Switched to capitalization as the names were proper nouns when cited in sources. Decreased Gwazi instances in characteristics. I see what you mean by the recent policy and went ahead to reword or add content for postponement. I also added some additional content from two sources for clarity in "Operation" and "Wooden roller coaster". Let me know how this looks so far! :) Adog (Talk・Cont) 03:28, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

I like what you've done, Adog. I think the WP:RECENTISM in the history section could still be tightened. I'm seeing stuff like "A crane was seen at the site in January 2019", "Permits filed in March 2019 indicated the height of the new roller coaster would be around 210 feet (64 m) ... Iron Gwazi was reported to be 206 feet (63 m) tall", etc. I can imagine that as construction progressed, each new rumour/report/release was added to the article, but now, like a plant that's been allowed to grow out of control, it does need to be selectively trimmed a little. Other than that, I have not much more to comment. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:58, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Ah, I see what you mean. I took some clippers to the shrubs so hopefully it looks a bit cleaner around the edges. Namely removed the aforementioned sentences or merged them with clarification. Includes instances of the sentences with "crane," "media event," "permits," and "media tour". Adog (Talk・Cont) 17:59, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Nice! Support ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:36, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Comments by GoneIn60

First, just want to thank Adog for all the hard work maintaining and improving articles that fall under the scope of WP:APARKS. Iron Gwazi is no exception, and I look forward to reviewing it. Here are a few things I've noticed so far:

Lead

• Overall length of the article is approximately 18k characters. That puts it at the low end of 2-to-3 paragraph expectation for the lead per MOS:LEADLENGTH. Three paragraphs are fine, but I suggest reducing the length. The second paragraph seems like a good candidate to trim significantly. I would drop the first 2 sentences altogether and combine the last two into a much more concise sentence.
• I would remove track length from the first and last paragraphs and just focus on height and speed. Track length doesn't typically warrant lead inclusion unless it sets some kind of significant milestone or ranking. 4075 feet wouldn't even crack the top 50 among roller coasters. Plus, it's an additional conversion that adds more parenthetical clutter.
• "replace the wooden attraction into" – Seems a bit awkward to me. Maybe swap replace for convert?
• "named after a fabled creature with a tiger's head and a lion's body" – Optional: I'm thinking this should follow the term Gwazi instead of appearing before. Maybe restructure so that you mention it was built by GCI first, followed by the name Gwazi and what it means.

Addressed the first point by eliminating the first sentence of paragraph 2 and merging the last sentences with the preceding sentence. Though, kept the part of the first side. Track length I am a little hesitant about excluding in the lead of this article because of the comparison of both Gwazi and Iron Gwazi. Though, I would agree otherwise if it were about a single roller coaster. Completed the last two points! Adog (Talk・Cont) 15:11, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Nice work so far! Definitely an improvement, no doubt! For track length, I completely understand. Mentioning the comparison is probably needed but perhaps consider if the actual numbers are. For example, maybe just state that the track length increased by X number of feet (since the actual lengths don't really matter), which would reduce the two distance conversions down to one. Just a stylistic suggestion and not a deal-breaker either way.

The reduction in length also looks good. I did notice a small grammatical glitch in the last sentence of the 1st paragraph following the recent addition of "and". Gwazi is the subject and hasn't done anything yet in this sentence, so a comma works better there. --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:08, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Awesome! Done and done for this part of your review. Adog (Talk・Cont) 18:01, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

I went ahead and made these changes, since it appears you agreed to remove the track length statements and combine them into one statement about the increase. I removed "that" in the third paragraph, since leaving it in would have required another comma after 2020. I also added back the link for RMC. If you have any issues with any of those changes, feel free to modify further. I'll reply to the other sections below here shortly, thanks! --GoneIn60 (talk) 02:17, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Looks good to me! :D Adog (Talk・Cont) 14:14, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

History

• As shown in this example of MOS:BODY, prose typically follows each header before drilling down into a lower subsection. The main level 2 header (History) is followed immediately by a level 3 header (Development) with no prose in between. Consider removing the Development level 3 header and just let that portion of prose be the introduction to History.
• The same thing happens under "Ride experience" and "Characteristics", but since there aren't any good solutions in those, they may have to remain unchanged. This isn't a hard & fast rule we have to abide by; it's simply a minor suggestion to improve when possible.
• The brewery – The fact it was located within the park should be mentioned sooner. When was the park's inaugural year? Would be helpful to provide readers a frame of reference.
• Date approximation varies and sometimes gets too detailed. The month and year should be sufficient unless you are mentioning more than one event in the same month. Examples:

• "early June 1998"
• "late April 1999"

• Under Operation, reduce the use of "Gwazi". It appears in almost every sentence.
• Under Refurbishment, same thing with "Iron Gwazi", specifically in the last two paragraphs.
• Phrases like "was considering" and "were discussing" when written in past tense should just be "considered" and "discussed". I didn't try to spot them all, so I'd suggest combing through the entire article and clean that up as much as possible.

That's all for now! I'll move onto the other sections soon. I also plan to comb through with some light copyediting, mainly in regard to punctuation. --GoneIn60 (talk) 06:55, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Hello GoneIn60! Good to see another APARKS personnel in the comments, questions, and concerns. Took care of the header for history, and understanding about characteristics. Rearranged brewery factoids and date approximations. Reduced instances of Gwazi were noted. I am going to attempt to remove most if not all, passive voice structure momentarily. Gonna go section by section. Let me know about further CQCs and how it looks! :) Appreciate it! Adog (Talk・Cont) 15:11, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Much improved, nice work! I made a few more light copyediting changes, and it seems really close now. One thing is the use of "passholder". Most reliable sources I've seen have this as one word, so might be worth looking into further. I could be wrong. This article mostly writes it as "pass holder", but there is at least one instance of "pass-holder". Minor concern overall. The other remaining concern is the claim of tallest coaster in Florida. Do we really feel that's worth mentioning? It just comes across as promotional in nature and not really a statistic anyone is tracking (other than Busch Gardens' advertising dept and local newspapers).

I'll comb through the other sections by this time tomorrow. --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:54, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Sounds good. Made the word more consistent with reliable sources. The claim of its height (regarding Florida) I think could be worth mentioning, considering height is a general statistic/matter of fact and not an attempt of going-out-of-the-way-to-find-a-record-to-claim by the park. I changed the wording of the sentence, but can always be changed or removed. Adog (Talk・Cont) 15:00, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it may be a statement of fact, but its relevance could still be questionable. I mean, if I build a roller coaster in Montana, chances are it's going to be the tallest in Montana! It happens a lot at roller coaster articles, with claims like "tallest in Texas" or "fastest on the west coast", but regional statistics really matter very little in the grand scope of things. Marketers can shrink the region as small as they want to so they can make a claim of some kind to draw publicity and attention. I usually remove those on sight if it's not a category recognized in reputable publishers of statistics, such as Amusement Today or RCDB.

Other recent changes look good. Would just point out that "overtime" should be two words, "over time", in the context of how you're using it. Thanks. --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:46, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Gotcha! Went ahead to remove and merge supplemental sentence with current one. Let me know how it looks! Also added spacing. :) Adog (Talk・Cont) 03:37, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Looks good! --GoneIn60 (talk) 04:08, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Ride experience & Characteristics

• "largest and fastest dueling ... in the southeastern United States" – Similar to the tallest in Florida claim, this may not be significant and leans promotional in nature. Were there even a significant amount of dueling coasters in the southeastern US (did anyone outside of Florida recognize this)? Consider omitting or at least moving to a more appropriate section such as History (how it was marketed) or Reception and legacy.
• The ride layout descriptions are well written for the wooden coaster version, but they rely on the use of "before" way too often. Suggest removing a few of those instances where possible.
• Consider breaking up the Iron Gwazi layout summary into two paragraphs.
• Also regarding both ride layouts, there is mixed usage of inline citations, where some appear at the end of the sentence they support, while others appear at the end of the paragraph (#76, #77, #81, and #82). Either approach is fine, but typically you don't want to mix both in the same paragraph. Doing so can make it more difficult to determine which refs support which claims.
• Under the steel coaster section, the first paragraph is full of short statements strung together without any real transition. It's almost as if a timeline or list of facts were thrown together into a paragraph. Consider combining sentences, or at least lead with a different subject when going from one sentence to the next. The two sentences that start with "RMC added" and "RMC constructed" are back to back, for example. --GoneIn60 (talk) 02:37, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Reception and legacy

• Looks pretty good as is, nice work! If anything, maybe consider saying "The revamped Iron Gwazi" or the "The rebuilt Iron Gwazi" in the opening of the 3rd paragraph; might help the transition from Gwazi to Iron Gwazi, but totally your call. --GoneIn60 (talk) 02:37, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

  Alrighty! Thank you again for the comments, questions, and concerns! Moved the promotional sentence to the history section as the source cites Busch Gardens and RCDB for that material, most likely coming from BG. Removed excessive words and moved sources for "Ride experience" to back of paragraphs. Added contextual queues to "Steel roller coaster" section. Added words for reception and more content from publishers for clarity on two authors reviews.

  I did leave the Iron Gwazi ride experience section in tact, but merged a sentence. With this instance, breaking could have the effect of highlighting two indiscriminate parts of the ride rather than a continuous fluid of the whole.

  Again, thank you for the review, and let me know how it all looks now or what could be changed! Adog (Talk・Cont) 06:08, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

  Big improvement in the final stretch of the article, excellent work! I give my support to this nomination based on prose and layout. Good luck with any image review and source spot checks! --GoneIn60 (talk) 12:45, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Update

Just a quick note that I worked with the nominator to further tighten the lead (diff). It has been reduced from 360 words, 17 sentences to 330 words, 16 sentences --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:43, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Image review - pass

• File:Iron Gwazi (logo).png - logo - has valid NFC - okay
• File:Iron Gwazi (11).jpg, File:Iron Gwazi lift hill bird 3.jpg, File:Iron Gwazi overview zoomed in.jpg - CC 4.0 licence - okay
• File:Iron Gwazi - Busch Gardens Tampa.jpg - CC 2.0 licence - okay
• File:Gwazi (Busch Gardens Africa) 01.jpg, File:Gwazi (Busch Gardens Africa) 02.jpg, File:Iron Gwazi lifthill BGT (2).jpg - placed into PD by creator - okay since it is in the US
• All good. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:20, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Source review and source-text integrity spotcheck

To follow. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:43, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Reviewed version

Source review

• The "Jim Dean" in the middle of citation 1 is confusing.
• The YouTube citations appear to comply with WP:VIDEOLINK, but why are the first two defined as (Internet video) and the last one not?
• I somehow think citation 90 ("Original Gwazi vs. Iron Gwazi (Sign inside queue area). Tampa, Florida: Busch Gardens Tampa Bay. 2022.") fails WP:V.
• Unless I missed something, all references have archive-url's and accessdates.
• I don't see any unreliable sources. The issues outlined above are minor, so I think I can pass this source review. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:53, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

I want to make sure the source is good so here is my shot. I do not know if this is an argument, but we do have a Template:Cite sign for 90. The sign is in a public area, anyone can view within the queue area of the attraction if one wanted to verify its authenticity. I do have a video recording of the sign (since I thought this might pop up) if that helps in any way for verification. I can upload it to the Wiki if signs are free game from copyright or via email.

As for the actual source itself, I believe it could pass WP:ABOUTSELF. Its not an exceptional claim that is actively promoted by the park, no claim to third party or events, article does not primarily base whole truths on this source, and I do not have a doubt the park would be inauthentic about a statistical fun fact. The sign's statement is used in conjunction with another statement that is accessible by 88. Let me know if this is reasonable! :) Adog (Talk・Cont) 15:29, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

I mean, if you really want to upload that video you can Adog—seems slightly overkill to me, but that would definitely solve the issue! ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:33, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

@AirshipJungleman29: Overkill is my middle name, haha. File can be viewed in horrible quality at File:Iron Gwazi fun fact.webm extension or slightly better at File:Iron Gwazi factoid sign.png. Adog (Talk・Cont) 15:12, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Source spotcheck—10 citations will be randomly assessed

• 2a: can you provide the relevant sentences from McMorrow-Hernandez 2017 p. 77 Adog? 2b) no relevance to text, so should be removed.
• 11 good
• 13 neither this or 14 verify the phrase "each track titled "Lion" and "Tiger" to correspond with the respective dueling theme".
• 17 good
• 27 good, in combination with other citations
• 38 good
• 57 no verification of "testing halted after a week" statement
• 81 verification failed
• 98 good, in combination
• 111 good

7/10—not fantastic, we'll have to do another round of spotchecks. Ping me when you're ready for that. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:53, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Of course and I provided some explanation and/or fixes for the sources that are questionable for clarity. Let me know if these suffice or should be changed! :)

• From McMorrow-Hernandez (2017). page 77: "On October 25, 1995, it was announced the park's Anheuser-Busch brewery, which originally served as the anchoring feature of Busch Gardens Tampa Bay, would close. The demolition of the sprawling facility took more than one year." Deleted the second cite. I can send you a screenshot of the e-text if needed (on Amazon kindle).

• The screenshot is not necessary, methinks. That should be fine.

• For 13 and 14, 13 states: "One of Busch's Gwazi coasters will be decked out like a lion, the other like a tiger". corresponding to earlier statement "The bookend coasters will be named after an African legend of a half-lion, half-tiger called Gwazi that is forever struggling with itself." Removed 14 and subbed 12 for better clarity: "Taking the shape of twin dueling wooden coasters, the beast with both a lion's head and a tigers head will 'attack itself'..." and "One side will belong to the tiger with the trains being painted in blues and mauve colors to connote speed. The lion's trains will be in orange and reds to connote strength..." if that can suffice.

• I still don't think its enough to support 'with each track titled "Lion" and "Tiger"'; the sources explicitly say the ride would be themed half-lion/tiger, but not titled as such (could be "Mufasa" and "Shere Khan" for all the sources say). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:33, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

• For 57, source: "Then the coronavirus pandemic happened, and it all came to a halt on March 16." and later "...a coaster that was completed to the point of doing test runs just before the coronavirus closure ... But the park closed just before testing was complete." That does rely on the previous statement in the Wikipedia article "RMC completed track work on March 8, 2020, and testing began the next day." March 8 to March 16 for the testing window. Should the previous reference of the testing start be linked with the sentence about testing halted after a week?

• I think that would be best.

• For 81, the ref. defines the element that the main article lists. I have linked the main article next to the definition. Apologies for that confusion.

@AirshipJungleman29: No problem on the next round, I am ready! Hit me. Adog (Talk・Cont) 15:34, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Forgot to mention, thank you for doing the source check! Adog (Talk・Cont) 15:46, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi AirshipJungleman29, thanks for picking this up, it is appreciated. Just checking that you are aware that it is ready for your next round of comments. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:38, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

• That was not a microsecond, my apologies (I did a spotcheck, was more than halfway through, my computer crashed and I rage-quit). Here I am again—if you're reading this, everything went well (crash-wise, not source-wise, although maybe that too—see below). Citation numbers from this revision

• 17 AGF, can you provide the quote?
• 27 good, but archived version is from 2009 and greatly out of date.
• 35 good
• 51 good
• 67 good
• 72 good
• 89 inaccessible, both on active and archive urls.
• 107 good
• 109 good
• 115 good

• A much better result. None of the issues above are that concerning, so ping me when they're fixed Adog. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:06, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Phew. I can understand a rage quit and picking it up another day. I have done that a many of times. Good thing your system still works! I picked up a few books from my local library to hold me over and got a free Slurpee (or two) from 7-11 on July 11, so its been a pretty cool layover. Will provide the quotations above for inaccessible and AGF.

• 17: Relevant quote from the Tampa Tribune: "To boost the hype, the Tampa theme park has come up with a unique gimmick."

"Busch Gardens will let a limited number of annual passholders ride Gwazi a day before the official opening, for $8.95 a person. Only 5,700 people can buy the special First Ride tickets, which are numbered and personalized with each passholder's name".

"Busch is selling the tickets as "collectors' items ... to show we appreciate them," promotions director Jerry Johnson said", and "Busch won't say how many First Ride tickets have been sold or how many of its 4 million guests last year were season passholders".

• 27: Thank you for pointing that out. The archived reference was probably a holdover from the previous Gwazi article that I started to include information way back when, and I misjudged the bot would update previous archived links.
• 89: As of now, I can access the live article from St. Petersburg, Florida. Maybe a region-locked thing? I do see the problem on the archived end. Wayback Machine is telling me I cannot save the URL because it "has been excluded from the Wayback Machine" ... for whatever that means. That usually appears when I try to skirt around paywalls. Sometimes it works. Sometimes, it does not. This has now led me to archive it using archive.today, something I have never used but now learned! Relevant quotes from WTSP: "The coaster is built where the original Gwazi used to be and uses some of the iconic coaster's wood foundation for the new ride."

"While most of the station and ride foundation is from the original coaster, Schaffer said Iron Gwazi won't shake riders around like the first all-wooden Gwazi".

@AirshipJungleman29: At that, thank you again for your patience with me and your system. The article is looking better than ever! Let me know how it looks and if anything else should be addressed. :D Adog (Talk・Cont) 13:54, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Good enough. I pass both the source spot-check and the the source review. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:58, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Query for the coordinators

@FAC coordinators: I want to inquire if there is anything more I should do in terms of review, since this is a first time nomination for me. This article review received three supports for prose, a pass on image review, and a pass on source review and integrity spot checks. I want to again thank everyone so far for taking their time to review this article, and for their patience in responses to my questions, comments, and concerns. :) Adog (Talk・Cont) 15:43, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it seems to be ticking along nicely. It now has the minimum amount of support to be considered for promotion. However, the coordinators would ideally like more eyes on it for any nomination, and that applies especially for a first-time nomination. I shall list it at Urgents and see if we can attract another reviewer or two. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:06, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Support Comments from JennyOz

Placeholder for now, will review over next day or so, hopefully. JennyOz (talk) 08:28, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello Adog, thank you for such a comprehensive article. I see it has had very comprehensive GA, Peer and FAC reviews including from editors who are familiar with roller coasters and members of APARKS.

Sorry my review took a little longer than I expected, but I needed to leave it for a couple of days after my first read through to clear my head to read it afresh. I found this hard going, not because it is not well written which it certainly is, but because I know very little about the subject matter. (And I'm not about to tell you how long ago I last rode on one:) though after reading this I feel like I just did!) The good use of wikilinks was very helpful. I have suggested a few more.

Please forgive me if any of my suggestions contradict what has already been discussed or are contrary to the APARKS project guidelines.

Here goes...

lede

• Iron Gwazi (formerly Gwazi) is a steel-track hybrid roller coaster at - confusing? That sounds like it was the same thing just formerly named Gwazi. And Gwazi was not steel track. Maybe replace formerly with "(replacement of Gwazi)" or similar
• To replace the former site of the Anheuser-Busch brewery, Busch Gardens announced - but they didn't "replace" the actual site, they replaced the brewery on the same site? Can I suggest something like 'To repurpose the site of the former Anheuser-Busch brewery, ...'?

• Did you mean to miss moving "former"? It's the same site and the brewery that is former? JennyOz (talk) 06:07, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

• Great Coasters International (GCI) built Gwazi, a wooden dueling roller coaster - I'd insert 'the original' between "built" and "Gwazi" just to further ensure readers are clear from the beginning that there are two different versions

• Fixed! Adog (Talk・Cont) 16:04, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

History

• since the park's inaugural year in 1959 - "year in (year)" seems odd. Maybe 'year of 1959' or just 'year, 1959'.
• Mark Rose, then the park's vice - "then" isn't necessary?
• He informally selected five roller coasters - a shortlist of five?
• with each track themed to a "Lion" and "Tiger" to - with the two tracks themed "Lion" and "Tiger" to
• re-designed several times throughout construction - "throughout" would be from beginning to end, swap to 'during'?

• Fixed! Adog (Talk・Cont) 16:04, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Operation

• sold "first ride" tickets for a preview event in June 1999 - did they sell them in June or was the event scheduled for June? If the event was in June change "for a preview" to 'for the preview event' or 'preview event scheduled in June 1999'
• of the 5,700 tickets sold, 3,500 tickets went to - second "tickets" not needed?
• tickets went to Busch Gardens Tampa passholders - add Bay ie Tampa Bay?
• the park built a bridge across its loading platform - is a "bridge" roller coaster jargon for something or was it just to block off access to the loading platform or something else? Where did it lead to and from?

• I had a smile at this. It was basically a fixed pedestrian pathway to cross over the track. What was its purpose? RCDB states is was presumably for accessibility or fast pass holders. However, there is already an exit ramp that this bridge leads to that I believe the park used for those other two purposes (and they currently use for ADA accessibility). There is no clear definition of its purpose, but it nonetheless confirmed that the Tiger track was closed permanently. You can see it at this video, starting around 2:05 (we do not condone trespassing for evidence (sigh), but this is the only frame of reference I found). Changed to "the park built a pedestrian bridge across its loading platform". Adog (Talk・Cont) 16:04, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
• Fixed and see above! Adog (Talk・Cont) 16:04, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Refurbishment and relaunch

• Rose, then vice president of park services, stated - then not needed?
• An internal SeaWorld Entertainment presentation leaked online to the public in October 2018 showcasing several projects under development across its parks, including a replacement ride for Gwazi as a "high-thrill hybrid roller coaster" - I think it would read more smoothly if 'was' is inserted before "leaked" or "showcasing" is changed to 'showcased'?
• filed demolition permits with the city of Tampa - permit applications?

• For this, the Tampa Bay Business Journal is quoted: "A demolition permit was filed for the 'Demolition of selected portions of an existing site structure, selected buildings, and portions of buildings' at Busch Gardens, according to city records". Not sure if you would still want this changed let me know. Adog (Talk・Cont) 16:04, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

• RMC filed a lien against SeaWorld in May 2020 for $3.5 million out of $9 million - $3.5 million of the $9 million
• the company says it was owed for work construction - tweak tense to 'said'
• released a point-of-view video of the roller coaster - include video in the link ie point-of-view video (otherwise it reads like an opinion rather than a visual perspective)
• postponed Iron Gwazi's launch date a second time to 2022 - comma after time (ie they didn't postpone it twice to 2022)
• Iron Gwazi and Zadra at Energylandia, another RMC-built roller coaster located in Poland, - "another RMC-built roller coaster located in Poland" is ambiguous. Would be better if tweaked as 'Iron Gwazi and Zadra at Energylandia in Poland, another RMC-built roller coaster'

• remove the left over "located in Poland" JennyOz (talk) 06:07, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

• Poland - shouldn't really link countries but you are linking to ensure readers don't confuse the location to one of the Polands in the U.S.?

• Fixed and see above! Adog (Talk・Cont) 16:04, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Ride experience

• This header might be better in plural ie 'experiences'?

• Fixed! Adog (Talk・Cont) 16:04, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Gwazi

• and ascended the 105.4 ft (32.1 m) lift hill - link lift hill

• Fixed! Adog (Talk・Cont) 16:04, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Iron Gwazi

• an extended wave turn until flattening out - link wave turn

• Fixed! Adog (Talk・Cont) 16:04, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Characteristics Wooden roller coaster

• roller coaster with 1.25 million board feet - board foot/feet not commonly known outside U.S. and Canada. You could consider linking it within the first convert ie {{convert|1.25|e6board feet|m3|abbr=out|lk=in}} which produces 1.25 million board feet (2,900 m³)

• By adding lk=on parameter, it also links m3. Using lk=in would just link the uncommon board feet. Not a problem, just noting in case it wasn't intentional. JennyOz (talk) 06:07, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

• Gwazi was given a sealant coat instead of being traditionally painted to blend in with the park's African theme - commas after "coat" and "painted"
• instead of being traditionally painted - instead of traditionally being painted
• GCI offered new Millennium Flyer trains - maybe insert 'their' ie 'offered their new'
• a lap-bar restraint system - link lap bar
• Each of Gwazi's tracks were known as Lion and Tiger. - The two Gwazi tracks were named Lion and Tiger.
• the Lion side included a desert-like atmosphere - swap "atmosphere" to 'environs' (removing "a") or swap "included" to 'portrayed'?

• need to remove the left over "a" JennyOz (talk) 06:07, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
• Fixed! Adog (Talk・Cont) 16:04, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Characteristics Steel roller coaster

• used the steel I-Box track created - wlink I-Box track (there's a helpful illustration there). Ditto link in infobox?
• Regarding how much of the original wooden structure was reused, director of design and engineering Andrew Schaffer stated - I think you could remove "Regarding how much of the original wooden structure was reused" without losing anything
• The roller coaster's theme is the crocodile, similar to other attractions at the park that carry an animal theme. - To avoid 2x "theme", you could swap one to 'motif'

• remove left over "an" JennyOz (talk) 06:07, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

• The queue area has educational elements about the species and their conservation, with reptile-themed graphics painted throughout. - "the species" is a problem here as there are many species of crocodiles. You could swap "the species" to "the reptile" and then change "reptile-themed graphics" to 'crocodile-themed'

• Fixed! Adog (Talk・Cont) 16:04, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Comparison

• Comparison table - has Iron Gwazi duration 1:50 (as does infobox) but prose says "One cycle of the roller coaster takes about two minutes to complete" (I imagine 10 seconds is quite a long time difference in context?)

• Yes, and good eye. It was suggested, I think, during this review since the duration of so-and-so is a pretty exact number I started to put "the roller coaster takes about...to complete" at the end of a ride experience section. A roller coaster does not complete its course in the same amount of time throughout a day or even between spans of years since weather, climate, and structural integrity can work to slow or speed up a roller coaster's trains. The stated 1:50 is the time the roller coaster takes to complete its course, generally or variably. Let me know how you feel about this. Adog (Talk・Cont) 16:04, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Reception and legacy

• Gwazi received generally positive reviews upon its debut - add in 1999 (and remove "1999" from "The opening of Gwazi in 1999 coincided")
• some riders commented on the partial rattle typical of wooden roller coasters - were they complaining, nostalgic, enjoying the rattle?

• Rattle is subjective. A little rattle can be positively or negatively viewed depending on the person. The reviewer shows it in a promising, positive light, so I inserted that adjective for clarity. Adog (Talk・Cont) 16:04, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

• including Dueling Dragons and The Incredible Hulk Coaster at Universal Islands of Adventure and - insert 'both' before "at"
• The rebuilt Iron Gwazi garnered positive reviews by critics on its debut. - add in 2022
• and re-ridden ability - what's that, re-rideability?

• Worded awkwardly, replaced with "ability to be re-rideable". Essentially how many times can I ride this thing before I get sick (of it). Adog (Talk・Cont) 16:04, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
• Fixed and see above! Adog (Talk・Cont) 16:04, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Awards

• In its debut year, Iron Gwazi received the Golden Ticket Award for Best New Roller Coaster.[105] - maybe move that to above the second table and add 'and its first ranking?

• Fixed! Adog (Talk・Cont) 16:04, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Incidents

• but refused medical treatment after the ride -"refused" sounds very strong. Did they just decline because they weren't badly injured?

• Fixed to they declined. Adog (Talk・Cont) 16:04, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

References

• Ref 44 quote=A crane can was [sic] spotted this month - I'd just "silently" fix that to "A crane was spotted this month" ie per MOS:TYPOFIX "However, insignificant spelling and typographic errors should simply be silently corrected (for example, correct basicly to basically)"
• Ref 46 Wynee, Sharon Kennedy - typo Wynne, but... in other refs (56, 64, 66, 93) this author's surname is given as Kennedy Wynne, and...

• Wynee to Wynne JennyOz (talk) 06:07, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

• Ref 67 Kenney Wynne, Sharon - typo Kennedy
• Ref 61 Orlando Sentiel - typo Sentinel

• Fixed and wow, a little embarrassing for me haha. Adog (Talk・Cont) 16:04, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Misc

• template Roller coasters at Busch Gardens Tampa Bay - includes a link to Gwazi which is a redirect to this page, prob not allowed, should be piped so that it doesn't appear as a different page (and also appears as a black not blue link on this article)
• infobox section Morocco - not mentioned in prose?

• Gwazi existed in the Morocco section of the park previously, so Iron Gwazi is, presumably, in the same section. No reliable sources clearly state this, and in recent times, the park sections are unclear where they stop and start on a map. I removed this. Adog (Talk・Cont) 16:04, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

• Image Iron Gwazi - Busch Gardens Tampa.jpg|...|alt=Iron Gwazi as pitured in July 2020 ... - typo pictured
• Image caption "A view of the original Gwazi's entrance and Lion's lift hill in 2006" - remove "A view of"

• I see you caught another of these (Skyride) but this one can also go JennyOz (talk) 06:07, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
• Fixed and see above! Adog (Talk・Cont) 16:04, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

That's all from me for now. Let me know if you need any clarification to any of my comments.

I have learnt a lot, including that: 1 lion + 1 tiger = 1 crocodile. Crikey! Thank you again for your mammoth work on this. JennyOz (talk) 13:14, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

@JennyOz: Wow, I still am amazed at the little things that were still there. The name is very much unimaginative, and I wonder why the park did not go with its other trademarks it had filed for "Twisted Tiger" or "Uproar" (my favorite). Added notes to parts that need clarity or provide an explanation. We do not have many standards that limit our style guide (however, we are actively working on some). Thank you for taking your time to review this article. I greatly appreciate it! Let me know if there is anything else that should be changed or needs attention! :D Adog (Talk・Cont) 16:04, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for all of those tweaks and explanations Adog. I've added 7 minor comments above for your consideration. Feel free to adjust my bulleting! JennyOz (talk) 06:07, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

@JennyOz: Alright, those things are now corrected. Let me know if there is anything else that needs to be changed or that I missed. Thank you for these tweaks! Adog (Talk・Cont) 11:41, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

All on track! Thanks Adog, I am very happy to add my s'port. JennyOz (talk) 13:39, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Note from nominator to coordinators

Per the FAC instructions, as the (first-time) nominator, I support the current article based on the comprehensive, thoughtful, and detailed feedback from the reviewers above. Unless otherwise stated, I believe this FAC is ready for determination on consensus. Adog (Talk・Cont) 15:53, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Heh, we assume a nominator would support their nomination's elevation to FA status, but it's always nice to hear appreciation for the reviewers' efforts...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:22, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 21:32, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 17 July 2023 [18].

---

Hot Sugar (song)

Nominator(s): Aoba47 (talk) 17:07, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

According to this 2013 song, Tamar Braxton thinks the best way to maintain a relationship is by giving them "that hot sugar". The lyrics are rather generic for this kind of sensual song, but music critics had more varied opinions on its genre, naming club, dance, hip hop, and funk as influences. Although Braxton wanted "Hot Sugar" to be Love and War's lead single, it was replaced by the album's title track and was never released as a fully-realized single. The track did receive a music video, featuring a spoof on Instagram, and according to Braxton, its directors abandoned the project in mid-production to work on Rihanna's Diamonds World Tour.

Thank you to @Cartoon network freak: (who has since retired) for the GAN review back in 2017. It's wild to think how much time has passed since then. I briefly opened a peer review for this article, but I ultimately decided to take it to the FAC process instead. I have completely rewritten this article earlier in the month, and while I'm admittedly not a fan of this song, I still enjoyed working on this. As always, any comments would be greatly appreciated! Aoba47 (talk) 17:07, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Media review — pass

• File:Tamar Braxton V-100 Meet & Greet.jpg is the same image used on the "My Man" article and I have already checked that there are no licensing issues.
• File:HotSugarTamarBraxtonAudioSample.ogg is also appropriately licensed with an adequate fair-use rationale.--NØ 17:24, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

• Thank you for the media review! I did not expect reviews so quickly and I appreciate it. Aoba47 (talk) 17:46, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Support based on the prose. Heartfox (talk) 17:30, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

• Thank you for the support. I agree with the edits you have made to the article, and apologies for some of those silly mistakes. Aoba47 (talk) 17:46, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

CommentsSupport from Chris

• ""Hot Sugar" is song" => ""Hot Sugar" is a song"
• "describing it has having" => "describing it as having"
• "Writing for Democrat and Chronicle" => "Writing for the Democrat and Chronicle"
• "The Tampa Bay Times's Joshua Gillin predicted "Hot Sugar" might be successful on radio, but he believed this could occur"
• "According to the ABC News Radio" => "According to ABC News Radio"
• "Addressing criticism about the male dancer's clothing" => "Addressing criticism about the male dancers' clothing"
• Think that's it -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:37, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

• @ChrisTheDude: Thank you for the review as always. Some of these were really silly mistakes on my part so apologies for that and I am glad they are now corrected. I believe I have addressed everything, except for the part on the Tampa Bay Times as I am not sure what the suggestion is there. Aoba47 (talk) 22:50, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:15, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

• Thank you for the support. Aoba47 (talk) 15:40, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Support by Unlimitedlead

• "The lyrics are about maintaining a relationship": Somewhat brief, could more be said?

• Unfortunately, not really. Only a few of the music critics really discuss the song's overall meaning, and it is mostly restricted to some variant of what is in the lead (i.e. maintaining a relationship or keeping a man). I checked through the sources again, and unfortunately, none of them really get into the specifics. Most of the coverage was focused on the song's production. Aoba47 (talk) 23:23, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

• "...which tested better on radio": What is meant by this? Would something like "...which performed better on radio" make sense?

• That is a fair question. I have replaced "tested" with "performed" as you have suggested as it covers the same basic principle. "Tested" may just be too much of a music industry term or jargon to be understood by a wider readership. What this part basically means is that prior to being officially released as a single, songs were sent out to radio stations to get a feel on how people would respond to them and depending on how they tested, they would either be pushed as a single or replaced by something else that did better. I could put that as a note if necessary like I did with the music showcase note. Aoba47 (talk) 22:53, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

• "The music video 'Hot Sugar' was...": Minor, but I believe this would make more sense as "The music video for 'Hot Sugar' was..."

• Thank you for catching this. The previous wording was incorrect so I have revised this point. Aoba47 (talk) 22:54, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

• "...Love and War;[2][7] while on...": The usage of the word "while" implies some sort of correlation, which the following clause does not indicate.

• Removed "while" as it was not entirely necessary. Aoba47 (talk) 23:07, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

• I think you should briefly introduce 106 & Park as a music show.

• Added. Aoba47 (talk) 23:07, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

• "The Tampa Bay Times's Joshua Gillin predicted "Hot Sugar" might be successful on radio, but he believed this could occur as he found it to be 'just that meh': I think you should reword this sentence; I do not know what it is trying to tell me.

• I have attempted to revise this part, but let me know if further revision would be helpful. This is the full sentence from the source regarding this: "I do expect to hear the song on endless repeat on the radio, though, because it's just that meh." From my understanding, Gillin is predicting the song would have radio success because he finds it generic and safe, and that slots into the criticism that some have about radio only play music that adheres to popular trends. Aoba47 (talk) 23:07, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

• "...August 28, 2013, through...": Why the comma?

• A comma is necessary after a full date. Aoba47 (talk) 23:07, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

• "Addressing criticism about the male dancer's clothing...": What Chris said about the apostrophe; also, what about the clothing drew criticism? Their inappropriateness?

• I have revised the apostrophe. The source unfortunately does not delve into the actual criticism beyond Braxton saying: "It’s okay for men to dance in kilts!" I remember that when this video was released, there was criticism (from online commentators) about the male dancers appearing in what they considered feminine attire. This type of criticism was focused on men's sexual orientation and gender expectations with clothing, and it got very uncomfortable very quickly. I have attempted to revise the prose to address this, but unfortunately, this kind of stuff was not directly addressed in reliable sources. Aoba47 (talk) 23:07, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

That is all from me at this time. Unlimitedlead (talk) 20:44, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

• @Unlimitedlead: Thank you for the review! I believe that I have addressed everything, and I have left responses above that will hopefully answer your questions. If further explanations or revisions are necessary, I would be more than happy to talk through it further so the article can get into the best shape possible. I hope you are doing well and have a great rest of your weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 23:23, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

I will support this nomination. Good work. Unlimitedlead (talk) 23:25, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the support. I greatly appreciate it. Aoba47 (talk) 23:34, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Support from PMC

Reserving my spot, should comment within the week. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:39, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! Take all the time you need. Aoba47 (talk) 07:21, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

• I made a tweak to the sentence about genre in the lead, but feel free to revert me

• I greatly appreciate your revision. It improve that part a lot. Aoba47 (talk) 22:18, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

• Shouldn't the caption for the first image refer to the album Love and War, not the song?

• You are right. It should be about the album. Apologies for that silly error. I have been making a lot of those with this article for some reason. I have revised it. Aoba47 (talk) 22:18, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

• Per WP:JR I think Stewart II should just be referred to as Stewart

• Thank you for the link. I have revised. Aoba47 (talk) 22:18, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

• "On September 3, 2013, "Hot Sugar" was made available as part of the album's release." What does this mean? Was it a promo single? Some kind of digital download sneak peak?

• This song was never released as a single. With that sentence, I was trying to convey that the song became available when the album was released. I have tried to revise it, but I am not sure if my revision is any better so I would more than welcome any suggestions or edits. Aoba47 (talk) 22:18, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

• Hmm. I see some other articles for songs that aren't singles that use wording like ""This Song" is the third track on That Album, which was released on Novembuary 37, 20xx, via Some Record Label." Thoughts? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:11, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

• "vibe" might be slightly too slangy/informal to be encyclopedic. I'm not terribly bothered by it, but if there is a different word you could sub, that might be better.

• You are right. It is not the best word choice for Wikipedia. I have replaced it with "tone", but I would be more than open to suggestions. Aoba47 (talk) 22:18, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

• I revised the sentence about Gillin's feelings - it just felt a bit tied up in itself. As always feel free to revert.

• Thank you for the edits as your version is miles better than my wording. I think I was just looking at it for too long and I could not get out of my own head with it. Aoba47 (talk) 22:18, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

• Oh gosh I do this to myself all the time. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:25, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

• "Tamar did not enjoy their appearance" - is there any more detail about that? Seems like an interesting piece of drama

• It was very dramatic. I used the episode (with a timestamp) as a primary source. Tamar was mad at her sisters because she thought their surprise appearance ruined the concert, which she described as a big moment in her career. It actually fits in with how earlier sections in the article discuss Tamar wanting to advance her career.
• The episode features more of this, specifically Tamar yelling at her sisters and kicking them out of the concert, but I was not sure if that was worth mentioning and I did not want to give this moment undue weight, especially since it would cited through a primary source. I tried to keep it short for that reason. Aoba47 (talk) 22:55, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

• I think what you've gone with is quite good - gets the drama across but doesn't get bogged down in it. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:11, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

That's all I got! Pretty clean and straightforward song article, so not much to gripe about :) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:41, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

• @Premeditated Chaos: Thank you for your review. I greatly appreciate it. I believe that I have addressed everything, but please let me know if anything needs further work. I hope you have a great weekend. Aoba47 (talk) 23:02, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

• Ready to support. I did leave one suggestion about how to introduce the release date for the track, but feel free to not do it if you don't like it. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:11, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

• @Premeditated Chaos: Thank you for the suggestion. I have integrated it into the article. Aoba47 (talk) 23:28, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Source review — pass

• Before commencing the source review, I wanted to ask about the four usages of Idolator and whether they're replaceable, as this has been a problematic source on other FACs. I also have a concern about AXS, which is a ticket retailer. I think the fact that they're involved with selling tickets for concerts by certain artists might compromise their ability to do neutral critical reviews. Is there information available about the specific author?--NØ 19:02, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

• @MaranoFan: I have removed the AXS source and a majority of the Idolator sources. For the most part, I could not find anything to replace the removed Idolator sources, except for one regarding a live performance. I did keep one Idolator article because it was done through Vibe and it was written by Kathy Iandoli who is a respected music critic who has been published in many publications. Aoba47 (talk) 21:04, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

• Media notes often don't include track lengths, would it be possible to cite a digital source for it (e.g. Apple Music)?

• Revised. I used the AllMusic source, which includes the track lengths for the entire album. Aoba47 (talk) 15:26, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

• The Devin source says "Tamar Braxton keeps it fierce and fabulous in the video for 'Hot Sugar.' The R&B diva flaunts her moves" - I'm not getting that he "commended Braxton's dance moves" from this

• Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 15:26, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

• It might be better to also not state "Joshua Gillin panned the music video" as this is not something directly stated in the source. I think the quote suffices

• Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 15:26, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

• Other than that, the references appear to be consistently formatted and the sources seem okay reliability-wise for the contexts in which they are used.
• Apologies for making a non-source-related comment, but I noticed Makeba Riddick's full name is repeated in the 'Background and Release' and 'Music and lyrics' sections. Since she has a distinct last name, maybe the second usage could be shortened to that.--NØ 01:45, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

• @MaranoFan: No need to apologize. I agree. I have revised that part. Let me know if any further revisions are necessary. Aoba47 (talk) 15:26, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

• Everything seems to be in order on the sourcing front. Good luck with this nomination!--NØ 09:20, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

NØ

• I think it would be fine to lose the word "recorded" in the opening sentence, since Braxton's contributions to this song include songwriting

• Removed. Aoba47 (talk) 19:20, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

• "it was replaced by the album's title track, which performed better on radio" - If "Hot Sugar" was never issued to radio, how did the title track perform better?

• "Hot Sugar" was never released as a fully-fledged single, but it is common for record labels to send songs out to radio stations (as a form of "radio stations") to gauge if a song should or should not released as a single. It is all about if it tests well or not.
• I have added a note, which specifies how this particular song was sent out to radio and has a broader definition for "radio testing" in general. It seems like a common thing for record labels, but like with a lot of the behind-the-scenes aspects of music, it is not really publicly discussed as much. For a different example of this, Kelly Clarkson briefly mentioning testing in this interview at around the 38:24 mark. It seems to be a very "music industry" term so I agree that further clarification was necessary. Aoba47 (talk) 19:20, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

• The lead uses "in Tamartiangram" and the Music video section uses "on Tamartiangram"

• Revised to "on". Aoba47 (talk) 19:20, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

• "the directors had abandoned it in mid-production"

• Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 19:20, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

• "Stewart produced the song, which was mixed and recorded by Michael Donaldson" - Donaldson's roles could be shifted to active voice, something like: "Stewart produced the song, and Michael Donaldson mixed and recorded it"

• Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 19:20, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

• "Riddick described the production as "a hard, bouncy beat that we knew was gonna make the clubs go crazy"" - I think this sentence could be conveyed better, as a beat is a part of a song's production and not the entirety of it. How about "Riddick thought the production incorporated "a hard, bouncy beat that we knew was gonna make the clubs go crazy""

• Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 19:20, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

• "Despite having mixed reviews for the album's uptempo songs" - I thought "mixed reviews" is generally used to describe diverging opinions among a number of people. Is it possible to be more specific about what Rayam said about the uptempo songs?

• I have added a quote to hopefully clarify this, but I would be more than happy to revise this further if necessary. The basic gist is that she felt the uptempo songs were uneven in quality or were a mixed bag. Aoba47 (talk) 19:20, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

• Is it possible to very briefly introduce what 106 & Park is, as it does not have an article and this may not be immediately obvious to readers

• 106 & Park does have an article. It was just linked and discussed in an earlier section. I have moved that down to the "Music video" section as it is more pertinent there. Aoba47 (talk) 19:20, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

• "According to Braxton, she had to hire other people to edit and complete it" - This reads more like a claim than an opinion so how about "Braxton claimed that she had to hire other people to edit and complete it"?

• Good point. Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 19:23, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

• Upon first reading, it wasn't clear to me what an industry showcase is so I am glad to see a detailed note about this!

• Thank you! Like with "radio testing", it is very much an industry term. Maybe one day I will either try to put together an article or write something where it can be linked for unfamiliar readers. You can thank the reviewers for the Manos Arriba FAC as they really helped me to create and formulate this note. Aoba47 (talk) 19:23, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

• "was included on the set list of the Love and War Tour" - very nitpicky of me but I prefer "set list for the Love and War Tour" over "set list of the Love and War Tour"

• Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 19:23, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

• There's a maintenance message about the media notes that seems to go away if the publisher field is replaced with author

• Thank you for this note as I could never figure out what was causing this message in the first place. Aoba47 (talk) 19:23, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

That's all from me. Great work as always and I am open to hearing your explanations if I am wrong on any points.--NØ 09:34, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

@MaranoFan: Thank you for your review. I greatly appreciate it. I believe that I have addressed everything, but please let me know if further revision would be necessary. I hope you have a great rest of your weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 19:23, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for addressing everything. I now support this article for promotion.--NØ 06:22, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the help and the support! Aoba47 (talk) 17:48, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Support from Gog the Mild

Recusing to review.

• "the song's genre as club, dance, and hip hop." Should that "and" be 'or'? And "interpreted the song's genre as club, dance, and hip hop" in the lead does not seem to me to be a reasonable summary of "describing it as having influences from club, dance, and hip hop."

• Revised to better represent that these are interpretations of the musical influences and the genre. You are correct that the lead was not representing this information well. Apologies for that. I have also changed it to "or" as I agree that is better wording. Aoba47 (talk) 21:28, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

• "her second studio album, Love and War (2013)." Suggest 'her second studio album, Love and War, which was released in 2013.'

• Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 21:28, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

• " "Hot Sugar" was planned to be issued as the lead single from Love and War before it was replaced by the album's title track". If "Hot Sugar" was never released as a single, it may be worth explicitly saying so.

• I am uncertain on how to explicitly say this in the article when there is not a source that specifically says the song never got a single release. Aoba47 (talk) 21:28, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

• "leather pants and kilts." I am guessing - I may be wrong - that → 'leather pants or kilts'.

• Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 21:28, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

• "doing a "groin stretch"." Why the qoute marks?

• Removed. I just was uncertain if this was the name of a real stretch or not. Aoba47 (talk) 21:28, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

• "she viewed the video was her way of". "viewed" in the context of video is confusing. Perhaps 'considered'?

• Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 21:28, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

• "Braxton first performed "Hot Sugar" at a 2012 industry showcase". Do you mean the first live performance? If so, say so.

• Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 21:28, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Well written, flows nicely and seems comprehensive. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:03, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

• @Gog the Mild: Thank you for your review. I always appreciate it and thank you for taking the time to do so. I believe that I have addressed everything. The only thing I have not changed was explicitly saying that the song was never released as a sing since that is not explicitly stated in any sources. Let me know if there is anything further I can do to improve the article. I hope you are doing well and have a great rest of your day and/or night! Aoba47 (talk) 21:28, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Good evening Aoba47, you flatterer. Always a pleasure to read classy articles. Outside my usual areas, but it behoves a coordinator to be a jack of all trades. Well up to FAC standard and I hope my colleagues will get it promptly promoted. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:43, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words. I should review more FACs outside of my usual areas. It is a great way to learn more and would help me improve as a reviewer. Not going to lie, I am looking forward to this promotion so I can take a break from Wikipedia for a bit, but I am in no rush of course. Aoba47 (talk) 21:50, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

I find that reviewing completely different types of articles to those I write gets me away from the standard tropes and introduces me to new ways of writing, and occasionally even thinking. Both of which I find refreshing. We will miss your reviews, but you have certainly earnt the right to put your feet up for a bit. Enjoy. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:16, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 10:57, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 17 July 2023 [19].

---

Battle Birds

Nominator(s): Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:53, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

This article is about one of the many air way pulp magazines that flourished from the late 1920s through World War II. It had a brief incarnation as a science fiction title, under the title Dusty Ayres and His Battle Birds. The article is short, but I think I've included everything that's been written about it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:53, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:06, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Aoba47

• Just to be clear, this is just a clarification question. Is "air-war" a common descriptor for this kind of genre? I have never heard of this phrase before, but these kinds of stories are very much outside of the usual genres I read so it may just be because of that.

  Yes, it shows up fairly often in the sources. Do you think a link is necessary? There's no article on the genre, but I could it to aerial warfare. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:55, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

  Thank you for the explanation. I do not think a link is necessary because it is a concept that can be easily understood on its own (at least in my opinion). It was just something that I wanted to double-check about as I am not super familiar with this genre. Aoba47 (talk) 23:56, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

• I have a comment about this part, (with Robert Sidney Bowen, an established pulp writer, providing a lead novel each month, and also writing the short stories that filled out the issue), in the lead. I would avoid the "with X verb-ing" sentence construction as I have seen this point frequently raised in FACs. I do not have a strong opinion about it, but it is still something I'd avoid.

  Removed. My understanding is that's technically a perfectly correct construction, but people dislike it because of the passive phrasing, and I can see their point. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:55, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

  That's fair. As I said above, I do not have strong feelings about it either way. It is just something that I avoid using as I know that it is disliked for FAs/FACs. I could see the rationale being against passive voice. I do remember seeing a more detailed explanation for this at some point, but it was a while back so I cannot fully remember it. Aoba47 (talk) 23:56, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

• I have a question about this part, (Charles Lindbergh's recent flight across the Atlantic), specifically with the "recent" word choice. While in the context of the paragraph, this word choice makes sense as it is meant to connect with the earlier "the summer of 1927" wording, but would it be more beneficial to add in the time it happened (May 1927) to avoid any potential confusion. Something about the "recent" wording just raised a red flag in my head so I wanted to ask about it.

  Good idea; done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:55, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

• I would make sure pulp magazine is linked on the first instance in the body of the article to be consistent with the linking in the lead. I have the same comment for hero pulp.

  Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:55, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

• At the start of the "Contents" section, there is an instance of the citations not being in numeric order. Is there a reason for this?

  No -- I occasionally will put the most important citation first, which can lead to them being out of numerical order, but in this case the Weinberg is the main citation, so I switched them. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:55, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

  Thank you for the clarification. I always like to make sure and avoid changing it because I know different editors have different reasons for citation ordering (which are all valid in my opinion). Aoba47 (talk) 23:56, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

• The article says that the magazine's stories were set in the future, but do we know any further information about that (i.e. the year or how many years in the future)? The article seems vague on that point so I get the impression that exact dates or specifics were not given, but I still wanted to ask to make sure.

  I haven't found anything that gives the dates. I've never read one of these, but just based on what I know of the genre, I would guess it wasn't set very far in the future -- just far enough for the changes to not seem too implausible. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:55, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

  That makes sense to me, and it fits the vibe and interpretation that I get when reading the article. Aoba47 (talk) 23:56, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

• I have a question about this part, (unusually for a pulp series). I have not read any pulps so apologies in advance if this is obvious, but is this meaning that pulps traditionally do not have an ending that wraps up the story?

  The source calls it "an unusual break with tradition" to end the series -- typically a publisher wouldn't want to do anything that would make it hard to bring the magazine (or character) back for more stories if they decided there was a market. Hero pulps did sometimes resurface after long periods; that happened to Nick Carter, for example. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:55, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

  That makes sense to me. I had not considered how pulp characters do resurface even after long periods of absence. It kind of reminds to comic book characters in a certain sense where a lot of their stories do not really have concrete endings to keep the door open for future appearances. Aoba47 (talk) 23:56, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

• I have a question about this part, (included a letter column). Would this be similar to a comic book letter column? Just asking as a link may be helpful, but I could also see that link being unnecessarily confusing since the article is focused on comics not pulps.

  I did think about the link, but since this is a pulp I decided to skip it. To be honest I don't think letter column should really redirect to comic book letter column, since the latter is just a special case of the former. But to answer your question, yes, the two things are essentially identical. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:55, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

  I agree with your rationale. To be honest, I was somewhat astonished when letter column redirected to the article on the comic book version, and this is coming from someone who is familiar with the concept because of comic books. It is an odd case for sure, but I think the current version makes the most sense. Aoba47 (talk) 23:56, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

  Jumping in here to say that I changed the redirect so that letter column now points to Letter to the editor, a more generic subject. Don't know if this changes the response to the above point? Oh, and I plan to come back and do a review of this article later :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:01, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks, Chris. I think the best fix would be to change the focus of the existing article so it doesn't just talk about comics. Letter columns were a major way for early sf fans to contact each other, and I doubt there's enough difference between the comic and magazine letter columns to justify a separate article. I'll see if I have any sources that talk about this, and might post something on the article talk page. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:36, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Everything looks solid to me. A majority of my comments above are either clarification questions or minor nitpicks. Once everything has been addressed, I will read through the article a few more times just to make sure I do my due diligence as a reviewer. Hope you are having a great end to your weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 16:53, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the review! Very helpful, as always. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:55, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

I am glad that I could help. I will read through the article again tomorrow. I do not imagine that I will find anything further. Aoba47 (talk) 23:56, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Everything looks good to me. I support this FAC for promotion based on the prose. Aoba47 (talk) 17:47, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by Chris

• "The next issue, March 1940, inaugurated a bimonthly run that last until the final issue" => "The next issue, March 1940, inaugurated a bimonthly run that lasted until the final issue"

  Fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:32, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

• Does the table meet accessibility requirements, given that it uses only colour to differentiate the issues edited by the different editors.....?

  I think so -- the information conveyed by colour is also given in the text, in the "Bibliographic details" section. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:32, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

• Think that's all I got! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:11, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks for the review! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:32, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:10, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

SC

Putting down a marker - SchroCat (talk) 21:00, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Contents

• "with another power; and to avoid": you don't need the "and" after a semi colon

  Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:26, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

• Dusty Ayres: you refer to him in the first para bas both "Dusty" and "Ayres": worth thinking about just using one of the names?

  Hadn't noticed I'd done that; thanks for spotting it. Made it "Ayres" in both places. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:26, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

• "an expert airplane painter": it's really pedantic of me, but I have an image of a man in overalls and pot of paint, painting the sides of a 747: "an expert painter of airplanes" would diminish that. (It's probably just me reading it that way, so I don't push the point here).

  Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:26, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

That's it: the usual excellent work. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:20, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

SchroCat: thanks for the review; sorry about the delay in replying. All dealt with, I think. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:26, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

No probs. All good now. Happy to support. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:45, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Comments from HAL

• told Steeger he would like to be the author of a hero pulp magazine --> "told Steeger he wanted to be the author of a hero pulp magazine" More concise, but feel free to disregard.
• novels all written by a single author -- I feel that "all" and "single" serve the same effective purpose.
• Bowen's stories were all to be set in the future --> "Bowen's stories were set in the future"

  The above three are done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:36, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

• The magazine was relaunched in February 1940 Do the sources state why it was relaunched? Was it due to the outbreak of WWII in Europe and Asia?

  Unfortunately the sources don't say, though that's a good guess. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:36, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

• The sentence starting "The Dusty Ayres version of the magazine included..." doesn't really follow the previous sentence -- it's not chronological.

  I reversed the order of those two sentences. The 1940 relaunch is a bit of a non sequitur, but it needs to be in there. I could move the Dusty Ayres sentence to the end of the previous paragraph, but that would leave a one-sentence paragraph. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:36, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

• Battle Birds was published by Popular Publications, and launched in December 1932 has already been stated. I might reword that bit.

  The bibliographic details section is meant as a summary of the bits and pieces of bibliographic data, so I'd rather not eliminate anything on the basis that it's already been said earlier. I've tried a rephrasing. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:36, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

• for the first run of Battle Birds is needs italics

  Oops; done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:36, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Brief but well put together, hence the fact that these were largely nit-picks. ~ HAL333 01:15, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the review -- responses above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:36, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Happy to support. ~ HAL333 04:10, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Source review - pass

The sources used all appear to me to be both reliable and high quality. The sources referred to seem to support the text cited, insofar as I have checked them. I found no unattributed close paraphrasing. I consider the sources to be current, as these things go. A reasonable mix of perspectives are represented. Everything that I would expect to be cited, is. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:21, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Drive-by comment

• "Bowen also wrote all the short stories for Dusty Ayres, unlike other hero pulps where other authors usually provided the short fiction." 1. "other" twice in five words is not ideal. 2. I am not entirely clear what you mean. Is it something like 'Bowen also wrote all the short stories for Dusty Ayres, unlike other hero pulps where several different authors usually provided the short fiction'? Gog the Mild (talk) 13:21, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, that's exactly the intended meaning. I went ahead and used your wording. This was quite unusual (and the source does specifically comment on it); in most hero pulps the publisher would contract with a single author for the lead novels, but would then accept stories from any writer on the same general topic -- detective stories in The Shadow, for example. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:58, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 11:23, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 17 July 2023 [20].

---

Baljuna Covenant

Nominator(s): ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:29, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

The year is 1203. A middle-aged tribal chieftain has been betrayed by his lord; his meagre forces have been annihilated in battle, and he's been forced into headlong flight with a a small group of loyalists. They camp by a nondescript body of water (lake? river? does it matter?) to gather their wits. The chieftain looks around at the men who have followed him, even into these desparate straits, and knows he has to reward such loyalty. He takes a drink of the dirty water and swears an oath of mutual fidelity; his companions return the gesture. They take for themselves a title–not a noble one, but something ignominious, reflecting their situation. The Baljunatu, the "Muddy Water Drinkers"? That's really all they are, for the moment.

Mere decades later, millions of people and half the world live in awe of the power and name of that minor chieftain, a certain Genghis Khan. His empire spans Eurasia, and his generals wreak devastation on the greatest cities of the world. And he honoured the oath he swore on that dirty shoreline all those years ago—all the Muddy Water Drinkers belong to the highest nobility in the largest land empire the world has seen or will ever know. That is the story of the Baljuna Covenant.

I created this article in userspace in late April, and moved it to articlespace earlier this month. It has received a GA review from Golden, and now I submit it for consideration at FAC. I hope you enjoy.~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:29, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

ChrisTheDude's comments

• "hence known as the Baljunatu" - I think "subsequently known as the Baljunatu" would work better

• Done.

• "probably on account of the heterogeneity" - the what now? Is there a link to whatever this word means?

• Included; explained further in the relevant section.

• "and he, his mother, and six other siblings, were all abandoned" => "and he, his mother, and six other siblings were all abandoned"

• I'm never the best with commas. Fixed.

• "and Temüjin only escaped here because" => "and Temüjin only escaped because"

• Removed.

• "Despite the danger he waited through the following night for his surving troops to collect" => "Despite the danger he waited through the following night for his surving troops to gather"

• Done, also apparently misspelt "surviving".

• "emphasise the situation's exigency" - what's that last word mean?

• the urgent needs of the situation.

• BTW I notice that there you wrote "emphasise", but earlier you wrote "realized", so you are mixing and matching UK and US English - pick one and use it throughout

• Done.

• Think that's it! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:05, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

• Thanks for your comments, ChrisTheDude. All actioned. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:38, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

• Support - "exigency" must be quite an obscure word, as I've never heard it before, but I guess it's valid so I won't quibble over that -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:34, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Comments from HAL

• "1203 AD by Temüjin, the future Genghis Khan, and a small group of companions, hence known as the Baljunatu" I would use dashes rather than commas, which give the appearance of a serial list and that Temujin and Genghis Khan are two different people.

• Good idea.

• Per Criteria 3, I think one or two images in the body would be appropriate.

• I don't think any of the available ones would be that relevant, or sufficiently cross the boundary from decorative to illustrative, for two reasons: 1) the Mongols were never great artists, so we have very medieval depictions of these events, and 2) those that have survived, found in Mongolia or China, have almost certainly not been uploaded to Commons.

• "fortuitously wild horse" - Why was it fortuitous that the horse was wild?

• Good catch, clarified.

• "the Onggirat, the tribe of his wife Börte," -- did Borte belong to the Onggirat or some othe unnamed tribe? Clarify.

• Done

• "of the historian Jack Weatherford" -- maybe remove "the"

• Done, but I don't think it sounds great.

• "Palladius in the 1860s to E. H. Parker, the influential Paul Pelliot, Arthur Waley and René Grousset" -- Oxford comma missing

• Added

• "Jochi had been born after his mother Börte had been kidnapped" sounds a little awkward.

• Simplified.

That's all I got. Interesting subject. ~ HAL333 20:03, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

• Thanks for your comments, HAL333. Responded above. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:38, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

• I hate to be a stickler, but I'll give my 'support' if you add just one photo (maybe of the Ingoda River?). ~ HAL333 21:25, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

• Added one of the 1206 kurultai HAL333 ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:51, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

• Wonderful. Happy to support. ~ HAL333 14:52, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Support from Unlimitedlead

• I note that Secret History of the Mongols is linked twice, and the second mention offers a brief description of the text, whereas the first mention does not. I would rectify that, and possibly remove the second link.
• On that note, I would very briefly introduce the Secret History of the Mongols in the lead when it is mentioned.

• Removed second link, transferred introduction to first link in body. I don't think I'd like to add in too short an introduction in the lead ("an early source", for example, is so vague it might as well not be there).

• I do not think Mongolia needs to be linked at all, especially twice.

• Removed. both links.

• "Escaping two successive ambushes, the Mongol leader was cornered and comprehensively defeated": This sentence havily implies that Toghrul was the one who was defeated. I do not think Temüjin can be considered "the Mongol leader" at this point.

• Toghrul is not a Mongol, he is a Kerait, while Temüjin is the Mongol leader because he rules the Mongol tribe. We are not yet at the stage where anyone who lives in the steppe defines themselves as a Mongol—that is the result of Temüjin's later superiority.

• "the Mongol Temüjin" is an odd phrase. I would work in the fact that Temüjin was Mongol in the very first sentence to avoid this kind of strange wording.

• Good catch

• "In spring 1203, when Temüjin proposed a marriage alliance between him and Toghrul": Upon first read, I thought the article was saying that Temüjin wished to marry Toghrul. That would be quite, um, awkward. Please rephrase to spare others the embarrassment I had when I realised what you were actually trying to say.

• Yes, I can see how that would be confusing. Fixed, hopefully.

• Introduce Rashid al-Din Hamadani?

• Hmm. I note that you don't suggest introducing Marco Polo in the same sentence? I don't think that quite WP:NPOV, frankly, especially considering Rashid's influence.

Good point! I think both people should be introduced, but it is not a significant matter of concern. Unlimitedlead (talk) 14:43, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

• Introduce the Yuán Shǐ?

• Done.

• "...in the words of historian Jack Weatherford": false title?

• Oof. This was recommended by HAL333 above—my sympathies are with U (heh) on this, so I've changed to the previous version.

• John Man (author) is linked twice in the Sources section.

• I know this is not recommended, but I prefer this because the reader can get the full extent of information by hovering over any inline citation, rather than if they're lucky enough to hover over the right one.

Lovely to see another article from Airship. This has got to be one of the highest-quality articles I have ever read on Wikipedia: not only was it comprehensive and thorough, but it was easy to follow and pleasing to learn about. Well done. Unlimitedlead (talk) 21:44, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

• Many thanks for your comments and effusive compliments, Unlimitedlead. Responses above. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:37, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Not a problem. Everything seems to be all good now, so I am happy to support this nomination. Great work. Unlimitedlead (talk) 14:43, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Image review - pass

All images are appropriately licenced, positioned, captioned and alt texted. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:05, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Drive-by comment

• McLynn (2015) needs a publisher location. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:07, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

• Done. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:43, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Support from Gog the Mild

Recusing to review.

• "in summer 1203 AD". Per MOS:SEASON, consider 'in mid-1203' or similar. Likewise in the main text.

• Done with instances of spring, summer, and autumn.

• "Escaping two successive ambushes". Perhaps 'After escaping two successive ambushes'?

• Done

• "the Keraites ... the Kereit". Is there a reason for the inconsistency?

• Just forgetting which transliteration I'm using.

• "honoured the Baljunatu with the highest honours"; "honoured ... honours". It would be nice to use a synonym for one.

• Good call. Replaced.

• "The episode was omitted ... from the Secret History of the Mongols," I think you need to give some idea of what this is for a reader to make sense of the sentence.

• Rephrased the sentence and added, with reluctance.

• "He was supported in his position". Does "He" refer to Jochi, Temüjin, Senggum or Toghrul?

• Clarified.

• "he hoped to find reinforcements and seek sanctuary across the border if necessary." "and" → 'or'?

• Nope, reinforcements are always useful, even when seeking sanctuary, and were thus always the priority.

• "the size of the Mongol force was very small at either 2,600 or 4,600 warriors". I am not sure that 4,000 men counts as "very small". And by "Mongol", do you mean Temüjin's Mongols?

• Temüjin's Mongols are the only Mongols. At this point, the Mongols are simply a tribe, not a nation of many tribes. As whether 4,000 men counts as "very small", that is a) what WP:RS say and b) a small fraction of the 100,000 warriors Temüjin ruled a few years down the line.

• Given references such as "Yesugei, a Mongol chieftain ... on the Mongol steppe ... dominant in eastern Mongolia" a casual reader may be forgiven for not realising that "Temüjin's Mongols are the only Mongols. At this point, the Mongols are simply a tribe" etc, which I do not see explained in the article. Perhaps "the Mongol force" → 'Temüjin's force'?

• Done.

• "the size of the Mongol force was very small at either 2,600 or 4,600 warriors ... stating Temüjin was accompanied by only nineteen followers". I am missing something here.

• The Yuán Shǐ greatly exaggerates the situation, which I have clarified; the nineteen followers is certainly hyperbole, but probably based on a kernel of truth. Please let me know if further clarification is required.

• "Ja'far and Hasan". Were these two individuals or groups? And what military assistance were they able to offer?

• Does "the Muslim merchants Ja'far and Hasan" not make it clear enough that they were individuals? I am unsure how to clarify this. In any case, they were able to offer temporary economic security ;) for Temüjin's army.

• Hmm. I would like to see the sheep thing explained in the article. A reader is likely to have some grasp of what support military leaders could offer, but less so regarding two individual merchants. However, I can't see a way of doing this felicitously.

• Revised.

• "in a total of nine different clans." "in" → 'from'.
• "Over the next three years, he defeated the Naimans and Merkits". Who is "he"?

• Good catches.

• "he held a great kurultai". Could there be an in line explanation of "kurultai", per MOS:NOFORCELINK. (Do use a link wherever appropriate, but as far as possible do not force a reader to use that link to understand the sentence. The text needs to make sense to readers who cannot follow links.)
• Cite 19 should be 'p', not "pp".

• Both done.

Nice work. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:19, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your comments Gog the Mild. Responses above. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:12, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

A couple of come backs above, more (ok, one, maybe two) to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:57, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Responded to the above, Gog the Mild. Since you're already recused, and you made a relevant comment above, could I ask if you're willing to do the source review as well? I believe that's needed for a second nomination, which I'd like to be getting on with for Wikicup purposes. If not, thanks anyway for your always-pertinent comments. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:53, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I could do that. Dunno how speedy it will be, but it's gonna be at least another week before anyone looks at it with a view to closing. Possibly longer. Remember to save your 600 pointers for the last round ;-) . Gog the Mild (talk) 21:04, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

I need to get it to GA first Gog the Mild! ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:22, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Source review - pass

The sources used all appear to me to be reliable. The sources referred to seem to support the text cited, insofar as I have checked them. I found no unattributed close paraphrasing. I consider the sources to be current. A reasonable mix of perspectives are represented. Everything that I would expect to be cited, is. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:32, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

This candidacy has now received multiple supports and has passed image and source reviews. Could I have dispensation to nominate a second article, @FAC coordinators: ? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:57, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

You may. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:11, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 11:30, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 17 July 2023 [21].

---

Geoff Bent

Nominator(s): Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 07:17, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Geoff Bent was one of Manchester United's lesser known Busby Babes that died in the Munich air disaster in 1958. He never became a first-team regular, as the club captain, Roger Byrne played the same position. Bent only travelled to Belgrade because of a slight injury Byrne was carrying, and ultimately did not play in the match. This is a pretty short article, but as Bent only made 12 first-team appearances, I think the length is suitable for the subject. My only slight concern is that a lot of the sources tend towards hagiography. This was a guy who was 25 and hadn't neither forced his way into the Manchester United team, nor made a move elsewhere to play first-team football, and yet most of the sources talk about him as though he was the next big thing, and was just very unlucky that the current big thing played for the same team. I can only reflect the sources though, so while I have tried to temper the language and stick to the facts, or at least quoted praise, I can't balance them out, because there aren't the sources to do that. Anyway, as always, all feedback greatly appreciated. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 07:17, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Comments from ChrisTheDude

• Wikilink "first team"? (both in lead and body)
  • Done. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 11:59, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
• Left back has a hyphen in some places but not others
  • Done. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 11:59, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
• Wikilink First Division (both in lead and body)
  • Done. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 11:59, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
• "the only entrance was from a side alley, and had no indoor toilet" => "the only entrance was from a side alley, and the house had no indoor toilet"
  • Done. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 11:59, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
• "Bent was a member of both" => "He was a member of both" (so you don't have two consecutive sentences both starting with "Bent")
  • Done. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 11:59, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
• "was awarded a medal from his local Humane Society" => "was awarded a medal by his local Humane Society"
  • Done. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 11:59, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
• Wikilink half back and left back on first use in body
  • Done. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 11:59, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
• "in the English School's Trophy" - suspect this is/was actually called the English Schools Trophy (no apostrophe)
  • Done. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 11:59, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
• "players were not allowed to sign a professional contract with a team until they had left school, so like many of his teammates, Bent also took on an apprenticeship as a joiner" - is this accurate? Surely if he took on an apprenticeship that meant he had already left school....?
  • I've subsequently noticed that the source supporting that statement is available through Google Books and found the relevant passage. I think the source has been slightly misrepresented - it says that a boy "could not sign for a club (i.e. at all) until he left school and then only as an amateur receiving no pay, so until he turned 17 and could sign professional forms entitling him to be paid a wage, he was encouraged to continue in his education or take up a trade". So they could only sign with a club when they left school (which in his case was in May 1949, when he was 16) and professional terms could only follow at 17. Therefore for the purposes of what is relevant to this part of the article, I would change what's currently there to "players were not allowed to become paid professionals until the age of 17, so like many of his teammates, Bent also took on an apprenticeship as a joiner". To summarise, he spent time with the club as a trialist (i.e. without any form of contract at all, simply while the club assessed his abilities) until he left school, then signed an amateur (unpaid) contract when he finished school in May 1949, then signed a professional contract in early 1951..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:08, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
    • Yeah, I think I tried to pull together a few different thoughts and got myself confused. I want to have a read through them all to make sure I'm saying what I'm trying to say when I redo it. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 20:02, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
      • I've added a variation on your suggestion. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 19:55, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
• "who he married on 27 June 1953" => "whom he married on 27 June 1953"
  • Done. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 11:59, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
• "Bent's appearances were again sporadic the following season deputising" => "Bent's appearances were again sporadic the following season, deputising"
  • Done. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 11:59, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
• First team is written both with and without a hyphen (it should definitely have a hyphen when used as an adjective, but I think not when used as a noun
  • I think I've got these correct throughout now. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 11:59, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
• "United drew 3–3, ensuring they won the two-legged tie" - mention the first leg score somewhere....?
  • Added this now. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 19:55, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
• "Bent's funeral and interment was held" => "Bent's funeral and interment were held"
  • Done. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 11:59, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
• That's what I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:17, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Cheers, done the easy ones, with two left for when I have better access to my sources (probably this evening) to figure out. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 11:59, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
    • Thanks ChrisTheDude. Sorry for the delay, "real-life" got crazy. I think I've addressed each point now. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 19:55, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
      • No worries. Happy to now support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:30, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Image review

• Suggest adding alt text

• File:Geoff_Bent.jpg needs a more expansive FUR, and the source link is broken. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:47, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Thanks Nikkimaria, both done. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 13:08, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Support by Pickersgill-Cunliffe

• Not something for you to act on, but interesting that Bent's gravestone give his age as 26, not 25
  • It doesn't say he was 26, it says he was "in his 26th year" i.e. in the year leading up to his 26th birthday. You are "in your first year" between birth and the age of 1, "in your second year" between the ages of 1 and 2 (i.e. when you are actually aged 1), and so on. It's slightly obscure (possibly archaic) wording, but it is accurate -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:20, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
    • Oops! Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 14:30, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
• Suggest linking surfaceman
  • Linked. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 20:34, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
• " He grew up in a typically matriarchal working-class family" I've got no idea what a "typical" matriarchal family would look like, and the sentence works fine without it
  • Removed. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 20:34, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
• Considering it isn't linked, could you clarify where Jacksons Buildings is? I'm assuming Salford
  • Clarified. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 20:34, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
• Link Swinton
  • Linked. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 20:34, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
• "Bent's mother, Clara,"
  • Removed. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 20:34, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
• "he settled down with Marion" Really not a fan of "settled down", but stumped for what you could replace it with!
• Link wing
  • Linked. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 20:34, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
• Article says Byrne "wanted to play at left-back", not that he did play left-back, so the subsequent "Byrne returned to left-back" doesn't quite fit
  • Added a little bit more. I don't want to get too caught up in that drama though, other than the impact it has on Bent. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 20:34, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
• "deputising for either Byrne or Bill Foulkes" our article for Foulkes says he played centre-half, but from this article one assumes Bent is replacing him at left-back
  • I can't find any sources that explicitly state whether Bent replaced Foulkes directly, or whether other players changed position. I guess there is a degree of terminology changing its meaning here. In the 2-3-2-3 formation of the time, the full-backs were close to what we now think of as centre-backs. Whereas what we now call a left-back is more similar to a left half-back of the time. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 20:34, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
• Suggest expanding out the "the following season" link to instead read "the 1955–56 season" to remove confusion in moving from October to April without mentioning a change of year
  • Done. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 20:34, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
• "Modern commentators suggest" such as?
  • Honestly, I know that MOS:WEASEL suggests avoiding this sort of phrasing, but almost every modern source that talks about him in any depth includes this. I've cited it to two sources, but it could be many more. Providing inline attribution would seem oddly specific, and give a different impression. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 20:40, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
• "Busby's refusal to sell him to a rival" was led to understand it was a more general refusal to sell him at all, rather than sell him to a rival
  • Trimmed. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 20:34, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
• "returned to action for the reserve team" does this mean he had continued to play for the reserves since 1951?
• Link Belgrade
  • Linked. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 20:34, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
• "However, as the aircraft approached"
  • I know some people have a grudge against "however", but I honestly think it reads better with it. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 20:34, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
• You never actually say what date the disaster/Bent's death is on
  • Added. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 20:34, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
• "those others" > "the others"
  • Done. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 20:34, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

That's all I've got for now. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 08:31, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

@Pickersgill-Cunliffe: I think I've replied to each point above, other than the "settled down" one, on which I similarly can't immediately think of anything better, but will continue to think on. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 20:40, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

I've been a bit busy over the past couple of weeks, but I should be back around with a bit more availability now, so should get to these soon. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 07:55, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi Harrias. Have you dealt with all of those? If so, could you ping the reviewer? Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:21, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

I did ping @Pickersgill-Cunliffe: above, but I can do it again. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 19:48, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

SC

Early life

• "his local Humane Society": Pipe a link to Royal Humane Society (unless it was a different organisation, obvs)
  • Good spot, linked. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 19:50, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Manchester United

• "signed a professional contract with the team": "with the club" would be more accurate
  • Fair point, changed. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 19:50, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Just those two comments from me; nice piece of work. - SchroCat (talk) 11:15, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Cheers SchroCat. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 19:50, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

• Support. - SchroCat (talk) 20:08, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Support Comments by JennyOz

Hi Harrias, saw this on my watchlist, can't find much to nitpick...

• small house in Jacksons Buildings - ref 38 Manchester Evening News, 10 February 1958 includes an apostrophe ie Jackson's but Roberts doesn't?
  • There is little consistency on this, but the local sources tend to have an apostrophe, so I've added it. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 14:44, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
• However, in the days leading up to the trip, Byrne complained of an injury niggle, and so Busby called up Bent for the trip - this sounds like Bent went in Byrne's stead. Perhaps a tweak like 'called up Bent for the trip in case he was needed' or 'in case Byrne could not play' or similar?
  • Good idea, changed to your second suggestion. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 14:44, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
• "St John's Junior School" and "St Johns churchyard" in caption but "St. John's Church in Pendlebury" has dot?
  • Removed the dot, nice spot. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 14:44, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Sad story well told. JennyOz (talk) 15:42, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks JennyOz, all resolved. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 14:44, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Harrias. Very happy to s'port. JennyOz (talk) 13:48, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Source review - pass

The sources used all appear to be reliable and high quality. The sources referred to support the text cited, insofar as I have checked them. I found no unattributed close paraphrasing. Everything that I would expect to be cited, is. The formatting is acceptable and consistent. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:02, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 11:38, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

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) 16 July 2023 [22].

---

Raymond III, Count of Tripoli

Nominator(s): Borsoka (talk) 08:17, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

This article is about the last Count of Tripoli in the Outremer from the House of Toulouse. Raymond was still a minor when he inherited Tripoli from his father. He spent many years in captivity in Aleppo, and after his release he assumed the regency for the underage king of Jerusalem, Baldwin the Leper. His rivalry with Baldwin's sister Sybilla and her husband Guy of Lusignan brought the Jerusalemite kingdom to the brink of a civil war. He made an alliance with the powerful Saladin but his vassals persuaded him to join the Crusaders' army when Saladin invaded the kingdom. He was one of the few Crusader leaders who fled from the battlefield at Hattin in July 1187, but he died likely of pleurisy before the end of the year. Many of his contemporaries blamed him for Saladin's triumph at the battlefield. Borsoka (talk) 08:17, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Image review

• File:RaymondIIIofTripoli.jpg wrong licensing, I would use PD-scan The source link is dead; how to I verify that this image depicts what is claimed?

(t · c) buidhe 16:05, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

• Good spot. The picture may not depict Raymond so I changed it. Borsoka (talk) 17:31, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Support by Unlimitedlead

Looked at this at PR, happy to review it here as well. Unlimitedlead (talk) 23:28, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

• "...pillage the Byzantine coastline..." and "...sent them to raid the Byzantine coasts and islands...": Link Byzantine?

• Done.

• "...vengeance on Byzantine Emperor Manuel I Komnenos...": Should not it be "...on the Byzantine Emperor Manuel..."? I am unsure myself.

(talk page stalker) Either is acceptable grammatically; they mean slightly different things, but either works here. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:28, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

• I left unchanged.

• "...wealthiest noblemen in the Kingdom of Jerusalem": Link Kingdom of Jerusalem?

• Done.

• "Baldwin reached the age of majority in 1176 and Raymond returned to Tripoli, although the king suffered from lepromatous leprosy": "although" implies some kind of contrast, which is not evident in this sentence.

• Modified. I think there is some kind of contrast.

• "Baldwin married his sister and heir, Sibylla, to the Courtenays' supporter Guy of Lusignan and Raymond had to leave the kingdom": Perhaps it is worth briefly noting that Baldwin married his sister to Guy in a sudden panic. Maybe panic is not the right word, but it should be made clear that this marriage was rushed.

• Modified.

• "...scholarly opinions are divided with some historians accepting William of Tyre's assessment, while others emphasizing Raymond's selfishness and failures": Some kind of grammar issue here- I think "emphasizing" should be "emphasize".

(talk page stalker) I would suggest either 'with others emphasising' or 'while others emphasised'. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:28, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

• Done.

• Why is "political agent" in quotes? Are these scare quotes or a quotation from someone else?

@Borsoka: ? Unlimitedlead (talk) 14:34, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

I need to check the source. I will address this issue later. Borsoka (talk) 06:23, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Explained in the text. Borsoka (talk) 14:05, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

• "Baldwin held an assembly after the burial...": It is understood that the burial here refers to that of Raymond II, but this needs to be said.

• Done.

• "Historian Kevin J. Lewis...": Is this a false title?

• Done.

• Link galleys?

• Done. Borsoka (talk) 17:31, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

I believe the comments from Tim and myself at the PR have sufficiently addressed any major issues with the article, hence my list of minor quibbles. More to follow. Unlimitedlead (talk) 00:01, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

• William of Tyre should be introduced in the body; interestingly he is introduced in the lead but not in the actual text.

• Done.

• "loyal vassals": Another instance of scare quotes?

• Modified.

• "He could persuade Nur ad-Din to release...": He could or he did? Or do you mean "could" as in "was able to"?

• Modified: he was able to ...

• "According to historian Kevin James Lewis...": Another false title?

• Modified.

• "An other contemporanous Muslim scholar...": Why "An other" instead of "Another"?

• Done. Borsoka (talk) 07:57, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

More to follow. Unlimitedlead (talk) 14:34, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

• "After a two-year absence, Raymond decided to again visit Galilee in April 1182 but Agnes of Courtenay and Joscelin III persuaded Baldwin IV to forbid his entrance to the kingdom": This sentence implies that Galilee was a kingdom.

• Modified.

• "Saladin seized Aleppo, the Zengids' last important stronghold in Syria, on 12 June 1183; he soon decided to invade the kingdom...": Which kingdom?

• Modified.

• Links for pope and "kings of France and England"?

• Done.

• "The king was still alive when Raymond sent envoys to Saladin to begin negotiating an armistice": When was this?

• The previous sentence writes that we do not know the exact date of Baldwin the Leper's death but he must have died before 16 May 1185. We do not know exactly the date when Raymond sent envoys to Saladin.

More to follow. Unlimitedlead (talk) 15:41, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

• Introduce Arnold of Lübeck.

• Done.

• Ditto with Abu Shama?

• Done.

• "The fall of Jerusalem and nearly the entire Holy Land after the Battle of Hattin was a terrible blow to the Christian world": I agree, but this sentence sounds somewhat opinionated. Can we have a citation specifically for this sentence?

That is all from me at this time. Unlimitedlead (talk) 16:01, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

• It does not only sound somewhat opinionated but it is clearly opinionated: it reflects the opinion of the vast majority of late-12th-century Christians. Even so, I think we do not need a specific attribution or citation because this sentence is verified by a reference at the end of the third sentence in the same paragraph. Borsoka (talk) 17:21, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

I highly appreciate your comprehensive review. I think I left one of your remarks unaddressed. Borsoka (talk) 17:21, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Indeed; once that is complete I will have no qualms about supporting this nomination. Unlimitedlead (talk) 17:51, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

@Borsoka Apologies for the repeated pings, but just a reminder. Unlimitedlead (talk) 02:25, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for pinging me. I have not forgotten the pending issue. Borsoka (talk) 03:05, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Support: having looked at this twice now, I am comfortable supporting. Unlimitedlead (talk) 19:33, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Funk

• Marking my spot, interesting to see some FACs about the crusader side too. FunkMonk (talk) 14:35, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
• "Raymond is appointed regent for the child Baldwin V of Jerusalem by the child's uncle King Baldwin IV" Not sure how to solve it, but the repeated "child" is a bit clunky. Perhaps call him "minor" or "underage" instead of the first "child"?

• Done.

• I wonder if the ethnic origins of his family should be mentioned? Now this and similar articles just assume the reader already knows many of these dynasties originated in France.

• Done.

• "Her husband's jealousy gave rise to scandalous matrimonial strife during the early 1150s." The juxtaposition of this text with the image of another man in her arms leads the reader to believe the two issues were related. Looking at the article about the father gives no further clues about the relation to that image or what the strife was about, so remains confusing. Could be elaborated on in a related article or in a footnote.

• A footnote added. Borsoka (talk) 14:30, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

• "report about Raymund's captivity" Raymond's?

• Done.

• You mix ise and ize endings, should be consistent.

• Done (?). Sorry, I am not sure to what you are referring.

You seem to have fixed it by changing organise to organize. FunkMonk (talk) 19:08, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

• "and destroyed the Templars' castles at Halba" Interesting, I have family who live nearby, didn't know there used to be a castle.

• It was called Castrum Album, according to Lewis.

• Link Arabic?

• I think it is a common term.

• "An other contemporanous Muslim scholar" Another? Also, contemporanous misses an e.

• Both done.

• seneschal links to two different articles, perhaps at first mention "seneschal of Jerusalem" (if that's correct) could be spelled out?

• Done.

• "the prisoners included the hostages held as a guarantee for the arrears of Raymond's ransom" and "agreed to release the hostages who were surety for Raymond's ransom" Would make sense to mention and link "surety" at first mention of these hostages instead of second? Also, the second elaboration seems superfluous, I assume both sentences are about the same hostages?

• Done.

• "Raymond attacked a group of Turkmen and seized considerable booty from them in 1178 or 1179" Where?

• We do not know.

• "when the Flemish knight Gerard of Ridefort came to Tripoli Raymond pledged the first wealthy heiress in his county in marriage to him" Comma after Tripoli?

• Done.

• I'm not sure what the standards are for these genealogical trees, but perhaps Raymond's name could be bolded to make it stand out more?

• Done.

• Anything relevant to link dinar to?

• Done.

• "with the assistance of the local Christian garrison" What is meant by local, crusaders or native Christians?

• Modified.

• "Baldwin V died unexpectedly in Acre during the summer of 1186." By what?

• Expanded.

• "According to Arnold of Lübeck and Ali ibn al-Athir" Stat if they were historians or what?

• Done.

• Link Occitan and Franks?

• Done.

• You repeat Ali ibn al-Athir at random in full, though you would only need that at first mention.

• Done.

• You use both the spellings "Marj Ayyun" and "Marjayoun" for the same town.

• First option.

• Present Abu Shama.

• Done.

• "regard Raymond as a leader of the pullani (natives)" What is meant by this? Native opposite to what?

• I think the following sentence makes clear the context.

• Link Holy Land.

• Done.

• Present Imad ad-Din al-Isfahani.

• Done.

• As many readers may consider assassin a general term, perhaps say "order of Assasins" or "Nizari Assassins" or similar to specify?

• Done.

• You say in the blurb here that he was the last count of Tripoli, but the article only says "after bequeathing Tripoli to his godson, Raymond of Antioch". Could it be elaborated on what happened to the county after he died, and specifically said if he was the last count?

• Sorry, I do not know where the blurb is and I have not found the text you refers to above in the article. He was the last count of Tripoli from the Toulouse dynasty.

Oh, I mean your introductory text to this FAC. But yeah, I now see he was just the last count of his house, not count in general. FunkMonk (talk) 19:08, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

• The infobox image is very small, and pixel size forcing is discouraged, so you can just remove the 180px and it will look fine on most screens.

• Done.

Thank you for your thourough review. I highly appreciate your work. I think only one pending issue was left. I will address it by weekend. Borsoka (talk) 18:43, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Changes look good, I should be ready to support when the last issue is solved. FunkMonk (talk) 19:08, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

• Support - I'm still wondering what the jealousy was about, but it's tangential, the rest looks good, and I hope to see more like this here. FunkMonk (talk) 16:22, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

• Thank you for your support. The sources does not explain it. What we know that Raymond II was jealous of Hodierna and later rumors claimed that Raymond III's sister Melisende was not his daughter. Borsoka (talk) 00:43, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Support by Cplakidas

Reserving a spot here, will review in a few days. Constantine ✍ 13:42, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

• Did some copyedits, feel free to revert/alter/discuss.

• They clearly improved the article. Thank you for them.

• the master (or head) of the Knights Hospitaller is the clarification necessary?

• Modified.

• The historian Kevin James Lewis argues Lewis has already been introduced

• Fixed.

• Bertrand de Blanchefort, Grand Master of the Knights Templar, reminded Louis VII of France (r. 1137–1180) in November 1164 that Amalric would be unable to defend the crusader states alone. what is the relevance here?

• Context added.

• spending eight solar years in captivity...imprisoned for twelve lunar years for lazy types like me, can you add which years these two dates would correspond to?

• The cited source does not explain them.

• who was Egypt's actual ruler 'who had become the de facto ruler of Egypt'? And it depends on which timeframe we are talking about: after 1171, Saladin was ruler of Egypt in name as well.

• Deleted.

• Hmmm, instead of deletion, perhaps 'who had taken over rule of Egypt' or similar?

• Added.

• seize the large fief of Galilee in the kingdom I think it bears repeating at this point that the Kingdom of Jerusalem is meant.

• Done.

• the bishops unanimously supported Raymond's claim to regency do we know why?

• I have not found an explanation. Borsoka (talk) 15:51, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

• blamed Humphrey II of Toron for the crusaders' decision which decision is meant here? To withdraw? What was the alternative?

• Expanded.

• made peace with the Zengid ruler of Aleppo add his name?

• Name added. Borsoka (talk) 15:57, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Have reviewed up to 'Dynastic factions', the rest to come tomorrow. Constantine ✍ 19:17, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments and suggestions. I addressed all but two. I need some time to deal with the two pending issues. Borsoka (talk) 06:01, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the rapid response! Here's the comments to the rest of the article:

• I am not sure whether labelling Jerusalem as 'Holy City' without further qualification is NPOV, or whether this is addressed in MOS. But although in-context it is understandable, Wikipedia shouldn't take sides on which is the 'true' holy city...

• I think it is not a neutrality issue. Labelling Jerusalem as the Holy City in the article's context is quite natural and common in scholarly literature. Could not we refer to Philip IV of France as Philip the Fair, or to Alfonso X of Castile as Alfonso the Wise?

• After studying the controversial reports of the events, the historian Bernard Hamilton... does Hamilton's reconstruction of events also represent the scholarly consensus? Otherwise countervailing views should also be included.

• Expanded.

• They were crossing Galilee when Saladin invaded the principality it may be unclear which principality is meant here; the Prince of Galilee has been mentioned earlier, but quite a bit of text has elapsed since. I would also suggest adding something like 'the capital of the Principality of Galilee' after the first mention of Tiberias (Raymond, who was staying at Tiberias).

• Done. (Tiberias is first mentioned in the lead, so I also expanded it.)

• Joscelin took control of Acre and seized Beirut what is the difference here between taking control and seizing? Was the one peaceful and the other opposed?

• No difference, so modified.

• The reports are clear evidence of a "widespread belief"...but their reliability is questionable this is slightly self-contradictory and looks like an opinion/judgment by a historian, can we attribute it to a specific source?

• I think the two statements are not contradictory. For instance, many of the conspiracy theories represent a "widespread belief" but they are not reliable.

• True, but then please ascribe this to one of the two sources you cite here.

• none more excellent in councel may be wrong, but it should be either 'counsel' or 'council' (likely the former)?

• Modified.

• The 13th-century Arab historian Abu Shama also regarded Raymond as one of the principal enemies of the Muslim world, and urged Saladin to capture (and kill) him and Raynald of Châtillon If Abu Shama lived in the 13th century, how could he urge Saladin (who died in 1193) to do anything to Raymond (who died in 1187)?

• Good spot. Modified.

• Saladin reminded Raymond of his oath which oath? The same one supposedly solidified by drinking blood?

• Done (?) Borsoka (talk) 02:58, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

That's it for a first pass. Not much to complain about, the article is comprehensive and reads well. Will do another read-through after these points are addressed, and will be glad to support then. Constantine ✍ 20:32, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

@Borsoka: I cannot see the latest changes you mention above. Constantine ✍ 18:58, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

@Cplakidas: sorry, it seems that I failed to save my edits. Now I think I indeed addressed all the problems you mentioned above. Thank you for your patience. Borsoka (talk) 02:41, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

• Hi Constantine, 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) 17:44, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

@Borsoka and Gog the Mild: sorry for the delay, had a few really busy days. My points have been taken care of, I had another read-through and found nothing further to comment. Hence I am moving to support. Constantine ✍ 19:54, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Sourcing

Layout

Almost perfect. Why is the primary source the only exclusion from your otherwise crisp sfns? {{sfn|Richards|2007|p=315}} would do the job as well. It will default to calling whatever name is presented under |last=, even if that would be |translator-last= in this case.

• I have always made a distinction between references to primary sources and academic books.

The FAC criteria require "consistent citations: where required by criterion 1c, consistently formatted inline citations". Gog the Mild (talk) 17:34, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

It is consistent: references to primary sources and other sources are consequently distinguished. Borsoka (talk) 02:23, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

ISBNs are enumerated differently. Make it consistent for the reader, whatever the printers themselves use, so e.g. 978-X-XXXXX-XXX-X.

• Done.

Sources

The sources currently used are all high-quality academic works from respected authors and publishers. However. I was somewhat surprised to see several general studies of the period used (Barber, Lilie, Lock, Riley-Smith, Runciman), with only a couple touching on the dynasty itself (Hamilton, Lewis).

Yet listed under "Further reading" is a full-length piece on the topic by an acknowledged historian of this field. I can understand, of course, not using Baldwin's 1934 Princeton PhD as a source; that might get some pushback here (ironically, probably less so from me!). But in 1936, he published "a revision of part of his doctoral dissertation" (Zeigler, 1936: The Catholic Historical Review, 194) as a full-length work (OCLC 940049743[23]). (Originally presented in 1934, the part he revised was the critical bit—Raymond in Jerusalem rather than Tripoli.) This received several good reviews. Zeigler, quoted above, called it "a very satisfactory explanation of the situation". John L. La Monte, in The American Historical Review, 1937: 729, describes Baldwin as "accomplish[ing this] with distinction, while Frederic Duncaf (Speculum, 1938: 104) calls it "the best account ever written of the events which culminated in the fall of Jerusalem in 1187". It was republished in 1969 and 1978, and almost (I was unable to access Barber, but I would be surprised if he did not also) every single one of the sources you currently use cite the (published) edition: he has not gone out of vogue. The first edition is available for you to use in its entirety via a free subscription at the Internet Archive.

In fact, it's odd not to see anything by Baldwin in a bibliography of a 13th-century Levantine ruler, considering MWB's output on the subject. For example, his A History of the Crusades: vol I, The First Hundred Years, which IIRC not only contains a couple of articles by Baldwin which could be pertinent in bringing his own ideas up to date), but also by a couple of historians you do cite.

Nice article otherwise, fascinating stuff! Cheers, SN54129 13:27, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

• I introduced Baldwin and expanded the article.
• Thank you for your thorough source review and also for your suggestions. Please let me know if any further action is needed. Borsoka (talk) 03:44, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

• In Riley-Smith (1973) "Macmillan" needs disambiguating.

• Done.

• No OCLC for Baldwin (1936)? Gog the Mild (talk) 20:01, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

• Added.
• Thank you for your suggestions. Borsoka (talk) 01:55, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

• Hi Serial Number 54129, is this a pass? Gog the Mild (talk) 14:53, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

  Hi Gog the Mild, it's very much not. SN54129 14:57, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Cheers SN. Borsoka, any response(s)? Gog the Mild (talk) 15:00, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Serial Number 54129 would you let me know your proposals? Thank you for them in advance. Borsoka (talk) 15:12, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Very little I suggested (FYI: when a source review of this depth takes the time it did, they're far more than just suggestions) has been implemented. It's nice to see something by Baldwin used, but it's extremely sparse and in many cases appears to merely backing up an extant ciation (why?). SN54129 17:58, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. So far I have thought that I addressed all your suggestions. I read Baldwin's cited work, compared it with the article's text and completed the article with infomation that it had not contained. Based on Baldwin's cited work, I could hardly expand the article any more. Do you think I am wrong? Borsoka (talk) 20:14, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Hey, it's all good. The important thing is that a discussion has taken place, and we have achieved a (mini) consensus among ourselves, which I am happy to confirm as my support—per sourcing—for this fine article. Thanks for your work, Borsoka, the 'paedia is a better place for it. SN54129 10:26, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Again thank you for your suggestions. By using Baldwin's text I could expand the article with relevant information. I am really grateful to you for it. Also thank you for your support. Borsoka (talk) 11:20, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Drive-by comments

• There are quite a few cases of "king" which should be 'King', per MOS:JOBTITLE, as a specific individual is being referred to.

• Done.

• "The reports are clear evidence of a "widespread belief" in Raymond's ambitions to seize the crown". The MoS on quotations: "[t]he source must be named in article text if the quotation is an opinion". Emphasis in original. Perhaps simply remove the quote marks? It is only two words. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:24, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

• Done.

Thank you for your comments. Borsoka (talk) 03:54, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:10, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

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) 15 July 2023 [24].

---

Private Case

Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 14:09, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Set up by the Victorian-minded and rather strait-laced administrators at the British Museum, the Private Case was the place they stashed the erotica and pornography to keep it away from the lascivious eyes of the hoi polloi. The BM denied its existence to the public and didn't list the works on the main public catalogue until the early twentieth century. As social mores changed in the 1960s, the museum began to liberalise their approach, and the collection is now entirely open access. From being a hidden dirty secret, it is now considered a superb resource to study the attitudes held by previous generations on sexuality, gender, etc. This has been through a good PR recently (with excellent comments and suggestions from KJP1, SN54129, Tim riley and UndercoverClassicist) and any further comments are most welcome. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 14:09, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

• Quick note: Schro will take a couple of days to be back here.... Lourdes 09:03, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Image review

• I fixed all the missing US license tags, but in the future try to make sure all the images have them.
• The only licensing question would be related to the non-free image. I'm not sure it's useful for "identification" because it shows some pretty nondescript library shelves and I didn't see any sourced commentary in the article related to how the collection is physically organized that the picture would help illustrate.

• It's the only picture of the actual collection that I've seen, so as the main identifier in the top right it seems apt, rather than highlighting one of the individual titles. - SchroCat (talk) 17:46, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Nikkimaria wondering what your opinion is on the fair use licensing of File:The Private Case collection.png (t · c) buidhe 01:39, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

"unique historic image" is almost never going to be the correct tag to go with. I think there could be a case to be made here, but not with that tag and with a stronger purpose of use statement. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:49, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Many thanks to you both, Buidhe and Nikkimaria. I've swapped out the historic licence for a more generic one (I think this is an OK one, but please let me know) and beefed up the rationale. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:31, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

• Not related to licensing but I wonder if there are too many title pages used in the article? It seems like the title page is not necessarily the best way to illustrate the collection's contents.

• You're possibly right, but I was trying to avoid illustrating the article so it looked like the one at Fanny Hill, and all the attendant comments and criticism that would generate! - SchroCat (talk) 17:46, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

(t · c) buidhe 17:09, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

• Many thanks Buidhe. Noted on the US tags: licensing tags is an ongoing weak spot of mine, so thanks for doing that: I'll try and sort them out myself next time. - SchroCat (talk) 17:46, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Comments from Mike Christie

A few prose suggestions, all minor.

• "In addition to books, this also includes pamphlets": I think the "also" is redundant, given "addition".
• "As part of the requirement of being a legal deposit organisation": could this be shortened to "As a legal deposit organisation"?
• "Historically, such works are accepted by the library, but some were not released into their general access collections or details of them placed on the publicly accessible catalogue." Suggest "Historically, such works have been accepted by the library, but some were not released into their general access collections or were not included on the publicly accessible catalogue."
• "which were known for the output of their pornographic books": suggest "which were known for their output of pornographic books".
• The history given in the section "Nineteenth century" follows a paragraph of uncertainty about the date of the case's founding with two definite statements: "Between its inception and 1854"; "In 1865 [Witt's books went] into the Private Case". Given that the possible dates for the origin of the case include later dates, shouldn't these statements be conditional?

• Good point. I've connected it to both Harris and Cross: does that suit? - SchroCat (talk) 18:02, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

• "The Cuckold's Chronicle (1973)": is this a typo for 1793, given that this was in the collection by 1864?
• Since you use unspaced em dashes in the article, the spaced en dash in "Private Case – Public Scandal" should be converted to an unspaced em dash per MOS:CONFORM, both in the article and the sources section. Similarly "Legal Deposit – The Library of Trinity College Dublin" should be changed, again in two places.

• I was going to query this one as CONFORM is about quotes, rather than titles, but some further reading brings us to MOS:TITLECONFORM, which proscribes as you suggest. - SchroCat (talk) 18:02, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

That's all I can spot. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:14, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Many thanks Mike. All attended to in these edits. Please let me know if there is anything else you spot or that needs work on. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 18:02, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Support. Fixes are good; a fine article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:26, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Many thanks Mike: your comments are appreciated as always. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:32, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Comments Support from Tim riley

Shall reread carefully over the next few days. From a quick canter-through just now, a couple of points:

• I long ago despaired of grasping that shape-shifting monster French capitalisation, but I am pretty sure that in Ma Vie Secrète the third word at least shouldn't be capitalised.

• I struggle to see the logic of some of the rules surrounding capitalisation in English, so not knowing the twisted logic of the MOS in French should come as no great surprise! - SchroCat (talk) 18:06, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

• Quite so, but tangentially, see my lamentations here! Tim riley talk 18:15, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

• I fretted at the PR about the attribution of Teleny to Oscar Wilde, and though you've addressed my concerns about the text I'm uneasy about the caption to the picture of the title page of Teleny. Something like "… speculatively attributed by some to Oscar Wilde" would convey the facts better than "possibly written by…" I think.

• Done, although I've omitted "by some", as someone would no doubt add a {{who}} tag on there. - SchroCat (talk) 18:06, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

More anon. – Tim riley talk 15:14, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

• Many thanks: I look forward to anything else you have. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 18:06, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Subsequent comment from Tim

After a careful crawl through the text the only quibble I can come up with is that although it's in a quotation I raise an eyebrow at "provided the Private Case with a valuable cross section of English erotica ...", where if the source doesn't hyphenate "cross-section" it jolly well ought to have done (OED and Chambers). Otherwise, entirely happy to support, though having to get my sal volatile out after reading about such a shocking topic. The article seems to me to meet all the FA criteria. – Tim riley talk 18:06, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Many thanks Tim! yes, the original has it as "cross section", but as the MOS allows some small leeway in changing obvious errors in quotes, I've now hyphenated this. Thanks again. - SchroCat (talk) 18:26, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Source review by Vaticidalprophet

An interesting subject! Sources are all clearly reliable for FAC, formatting is not an issue, links to writers all appear to go to the right people, archives are present when needed. I only have one question, regarding the footnotes: note a appears to only exist as a footnote-within-footnote of note b. Is there any particular reason why this has been set up separately, rather than being incorporated into note b? Vaticidalprophet 06:57, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Many thanks Vaticidalprophet. No, no reason for a footnote from a footnote, other than a momentary aberration of reason; now corrected as you suggest. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:24, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Happy to pass the source review for this excellent and well-sourced article. Vaticidalprophet 07:26, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you - that's very kind! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:32, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Support from PMC

Parking myself here, will comment within the week. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:36, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

• "Henry Spencer Ashbee's 1900 bequest contained 1,379 volumes of erotica" - I think I like this guy
• "As at 2023" is this a Britishism or should it be "as of"? And if so, can it be {{as of}}?

• Yes, it’s a BrEng thing. - SchroCat (talk) 07:41, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

• Is there a particular reason that the estimated opening dates are not chronological? We go from maybe 1856, to 1866, then back to 1841, then 1836.

• No reason at all! How does it look now? - SchroCat (talk) 10:00, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

• Grammatically I'm not sure "general catalogue—with any duplicates disposed of" requires the dash; I think a comma would do

• Quite right: done. - SchroCat (talk) 07:45, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

• "Any duplicated erotica was destroyed" Very rude, imagine the social benefit if it was instead distributed to the deprived

• Or the depraved! - SchroCat (talk) 07:41, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

• "According to Cross, the books donated are "of exceptional interest"" - did he say why

• Nope. Somewhat frustratingly he changes topic at that point. - SchroCat (talk) 10:05, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

• Any appetite for splitting the subsection "Twentieth and twenty-first centuries" into two? It's fairly long. (Won't die on the hill if you don't want to)

• Let me have a think about that one. The 21st century is only part of the final paragraph, so a split based on date wouldn’t work, but let me think if there’s a different way. - SchroCat (talk) 07:45, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

That's all I have, this is quite well-written so I really have very little to gripe about. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:28, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

• Many thanks PMC. All done, bar the last one, which I think needs a little more thought about whether it's the right step and, if so, where to make the break. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:05, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

• No worries! Happy to support even if you don't wind up splitting that one section - it's a minor concern at most. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:59, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

• Many thanks PMC! - SchroCat (talk) 20:03, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Comments

• the historian Alison Moore described it as "particularly labyrinthine. - closing quote mark is missing
• The move induced the lawyer and writer E. S. P. Haynes to produced - lose that last D
• given the book only details the works..... => "given that the book only details the works....."
• The other legal deposit libraries in the British Isles covered by the Agency for the Legal Deposit Libraries are Cambridge University Library, University of Oxford's Bodleian Library.... => " The other legal deposit libraries in the British Isles covered by the Agency for the Legal Deposit Libraries are Cambridge University Library, the University of Oxford's Bodleian Library....."
• That's all I got! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:04, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks Chris! All four tweaks done. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 16:14, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:16, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

  As always, your comments and support are much appreciated. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 16:24, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Comments from HAL

• "The British Museum was formed in June 1753 as a result of the British Museum Act 1753" -- passive voice, maybe just "The British Museum Act 1753 established the British Museum (in London?)" It's not egregious as is, but I might change it, especially as the same thing occurs with "The British Library was created on 1 July 1973 as a result of the British Library Act 1972".
• Could "reader's tickets" be linked to Library card?
• Disregard if it's a British English comma issue, but should there be a comma after "Legman describes this as a 'legend'" as it is followed by an independent clause?

• I think it's OK as it is, but I'll delve into Fowler to see what that says. - SchroCat (talk) 10:19, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

That's all I got. ~ HAL333 16:31, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Many thanks HAL. The first two done. The third is right (I think), but I'll check. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:19, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

• Happy to support another solid article. ~ HAL333 16:03, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

• Many thanks HAL, much appreciated. - SchroCat (talk) 20:03, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Support from UndercoverClassicist

Saving a spot: I'll do another read in a bit. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 16:57, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Comments below. All nit-picks and pretty minor; it's a lovely article.

• Very happy to support - an excellent piece of work, and the recent polish has only cemented that. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 15:40, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

  Thank you, UndercoverClassicist, that’s very kind. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 22:35, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

General

• French capitalisation: I'm not an expert, but as far as I know French literary titles generally capitalise only the first word and proper nouns.

  I think we have this right now, but please let me know if I've missed any. - SchroCat (talk) 09:45, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

• Short description: is it accurate to call it a former collection, if the BL still categorises some works as part of it?

  Changed. It's closed, fixed and historical, but I guess the BL still use the name to categorise some of the works. - SchroCat (talk) 09:25, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Lead

• The collection began between 1836 and 1870: do we know when the label Private Case was first used or attached to it? The article implies that this happened from the very beginning, but I'm not sure if that's a justified inference on my part. Likewise the Suppressed Safe title.
  • There is no record (that I have seen) of when the name came into play, only the collection. I've tried to be careful in describing only the course of when the collection began, and not given any indication that the name was part of it. (No doubt I've not got it right, but it's a tricky point to try and finesse appropriately). - SchroCat (talk) 13:48, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
• More generally, the lead implies that obscene or controversial material was separated out into the Private/Suppressed Safe cases from the BM's collections from the beginning, but the BM was founded in 1753; the lead also says that the Private Case first began to exist no earlier than 1836. I'm not sure how to resolve this one.

  I'm not sure we do... but maybe I'm too close to the wording to see it. We're clear in the first paragraph that the "collection began between 1836 and 1870", and then in the second para we've clear on the dates when the BM was opened. - SchroCat (talk) 13:48, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

  The problem is this part: From its foundation in the eighteenth century ... The subversive and libellous material was separated into the Suppressed Safe collection while the erotica and pornography were placed in a locked cupboard known as the Private Case. I've cut out the interceding parts, but they don't change the timeframe of the narrative away from the C18th: we need another chronological marker at some point before that last sentence. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 17:17, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

  Fair enough. Timeframe added. - SchroCat (talk) 09:11, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

• It was one of the country's six legal deposit libraries: I know that Dublin was under British rule at the time, but it's a little controversial to describe it as part of the same country as London: we wouldn't do the same for Delhi, for example.

  There was a difference between Ireland and India in the 1830s. Ireland was part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, so Dublin was a city in the UK. India never was part of the UK. we've got in in the past tense, and the lead isn't really the place to try and explain the historical background to the terminology, I think. - SchroCat (talk) 13:48, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

  How about It was one six legal deposit libraries in automatic receipt of all works published in the UK? Agreed that a complicated explanation isn't right here, but also good to avoid taking a side in a controversial question (Ireland may legally have been part of the UK, but a sizeable number of mostly-Irish people would regard it as occupied territory and so that law as illegitimate). UndercoverClassicist (talk) 17:19, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

  OK, that works. - SchroCat (talk) 09:11, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

• as such was in automatic receipt of all works published in the UK; among all other works, this included pornographic or salacious material: suggest deleted among all other works (I'm not sure what it means here: simply inter alia?)

  Yes, I'm trying to convey inter alia, but if I include that in the lead of an article, it will be deleted by the 95 per cent of the population who don't know what it means and are confused by the outdated term! (If was in a legal article, I think it may be a little more acceptable, but not one of general/historical interest). - SchroCat (talk) 13:48, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

  I'd just axe it here: I think you've covered that base with this included. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 17:19, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

  Yep: done. - SchroCat (talk) 09:11, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

• The Private Case collection was never a fixed entity: minor, but I don't think the term quite fits here: we'd expect any library collection to change over time, and I don't yet see how the composition of the Private Case was any less fixed than that of the BL as a whole.
  • Yes, good point. Slightly reworded. - SchroCat (talk) 13:48, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
• Is there a reason why Dingwall is introduced in the lead but Ashbee and Dawes aren't?
  • Laziness on my part, I suspect. Now changed. - SchroCat (talk) 13:48, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
• As at 2023 there are about 2,500 volumes still classified by the library as being part of the collection: suggest an edit for concision to As of 2023, about 2,500 volumes are still classified by the library as part of the collection.
  • OK, mostly adopted. - SchroCat (talk) 13:48, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Background

• in June that year: I'd say June of that year. Otherwise, comsider The British Museum Act created the British Museum in June 1753.
  • Gone with your second option. - SchroCat (talk) 13:53, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
• Introduce Hans Sloane and Robert Cotton on first mention.
  • Yep - done. - SchroCat (talk) 14:04, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
• Is it worth briefly explaining - perhaps in the footnote - how it's possible to be a legal deposit library without the automatic right to receive all new books?
  • It's slightly outside the limits of the article, but I've got it in there, as it may be a question thought of by others too. - SchroCat (talk) 14:04, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
• This section discusses how the BL receives all kinds of media, and then specifies that the books they receive are sometimes obscene. Did the Private Case ever contain non-books (e.g. journals and pamphlets)? Either way, I'd suggest resolving the discrepancy here somehow.
  • Good point. Altered to "works". - SchroCat (talk) 14:04, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
• Some publishers of pornographic material did not forward their works to the British Museum Library. A boom in such material was seen in the 1850s, much of it generated from the publishing houses in Holywell Street, London, which were known for their output of pornographic books: I'm not clear from this whether the boom was in the publication of pornography, or in pornographers refusing to forward their work.
  • Clarified. - SchroCat (talk) 14:04, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
• The last two (perhaps three) paragraphs of this section would seem to better belong in the History section, since they describe the creation, management and access of the case itself.

  OK, moved. - SchroCat (talk) 09:11, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

• Is principal keeper the official title of this person? If so, it should be capitalised per MOS:PEOPLETITLES.

  Fair enough: altered. - SchroCat (talk) 09:11, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

History

• There's a lot of pronouns (especially it) in the first paragraph with shifting antecedents: this sometimes gets a little unclear.

  OK, a slight tweak done, which should clarify. - SchroCat (talk) 09:11, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

• translated from the original by Pietro Aretino: was there, in fact, an original, or is this a literary conceit (cf. The Name of the Rose)? If so, do we know what the original language was?

  Added - and the name of the translator, "Richard Head". - SchroCat (talk) 14:38, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

  Incredible. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 17:20, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

• At its largest, the collection comprised some 4,000 works: any idea when this was?

  Sadly not. The BL say this was the size, but no further info, unfortunately. - SchroCat (talk) 14:38, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

  In that case, I'd suggest moving it out of the clearly-chronological section, perhaps to the beginning of the final paragraph in History. In current position, it's strongly implied that this figure was reached around 1885. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 05:55, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

  Yep, done. - SchroCat (talk) 09:11, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

• This section is quite inconsistent as to whether to introduce new characters. I'd personally suggest that they should all have a brief introduction on first mention ("the Marquis de Sade, a French eroticist"). However, I appreciate that many of the supposed authors can't be introduced, not least because they probably didn't exist.

  This is a tricky one. Aside from some working behind pseudonyms, for some of the others, there is no information known about them at all. For some of the others, it's only very scant background, which would mean we'd have a plethora of "the writer" or "the author" scattered about. - SchroCat (talk) 09:11, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

  I think there's a strong case for de Sade, as a reader who knows who he is will understand this sentence far better than one who doesn't, so it's in our interests to level the playing field. Equally, fully agree with the pseudonyms or the authors otherwise unknown. For people who have a known biography greater than what's said about them in this article, I think an introduction is generally the right call, but it may have to be case by case. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 12:15, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

  OK, I've added for those about which things are known (Cleland, de Sade, the two Italians); as far as I know (and my ignorance really is boundless), I don't think there is anything known about the others. I've ignored those that are obvious pseudonyms as the sources I've seen have not clarified many of those, except where we've got them already. - SchroCat (talk) 12:36, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Historiography

• I think the segregation of books could do with some expansion: it sounds as if Haynes' problem wasn't that the BL divided its collection, but that it made access to 'obscene' publications so difficult.

  That very much is the case (excuse the pun); clarified to make that more obvious. - SchroCat (talk) 09:11, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

• and it was only in 1962 that the library stopped asserting that all its holdings were on the main general catalogue: this would be clearer phrased in the positive: e.g. acknowledged that it held a collection of books not included in the main general catalogue.

  Yes, that's better. - SchroCat (talk) 09:11, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Similar collections

• The British Library is not the only research library that holds large amounts of pornography ... the Library of Congress housed the Δ (Delta) collection (merged into the general collection in 1964). The sequence of tenses seems to have gone a little awry here. Is the Δ shelfmark/term still used? If not, suggest merged its pornographic works, previously designated as the Δ (Delta) collection, into its general collection in 1964.

  Done. - SchroCat (talk) 09:11, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

• Minister for Justice (not of in Ireland) and head librarian: see my comments on MOS:PEOPLETITLES above.

  We already have "Minister for Justice" capitalised; "head librarian" now capitalised. - SchroCat (talk) 09:11, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

• which was founded in 1938 to look into sexual behaviour: is that the Kinsey Institute or its specialist research collection?

  The collection (which pre-dates the clinic): now clarified. - SchroCat (talk) 09:11, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Part done for now. Some excellent stuff here, but an institute reception this evening means I have to leave it for now; I'll be back. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:39, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

• Many thanks UndercoverClassicist, I've covered all of those, doing nearly all, with one or two exceptions (explanations above). Many thanks for these: they're great. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:11, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Comments from Anarchyte

Interesting topic, will have a read through soon. Anarchyte (talk) 06:49, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

• Just noting that in comparison with other people here, I'm still quite new to FAC, so apologies in advance if I miss anything :) Anarchyte (talk) 14:44, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

  Any suggestions from anyone are always anyone is always welcome - and these are all on point! - SchroCat (talk) 09:11, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Lead

• "Access to the material was restricted, and the catalogue of Private Case material was not released to the library's general readership." — repetition of "material". Consider "Access to this collection was restricted, and its [or the] catalogue was not released to the library's general readership".

  Tweaked in a slightly different way - SchroCat (talk) 09:11, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

• Before "There have been no new entries", it could be useful to include the fact that it took until 1983 to finish liberalising. Also, a passing mention in the lead of why this process started would be useful.

  Yep, good point. Both done. - SchroCat (talk) 09:11, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Background

• "Some publishers of pornographic material did not forward their works to the British Museum Library" — was not doing so illegal at this time?

  Yes, but given the BM didn't complain about it (as far as we know), blind eyes would have been turned. - SchroCat (talk) 09:11, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

  I think including this in the article would be of benefit. Can a source be provided? Anarchyte (talk) 03:24, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

  Not that I can find. I've been through all the current sources and done some new searches on the point, but it's all skated over. I think the whole subject would have been beneath the BM to deal with, so they just ignored it - I can't imagine the rather strait-laced Victorian administrators making a fuss to get their hands on porn! Unfortunately that's my surmising and reading between the lines, rather than anything the sources have overtly stated. - SchroCat (talk) 08:34, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

• "when this was confirmed" — perhaps better as "if this was confirmed", given the previous paragraph gives the implication not everyone was sending their material.

  Yes, done - SchroCat (talk) 09:11, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

• "This practice lasted from the inception of the case until the 1960s." — I understand it's detailed in the History section immediately below this, but a quick mention of the relaxing of censorship during the 60s would remove any ambiguity that this process was stopped for any ulterior reason.

  I've moved the whole paragraph into the History section now, so the next para is all about the liberalisation, which works better, I think. - SchroCat (talk) 09:11, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Nineteenth century

• What was the reason for this order of the early list? For example, it's unclear why Harris's List of Covent Garden Ladies, which appears to an untrained eye to be the most notable, is neither emphasised by being first nor last.

  I've rearranged it to be chronological. I think if I tried to do it by some measure of "importance", I think the cries of "WP:OR!!" would be sounded! - SchroCat (talk) 09:11, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

  I've redone the other list too, so that this is mostly chronological. - SchroCat (talk) 12:37, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

• "At its largest, the collection comprised some 4,000 works" — "During this period, the collection comprised some 4,000 works at its largest." Makes it clear this number refers exclusively to the nineteenth century.

  I've moved this out of the chronology section and into background. The only source for the number (the BL itself), gives no indication as to when that was, so it was a bit misleading having it where it was. - SchroCat (talk) 09:11, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

  It's now only appears in the lead. Anarchyte (talk) 03:24, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

  That was sloppy (I was working on an offline version and moved it there, then moved parts of the paragraph around and it got dropped at some point.) Now back in the body. - SchroCat (talk) 08:34, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Other comments

• Unsure if this is done in other articles, but translations of foreign titles could be useful (if available, rather not use Google Translate). If it's too much for the prose, a separate translation notelist could be used (like note e). Just an idea.

  I've run the first three foreign titles through various databases and search engines and not found any translations, unfortunately. I'm not sure this is going to be a viable step. - SchroCat (talk) 13:00, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Will continue tomorrow. I realise you're currently blocked, so I'll aim to get this done before that expires. Anarchyte (talk) 14:44, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Twentieth and twenty-first centuries

• "with any duplicates disposed of" — "disposing of any duplicates".

  I think the current version is a little stronger, grammatically, although I could be persuaded. - SchroCat (talk) 09:11, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

  No worries. I was trying to avoid ending with a preposition, but it's not really an issue. Anarchyte (talk) 03:24, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

• "Any duplicated erotica was destroyed and the remainder put into the Private Case" — reorder this so that the sentence prioritises preservation over destruction: "Any non-duplicated erotica entered the Private Case collection", or something similar. Can't think of a good way to word it at the moment. It's unclear whether "disposed of" and "destroyed" are being used here synonymously or whether "destroyed" implies a harsher action. If it's the latter, distinguishing this would be useful. Note that by removing the word "reminder", the following sentence ("the remaining") would become a non-sequitur unless also changed.

  Yes, the sentence reversed. There was a difference in the approach between the pornography and 'normal' literature. They would have disposed of the 'normal' works by sale, donations to other libraries, possibly destruction if in a really poor condition; duplicate pornography was destroyed, never passed on to third parties. - SchroCat (talk) 09:11, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

• "as well as various editions of Fanny Hill by John Cleland and the works of the Marquis de Sade" — would benefit from a serial semicolon. I note the article chooses not to use Oxford commas etc, but this on first read was more ambiguous than the other lists. Alternatively, change "works" to something else (could be interpreted as "Various editions of Fanny Hill are the works of the Marquis de Sade").

  OK done. - SchroCat (talk) 09:11, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

• "Also included in his Private Case bequest works" — "also included in his bequest".

  Yes – done. - SchroCat (talk) 09:11, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

That's all from me. Fantastic article. Anarchyte (talk) 04:48, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

• Many thanks Anarchyte. All duly attended to. I think I've demurred on one of your comments, but explanation above. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:11, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

  Thank you. I'll give it another read over (probably tomorrow) and report back. Anarchyte (talk) 10:19, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

  All my concerns have been addressed. Support. Anarchyte (talk) 11:59, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

• Many thanks, Anarchyte. Your comments have helped a lot. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:14, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Support Comments from JennyOz

Hello SchroCat, an interesting read. One tiny typo and a few minor questions from me...

• The process was continued by Panizzi's successor - that was a tad puzzling but assume you decided his intro was a better fit later?
  • Sorry, I don't follow what you mean here (still fairly early and not had enough coffee, obviously!) Can you elaborate a bit? - SchroCat (talk) 08:20, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
    • Sorry I didn't explain myself well, bad habit! When I first read "The process was continued by Panizzi's successor John Winter Jones," I wondered who was Panizzi. He is introduced (full name, link and position) in the following sentence (ie not on first mention) so it's not a problem. JennyOz (talk) 10:04, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
      • Ah: got you! That was as a result of some reworking earlier in the FAC when the order was changed and I forgot to move that part too. That's now changed around a little more and should all now make sense. - SchroCat (talk) 11:04, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
• One of the works Dingwell acquired for - typo Dingwall
• for "shelf-mark P.C. The" and "shelf-mark S.S. They" - are the second full stops not part of the shelf-marks, ie should be included in markup?
  • No: I think MOS:CONSECUTIVE applies here, unless I'm misunderstanding the guideline there (which is possible!) - SchroCat (talk) 08:20, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
    • Hmm, my reading of CONSECUTIVE has always been simply not to add a full stop if the ending word of phrase already included one (per the Sammy Davis Jr. example). The way the shelf-marks are formatted (with the full stop outside the italics) seems the opposite to me. Not that we have 2 terminals, but it is removing the punctuation from the shelf-marks and naming them as P.C and S.S

But I'm not 100 per cent sure either. It's such a tiny thing in this situation. JennyOz (talk) 10:04, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm not 100 per cent sure, so I've moved them inside the formatting and I'll have to wait and see if anyone complains about it! - SchroCat (talk) 11:08, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

• except for some volumes which are in a fragile condition. - because of/due to their fragile condition?
• David Chambers - is David John Chambers?
• Journals and magazines De Rycker, Kate - alpha order
• did you consider using Template:British Library?

That's it from me, thanks JennyOz (talk) 06:18, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Many thanks JennyOz! I've done all but two of these. I'm not sure what you mean from the first one (if you can explain, that would be great), and the punctuation follows what I think the MOS says (but I'm never 100 per cent sure I always understand what the MOS says. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:20, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi again, I've tried to better explain my 2 questions above. Do they now make sense? Neither is obviously a deal breaker but I'm interested in any replies as I'm always keen to learn more. Regards, JennyOz (talk) 10:04, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks JennyOz - The first one is now cleared up (I hope) and I think I've done the right thing with the second. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:08, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks SchroCat, Looks great! Re the MoS dots, luckily they render identically in italics, but if one of those lovely co-ords reverses them, so be it, I'll have learned yet another thing. I'm very happy to s'port and thanks for yet another fine article. JennyOz (talk) 12:05, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Jenny - I'm much obliged as always! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:12, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt

"The British Museum Act created the British Museum in June 1753. The Act provided for the purchase of the collection of the physician and collector Sir Hans Sloane; the Cotton library, assembled by the antiquarian Sir Robert Cotton; the Harleian Library, the collection of the Robert Harley, 1st Earl of Oxford and Earl Mortimer; and the King's Library of George III.[1] " As George III did not come to the throne until 1760, this seems unusually farsighted of parliament.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:32, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Indeed! The BM source is slightly poorly written, which is why the confusion, but stripped back to the proper version now. - SchroCat (talk) 15:50, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Support Looked through the rest of it didn't see anything to comment on. Interesting topic.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:20, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment here and your support: I am much obliged to you. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:34, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 16:26, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 14 July 2023 [25].

---

Archaeology, Anthropology, and Interstellar Communication

Nominator(s): Vaticidalprophet 11:52, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

This is kind of a 'curiosity FAC', looking to see how it goes. It's gone through GAN and pre-FAC PR during my last period of heavy activity, which was...some time ago, but for such a niche topic it's unchanged since. I searched in-depth a couple days ago to see if anything new has been written on the subject lately; it hasn't. I got the consensus the last time around that it was about as developed as it can be, and I don't personally see further developments.

Archaeology, Anthropology, and Interstellar Communication is a 2014 essay collection on an unusual little topic -- the sociological and anthropological consequences of human-alien interactions. It's interesting reading, and freely available as a NASA publication. It's also a fascinating microcosm of its own subject (the perils of communication across long inferential distances); much of its claim to notability comes from news reports misinterpreting it as an 'ancient aliens'-type claim of prehistoric monuments being made by aliens. In an era where large language models have reignited the question of how to interact with non-human intelligences, it feels particularly resonant. Vaticidalprophet 11:52, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

First-time nomination

• Hi Vaticidalprophet, just a note that as a first time nominator at FAC, this article will need to pass a source to text integrity spot check and a review for over-close paraphrasing to be considered for promotion. Good luck with the nomination. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:58, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

CommentsSupport from SN

• Excellent, excellent. So niche it makes '1001 Facts Regarding the Inside of Ping Pong Balls' look positively best-selling coffee-table airport-lounge populism. At first glance—and this is just a thought—how set are you on keeping the sentences on each essay as discrete subsections? They are basically mini-paragraphs of a couple of sentences apiece, and I wondered whether you might run them together. As a lit. rev. might. But it might improve the flow; it's more of a list at the mo. Just a thought; maybe it's already been discussed. SN54129 12:36, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

  I'm up for quite a few different ways to handle the essay section; it went in about three different directions over the course of the PR :) Is your proposal combining the paragraphs of each subheader (into one-long rather than multiple-short), and ditching the subheaders, or keeping the subheaders? "What to do with subheaders' is really the one part I was least sure about -- slightly too short to definitely have them, but slightly too long to definitely not. Vaticidalprophet 12:47, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

  Well, I was thinking merging the sentences of each subsection into one longish para, as you say, but keeping the subheaders. Not so much out of appearance but I guess that's how the author divides up the book? In which case the three sections should probably be treated as stand-alone, even if the essays within them are all on a common topic. I'm a bit convoluted, but do you know what I mean? I took the liberty of tweaking '"Historical Perspectives on SETI' as an idea, here. Obvs, I'm perfectly happy to let you get other editors' opinions first, as mileage varies of course. SN54129 13:08, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

  Yeah, that's how the book is divided. I get what you mean and like the demonstration -- will experiment (and see what suggestions roll in). Vaticidalprophet 13:28, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

  Hmm. I've consolidated a little further, but not fully. Trying one-para sections looked a little too wall-of-text, but I note the concerns about the very sparse paragraphs (and didn't especially like how they read either), so I've got two-para sections now for each. This does introduce the problem of the paragraph breaks being slightly arbitrary, but none of the other solutions are ideal either. Will see other opinions. Vaticidalprophet 14:30, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

  I think it's a great improvement personally; see what others think though. SN54129 15:01, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

• I presume these "unsourced" paragraphs are, in fact, sourced to the essays themselves? I am not sure that "in this section" is a good formulation in terms of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Self-references to avoid Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:50, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, they're unsourced under the same principle as PLOTCITE. I wasn't entirely sure about it in the PR (though was encouraged to take PLOTCITE as applicable), and I can cite it all to the essays if deemed necessary. WP:SELF seems to be about not referring to things as 'in this Wikipedia article', rather than cautioning against referring to something in a book's section -- am I misunderstanding it? Vaticidalprophet 15:00, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

  It seems a natural enough formulation to refer to a section of a book as 'this section'. And WP:SELFREF refers explicitly to Wikipedia referencing itself ('A self-reference in an article usually mentions Wikipedia directly or tells readers to take an action on Wikipedia, such as editing the article.'). SN54129 15:01, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi SN, will there be a full review forthcoming? Ta. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:03, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

NoGog; I'm currently bombing (=crawling) down the M11 at the moment. In any case, I was happy to support after my suggestions above had been implemented (I note I did not say so. D'oh.). Thanks to a couple of detailed reviewers below, I'm comfortable iterating it now. SN54129 13:48, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Traphagan033.jpg appears to have been copied from the ASU website - is there any evidence the uploader has the right to release it? Similarly File:Douglas_Vakoch.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:17, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

  I was curious about this when setting that multi-image template up. The Traphagan image was, to put it delicately, uploaded by an account that was seemingly interested in the subject of John Traphagan to the exclusion of all else; it's not improbable to me that it could actually be chased up to someone with the right to that image, but obviously, I need to chase it up first. (Vakoch image, probably not.) My current plan is to see if potential rights holders are willing to release definitely-OTRS-cleared images, but in the meantime I'll look for images-not-of-authors. Vaticidalprophet 06:10, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

  Nikkimaria, I've replaced them with frankly better/more relevant images about previous interstellar communication attempts -- do the licenses check out on these? I assumed they were all PD at base, but... I'm also curious about the best way to present such closely related images in the article. Multi-image seems technically ideal, but it forces fixed width, which I know is undesirable. A gallery seems overkill. Separate images entirely, maybe superfluous? But I think they're both (and maybe all three, I'm unsure yet on Arecibo) worth having, to highlight the diversity in the ways humans have tried to communicate with aliens (which ties into the book's point). Vaticidalprophet 06:30, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

• I'd suggest swapping in File:The_Sounds_of_Earth_Record_Cover_-_GPN-2000-001978.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:42, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Vaticidalprophet ? Gog the Mild (talk) 13:03, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, missed this! Have switched it out, Nikkimaria. Vaticidalprophet 13:24, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Support from Gog the Mild

Reusing to review.

• "The book is focused on the role that the humanities and social sciences, in particular anthropology and archaeology, play in the search for extraterrestrial intelligence. The seventeen essays explore issues such as ..." It seems to me that this would be a more accurate description if "play in the search for extraterrestrial intelligence" were rephrased to something like 'play in extraterrestrial communication'.
• "The significant positive response to the book",. Suggest removing "significant".
• "inspired NASA to bring forward the e-book release". Do you mean 'inspired NASA to bring forward its release, as an e-book'?
• "and misreported in headlines." Only in headlines?

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:18, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the review! Responses so far:

• Have dropped 'significant' (and also 'freely' from 'freely available', which I notice now I never introduced at the PR despite agreeing with the rationale).
• Search for extraterrestrial intelligence is a term-of-art that I wanted to introduce early, but it's true it's a bit of a broad one. Will see about phrasings; saying "extraterrestrial communication" does strike me as making the first sentence come across like a repetition of the title.

I understand the term, but it doesn't seem to be what "the book is focused on".

• Have rephrased "the e-book release" as "its release in e-book form"; to my understanding it was always going to be in both e- and print, which isn't totally clear from "release, as an e-book" in either direction (imo), but on review not totally clear from the original phrasing either.

The way it is phrased, it is unclear if the dead tree version had already been released. My suggestion makes it clear (I think) that this was the first release, and that this first release was as an e-book.

• "Only in headlines?" It's complicated -- some of them used it purely as clickbait and admitted it wasn't actually the case, some seemingly took it at face value throughout (discussed in the relevant section). Might be a way to make this clearer in the lead?

Delete "in headlines". Gog the Mild (talk) 21:45, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Vaticidalprophet 16:56, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Have done e-book and headline changes. I've revamped the first paragraph more generally -- its state was a holdover from a much sparser version of the article -- to follow the essay sections, of which the first is more explicitly about SETI. Vaticidalprophet 06:18, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

• "approach the subject from a humanities-focused lens". One cannot approach something from a lens.
  • Changed in this diff.
• "cross-chronological interactions". How does one have a cross-chronological interaction? Surely it can only be one way? (I assume that time travel was not posited.)
  • Changed in this diff.
• "addressing the concerns raised by significant inferential gaps". Is it possible for a gap to raise a concern?
  • Changed in this diff.
• "with MOBI, EPUB, and PDF versions officially released several days later". Is the actual date known?
  • This took a little while to figure out, but seemingly the 22nd (so faster turnaround than originally thought).
• "A paperback edition was published September 2014" → 'A paperback edition was published in September 2014'.
  • Changed in this diff.
• " Are the exact publication dates of the paper and hard back editions known?
  • Some sources imply the 1st or 6th for the paperback, but none RS. No indications for the hardback.
• "such as processing the data encoded in signals received from potential extraterrestrial civilizations." I am not sure that "potential" makes sense here. I mean, if the signal is not from potential extraterrestrial civilization then there is no "data encoded" to process.
  • Changed in this diff.
• "The difficulties of studying ancient societies on Earth, editor Douglas Vakoch argues, are applicable to". I don't see how a difficulty can be applicable to anything. Do you mean 'problems' or 'approaches' or 'methodology' or similar?
  • Changed in this diff.
• After the section header "Essays" I think you need a note that you are about to cherry pick four essays for more detailed examination. (I assume that is what you have done.) Ok, it seems that the essays are divided into four sections. If that is the case, could you say so?
  • Paragraph clarifying the divisions added here (it still feels a little rough, will tweak further).
• "Jeff Foust decried the phenomenon in his review". Could we have a brief introduction of who or what Foust is?
  • Changed in this diff.
• "while Jolene Creighton of From Quarks to Quasars". I puzzled over this for a while. Is it meant to communicate that Creighton is a staff writer for a periodical called From Quarks to Quasars?
  • Changed in the diff above.
• "had a strong backing in the fields it investigated." What does "had a strong backing" mean?
  • ...oh yeah, that was an awkward wording. Changed in this diff.
• "and its ability to combine it with accessible writing." Not grammatical.
  • Changed in the diff above, though I'll read back through that source for exactly what it says, because I'm not entirely happy with the new wording either.
• "He referred to the conclusions made by essayists". Consider both "made" → 'reached' and "by essayists" → 'by the essayists'.
  • Changed in this diff.
• "would be a difficult ask". I am marginally unsure that this is encyclopedic language. Would 'would be difficult' work equally well?
  • If it's marginal, I do prefer the current wording.

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:47, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Have responded to all of these and made nearly every change. The publication date one is oddly tricky, and even harder to find now than in 2022 due to ISBNSearch changing up its site. (Its changes also made the month-year dates harder to verify, so have added archive links to the versions that verify them.) Vaticidalprophet 18:00, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

• "weakening its political position". Maybe 'weakening its political ability' or 'weakening its political position and so its ability'?
• "commenting on the issues with interpreting". I am not sure that "with" works here. How about 'involved in' or similar?
• "human language may be even greater for an alien language". Do we need "even"?
• "Traphagan's second essay in the collection". Suggest deleting "in the collection", I think it is clear from context.
• Link Drake equation.
• "a means through which to estimate the number of extraterrestrial civilizations". I think "through" should be 'by'.
• "figures such as Michael Crichton". Could Crichton be briefly introduced?

A fine article. I enjoyed reading it. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:09, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! Done almost all between two diffs (I think 'even' is justified -- translating unknown scripts is incredibly hard). Vaticidalprophet 10:12, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Apologies for the delay - RL! I am finding it almost impossible to track what changes you have made in response to which comments in the absence of in line responses, so I shall go through the whole thing again. Apologies if I then pick up any points which I didn't comment on first time around. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:42, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Take 2

• "The seventeen essays are gathered into four sections, which respectively explore issues such as". Delete "such as", insert 'the' before "issues".

You can only write "such as" when what follows is a selection from the whole, ie a subset. In this case it isn't, you list all four sections, ie the entire set, so you can't use "such as".

• "Despite originally being scheduled for publication" → 'Originally scheduled for publication' or similar.
• "focusing on the role archaeologists and anthropologists play in extraterrestrial intelligence research" and two sentences later "exploring the roles archaeology and anthropology play in extraterrestrial research".
• "A Tale of Two Analogues" by Ben Finney and Jerry Bentley draws on Finney's studies of Mayan culture; they draw comparisons between the protracted process of translating Mayan works and the difficulty of translating an alien work, and cast doubt on the views of some mathematicians and natural scientists that an extraterrestrial civilization would communicate with humanity solely through the "universal language" of mathematics and science. - A bit of a long sentence?
• He notes that the issues faced in semiotic challenges such as decoding an unknown human language may be even greater for an alien language; for instance, he describes how all known human languages have used either alphabetic, syllabic, or ideographic writing systems, and anthropologists are able to estimate which an unknown language uses by its number of characters, which may not be a shared assumption for an extraterrestrial writing system. - and again.
• "considering a difficult task but one worthy of study". Should this be 'considering this a difficult task but one worthy of study' or similar?
• "Learning to Read" focuses on the hypothetical alien translation of interstellar messages transmitted by humanity. Its author Kathryn E. Denning deems the task of writing alien-translatable messages "neither trivial nor impossible", considering a difficult task but one worthy of study; she discusses the need for interdisciplinary study to produce such messages, with important work from fields such as cryptography and anthropology. - another very long sentence.
• The Gizmodo review began with an out-of-context quote from William Edmondson's essay on how mysterious stone carvings "might have been made by aliens" as a metaphor for the difficulties in researching long-lost ancient societies; though the review went on to note that this should not be interpreted as a literal statement, the quote was picked up by publications such as Artnet, TheBlaze, and The Huffington Post as a clickbait headline. - Another overly long sentence.
• "compared the issues it raised to those explored by science fiction works such as The Sparrow." What is The Sparrow? And what issues does it raise/explore?
• "Vakoch explained the book's purpose further". Further than what and/or when?
• "he noted that although bridging the communication gap with an extraterrestrial civilization would be a difficult ask, the rapid discovery of exoplanets in the past decades increased the likelihood extraterrestrial intelligence would be identified.". 1. I think this should be a separate sentence. 2. I don't see the connection between the two clauses, much less a balance that justifies the "although". Perhaps split these two clause into separate sentences?

Nice.

Gog the Mild (talk) 21:35, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Made most changes here. The first one is accurate -- that one is cherrypicked, in that I needed an intro but didn't want to summarize the details of all 17 essays in a paragraph. (Might be a better way to put it still...) Vaticidalprophet 17:41, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Trying to track what if anything you have done to address each comment when you have not made in line responses was something of a trial. I think I have tracked down what you have done when you have done something and identified when you haven't; but if I have got something wrong, let me know. That said, only the "such as" point above and the Garber commas below left from my POV.

• "by Stephen J. Garber" has commas either side. In every other similar case there are no commas. Is there a reason fo the Garber inconsistency?
  • Grammar changed (and sentence split in two) this diff. Will look over at the 'such as' one soon. Vaticidalprophet 21:06, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

  Have removed 'such as' in this diff. Vaticidalprophet 00:21, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Gog the Mild (talk) 17:21, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Sorry about the diff situation! For a little while it was hard on my end to keep track of the changes well enough. Things are still...difficult in my life right now, but I'll hopefully have the opportunity to look back over this soon and reply point-by-singular-point. I don't think there's a reason for the Garber inconsistency, but I'll read back over it before making a clear statement. Vaticidalprophet 21:04, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

I will be away for a few days. I look forward to supporting once I am back. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:36, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you so much! Have posted the diffs of each change above. Vaticidalprophet 00:21, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

CommentsSupport from Sdkb

I have previously commented on this article during its peer review. It was in good shape then, so I anticipate that an FA pass on this first attempt will be very feasible. Accordingly, a lot of my comments below are targeted at subtle optimizations, not dealbreaker elements that need to be resolved in order for me to support. If you disagree with any, just let me know your reasoning so I can see that it's a conscious choice.

• Humanities and social sciences seem like possible overlinks for the lead, given that they're fairly recognizable and followed closely by more justifiable (because more relevant and less recognizable) links to anthropology and archeology. I don't feel super strongly, but I'd lean toward removing them.
  • Have removed links (I link heavily, but). Vaticidalprophet 06:12, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
• The article lacks {{Use dmy dates}}. Before we add that, though — could you speak to the choice to use dmy over mdy, given the ties to the U.S.?
  • In retrospect, cultural ties tend to be interpreted leniently, so I'm not sure I had to change it to AmEng in the first place...Having said that, I think it's defensible to use either in a NASA article, because NASA themselves use YMD. I don't have strong opinions on this either way and could change it to MDY (admittedly with probably about as many retained mistakes to fix as when I changed it to AmEng), but it does feel intuitively reasonable to me to deem NASA-related articles a little weird. Vaticidalprophet 06:12, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

    Sure, sounds good. But the article still needs the template for WP:ENDURE reasons. I think you can use {{use dmy dates|cs1-dates=y}} or something like that to preserve YMD in the citations. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 20:33, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

    Added said template here. Vaticidalprophet 03:15, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

• Originally scheduled for publication in June 2014, a PDF of Archaeology, Anthropology, and Interstellar Communication Given how unwieldy the title is, and that there's not any risk of confusion with something else, I'd just say the collection here.
• I'd add "metaphorically" after stating, just so that readers know what to expect going into the quote, which makes it slightly easier to comprehend.
  • I've offset this as 'rhetorically', which I think is a little more accurate than 'metaphorically' but does get across that the quote isn't-a-literal-description-of-reality. Vaticidalprophet 05:41, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
• Following up from the PR, was WP:Media copyright questions ever able to offer any insight about whether the book cover is PD or not? Keep in mind that if it's PD, we can use it as the visual when this runs as TFA, whereas if not we'll have to find something else.
  • So, I'm still sorting that out. The original post a year ago was archived without replies. I wanted to head to MCQ again recently, after finding yet another variant cover...and promptly had my whitelist application for the site that hosted the version-with-variant-cover declined. I am not in a rush to TFA, though I'll admit I'm more than a little miffed about getting a whitelist denial for explicitly "this is never going to be used in an article, its status as a reliable or unreliable source is irrelevant, I just need it to sort out an NFCC question". Vaticidalprophet 06:12, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
    • Update: have asked at MCQ, and hopefully won't be archived this time. I need to reupload the cover either way (they finally fixed the typo, I have to assume after seeing it on Wikipedia), so it'll be useful to know for sure before then. Vaticidalprophet 05:41, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
      • Update 2: MCQ comments make me lean closer that it's PD, but without certainty still, so I've contacted NASA to clarify. Their response times are very slow, so, well...it'll at least be sorted by TFA, hopefully. Vaticidalprophet 03:15, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
• Any follow-up to my comment about adding the division within NASA that published the book?
  • Never found that, unfortunately. Vaticidalprophet 06:12, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

    The info is on the first page, and identifies the publication as part of "The NASA History Series". Can't we just cite that via WP:ABOUTSELF? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 20:41, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

    I've added a mention of the imprint here. Vaticidalprophet 06:59, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

• The link to NASA in the body could be earlier, in the mention in the "Essays" section.
  • Yeah, this is an edit scar from adding that paragraph. Fixed. Vaticidalprophet 05:41, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
• I think you should have some sort of ENGVAR tag as a matter of WP:ENDURE. analyses is British English, which doesn't seem like the best fit given the U.S. ties.
• Its author Kathryn E. Denning deems I'd offset the name with commas. Later in that sentence, I think the semicolon could be made a full stop.
  • I just removed the other comma offset because there weren't any else, so I'm just going to let these sit for now :P Vaticidalprophet 05:41, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
• First contact (anthropology) would be a good link over colonial interactions. In the next sentence, some of the links to different cultures border on overlinking. I think we likely may have more specific coverage of colonial interactions with these cultures (either through sections or specific articles); linking to that would both sidestep the overlinking issue and be more helpful for readers seeking further info.
  • I've added the first contact link. I'm inclined to keep the cultural links, because it's a broad, continent-crossing range of cultures and it's unlikely any one non-specialist reader will be familiar with all their pre-contact backgrounds. (Basically no one outside North America knows Iroquois history, and I suspect very few people outside Oceania do Maori history.) In particular, many readers won't necessarily be aware that they were all technologically and socially complex before European contact, and could reasonably want to read further on the details of an individual one. Vaticidalprophet 05:41, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

    I'm not looking for links to be removed so much as MOS:SPECIFICLINK to be applied where possible. For instance, I think Spanish conquest of the Aztec Empire would be a better link for the concept of European contact with the Aztec Empire than just Aztec. It does slightly raise the MOS:SPECIFICLINK vs MOS:EGG conundrum, but I think the former ought to take precedence. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 20:52, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

    I've specific-linked the Aztec one. The others are a little more complicated -- there's no obvious single-contact-event to point at for Chinese and Japanese interactions with Europeans, and the articles for the Maori and Iroquois cover first contact reasonably well/aren't so long that the reader would be drowned in other info. (A little more to the point, they're also the ones where the reader is less likely to know, without an existing article, that the cultures were pretty advanced beforehand.) I think the current situation works. Vaticidalprophet 15:03, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

    I still think we can do better. For Japan, History of Japan would be better than Japanese people, and perhaps even something like Nanban trade#First contacts if the discussion in the essay is mainly about first contact with Portuguese. For China, perhaps either Concessions in China or Western imperialism in Asia#Western European and Russian intrusions into China. For Iroquois, probably just Iroquois#History. For Maori, perhaps Māori history#Early European contact (1642–1840).

    I'll go ahead and make these changes so that I can wrap up my review, but feel free to tweak if you find better links. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 14:41, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

• Is there anything to link over intentional behaviour? (Also British English again here)
  • De-u'd both 'behavio[u]rs' in this section, though I'm not sure there's a link to make. Vaticidalprophet 05:41, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
• Gizmodo should be linked on first mention.
  • Have linked in publication-history. Vaticidalprophet 06:12, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
• As nice as the block quote from Foust is as a visual element for the reception section, I'm concerned that it may be a copyright violation, given that we're using quite a big chunk and that our use is not particularly transformative, limiting the application of fair use. I'd check with those more knowledgeable about copyright issues to resolve this.
  • So, this is tricky! I think it's defensible by UCLA's fair use guidelines (which are actually surprisingly lenient here, but that's the line between legal-fair-use and NFCC-fair-use for you). Having said that, probably not ideal to quite both in the blockquote and in the section text. I'll tweak the section text, because I really do want to use the blockquote if it's defensible. Vaticidalprophet 06:12, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

    Well, since this is Wikipedia, we have to abide by the Wikipedia guidelines, even if they are unfortunately strict. I left a note a few days ago inquiring about this, which I think is sufficient due diligence for the FAC; it's on the copyright folks now to speak out if they see an issue. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 14:45, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

• CNET and TheBlaze (and maybe others) are italicized in the reception section, even though they're not at their own articles. I think that the articles are wrong, not the section here, but it might be worth checking at WT:Italics to get help from more knowledgeable folks.
  • Given that talk has two posts and they're both from 2006, I'm not sure how quickly I'd get a response. It does seem to me the articles are probably the ones in the wrong, especially given that TheBlaze italicizes it for the earlier print magazine version. I considered bold-changing both articles, but concluded it'd be a bit more technically fiddly than I want to subject myself to right now without script assistance. Vaticidalprophet 03:15, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
• From Quarks to Quasars is the first of the redlinks that's given me pause. What's your argument that the site is notable and thus warrants a redlink?
  • It probably doesn't, really, especially given Creighton is linked, so I've removed this. Vaticidalprophet 03:15, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
• Given that it's been used throughout the article, I think readers can be expected to remember what "SETI" means, so I'd remove the link in the reception section per WP:DUPLINK.
  • I think we've had this conversation before, but the MOS has finally changed here, so -- I'm very liberal with linking per section, because statistically, most readers read "the lead and a section" (assuming they read past the lead, anyway), and most readers are on mobile, where they can't see sections they haven't specifically opened. I think linking-per-section here is ideal for reader understanding, and supported by the recent changes to the MOS. Vaticidalprophet 06:12, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

    I supported a predecessor change to that one, and given it, I'm alright leaving this to your discretion. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:10, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

• Doing a quick reference formatting review, I see a few issues. Publication names with "the" in them should be fixed (as I did in the body), and "NASA" should not be appearing by itself in italics as in ref #11; change |work=/|website= to |publisher=.
  • These should both be fixed now. Vaticidalprophet 03:15, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
• This is up to you, but I encourage the linking of publication names in references for FAs, since assessing source reliability is a key task for readers with good information literacy, and being able to easily click through to see what we've written about its reputation aids significantly with that.
• If you feel like being particularly OCDdetail-oriented, the categories might be nicer in alphabetical or some sort of semiotic order.
• For source verification, the Foust review doesn't seem to explicitly call the headlines clickbait, whereas we do.
  • Hm. I think this is a permissible way to phrase what he clearly implicitly calls them, but can see counterarguments. Do you have another recommendation of how to put it? Vaticidalprophet 15:03, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Again, these are very manageable issues, and I look forward to supporting once they're addressed. Overall, this is a very solid, well-crafted article that gives its narrow topic a suitable encyclopedic treatment. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 00:13, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the review, Sdkb! I've made a few quick replies and will get to the rest soon (just sifting through the comments for now). Vaticidalprophet 06:12, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Sdkb, I think these should be generally dealt with now? I really only have a query about the last, and of course NASA is going to take a while to get back to me about the book cover, though I'm strongly leaning now towards it being PD (awaiting confirmation). But if we can work out a good way to handle the last point, these should be handled. Vaticidalprophet 06:44, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Support. Having done a peer review and further review here, I am satisfied that this article has been fully optimized to FA standards. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 14:54, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Source review

• The search for sources seems to have been quite exhaustive but I expect nothing less from the author.
• I'm not sure I would cite ISBN Search, and besides, it's not clear if the hardcover/paperback type information is relevant to include, especially if it's not covered in a secondary source.
• Personally I would be inclined to use inline citations with page numbers when summarizing the content of non-fiction works, but I am not sure if this is required by the FA criteria so I won't insist on it.
• Otherwise the use of sources seems acceptable as far as I can tell without doing source checks. (t · c) buidhe 20:10, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks for the review, Buidhe! I leaned here towards including print release dates, even primary-sourced, to avoid the risk of ambiguity about whether the book received a physical release otherwise. I think this is of encyclopedic interest -- the implications of 'publishing a book in print and ebook' are fairly different to that of 'posting a free PDF online', and without that context I think the subject could be misconstrued as the latter, which opens up reader queries of "why is this a thing that is of any significance/something I should care about?". I recognize opinions on these things vary, though, and I'm not sure if we have any similar cases (of books where the digital version is free) at FA level either way to point to. Vaticidalprophet 10:20, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

  Buidhe, just checking given that they're required for this one -- are you planning on doing spotchecks or should I wait for another reviewer to do so? Vaticidalprophet 16:11, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

• Some article titles are in sentence case and others in title case. This should be standardised - how they appear in their originals is irrelevant. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:44, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Should be done in this diff. Vaticidalprophet 10:58, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
• ISBNs should be consistently hyphenated. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:02, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Should be done in this diff. (I couldn't spot any inconsistent hyphenations elsewhere.) Vaticidalprophet 10:58, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Spot checks etc - pass

• I can identify no plagiarism nor over-close paraphrasing.
• Cite 17b - I can find no reference to Artnet in the source. Should this read 'Sploid'?
  • Cited Artnet's coverage of the book to itself in this diff -- it must've gotten mixed up somewhere which source used it specifically. Vaticidalprophet 21:28, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
• Cite 18 - check.
• Cite 23 - check.
• Cite 2d - check.
• Cite 3 - chck. (Just.)
• Cite 10 a & b - check.
• Cite 16 - "The collection was published by NASA's History Program Office, part of the Public Outreach Division of its Office of Communications, under the NASA History Series imprint." I am struggling to find this in the source given. Could you point me towards it?
  • This was added by Sdkb and the specific source for it wasn't given, so I double-checked that it was sourced from the book's title page (it is) and added that source in this diff.

Just my queries on cites 16 and 17b to come back to me on. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:02, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

• Should both be addressed -- I'll be back to tweak the cite formatting soon. Just to clarify, does 'standardize to one of sentence-or-title case' include the book title and chapters, or only the news articles? Vaticidalprophet 21:28, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Book titles should always be in title case. Chapter, journal articles, and periodical and newspaper articles should consistently be in one; IMO title case, but it is possible to read the MoS as implying that either is acceptable. I'm going to be away for a couple of days, but hope to check in on Saturday. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:49, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Formatting should be addressed now. Vaticidalprophet 10:59, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 08:16, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

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

---

Josette Simon

Nominator(s): BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 00:00, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

This article is about the award-winning actress Josette Simon, who appeared in the fondly-remembered UK sci-fi series Blake's 7 and went on to play leading roles for the Royal Shakespeare Company. No doubt some improvements to the article will be required, but I'd like to thank Mike Christie who conducted the GA review, and Mujinga and SusunW for their peer review contibutions, for their valuable comments. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 00:00, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Image review. The existing image is appropriately licensed, but is there an image of the actual subject that could be added? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:59, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, Nikkimaria. I have searched several times and failed to find a free-to-use image. I contacted Simon's agency, who were really helpful, but the forwarded pemission from the photographer wasn't acceptable and the photographer did not respond to later requests. (see Commons discussion). I did think about whether a fair use image could be used, e.g. because some sources discuss Simon's constume in particular roles, but concluded that there wasn't a stong enough case. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 07:50, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi Nikkimaria, any further thoughts on this? Gog the Mild (talk) 12:09, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

As the subject is living fair-use is a hard sell, so I guess we'll have to live without. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:55, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

CommentsSupport from Chris

• Put birth year in the lead and infobox, not just the first sentence of the body
• "Cleopatra in Antony And Cleopatra (2017–18)" - no need for capital on And, also should be italicised
• "She was awarded the Order of the British Empire in 2000" => "She was made an Officer of the Order of the British Empire in 2000"
• Antony And Cleopatra is again written (twice) with a capital A on And in the RSC section
• "Nightingale described her performance as " vivid and vital"" - there's a stray space after the opening quote mark
• "In 2017, Simon took the role of Cleopatra in Antony and Cleopatra for the RSC" - no need to relink the play, it was linked earlier
• "broadcast on the same channel in 1992" => "broadcast on the same station in 1992" ("channel" is not normally used when referring to radio)
• Most of the "radio" section refers to TV and film roles. Has a subheading gone AWOL....?
• "Rick Groen of The Globe and Mail wrote that Simons "riveting performance" - apostrophe missing in Simon's
• "a mismatch between the thriller plotline" - between the plotline and what else......?
• Note a isn't a complete sentence so doesn't need a full stop
• Think that's it :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:22, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

  Many thanks, ChrisTheDude. I've made most of the changes - with one exception. As per the hidden note in the article, "The year of birth has been removed from the lead and infobox per WP:BLPKIND, at the request of Simon's agent, who edits Wikipedia as TomDale90. It should remain in the body of the article." I'll see what the consensus from reviewers is, before making any changes relating to this. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:55, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

  OK, if her agent doesn't want people to know her age it seems bizarre to remove it from the lead and infobox but not the body but fair enough...... Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:49, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Support from SusunW

Having reviewed this in detail during peer review and monitored its improvement, I am happy to support. In a final read through I noted minor issues, but they are not significant enough to impact my support, i.e.:

• Something appears to be missing here "appealing an tough"
• "The play transferred" begins a paragraph but the reader hasn't yet been told what play. I get that I am old school, but new paragraphs should always introduce the subject before replacing it with pronouns or generic terms. (Alternatively, you could just remove the paragraph break.)
• Sentence beginning "Her character is married" seems a bit jarring with the verb tense in the present in the sentences about the role. (Yes I get that a role is active and can always be revived, but her portrayal happened in the past. And, I freely admit here as previously that I am totally unaware of conventions in speaking about film, TV, etc.) Same holds true in the following paragraphs "Joanna, who leaves Jamaica", "characters discover", etc.
• "altered storyline" seems to be missing a "the", i.e. altered the storyline.

That's it from me. Well done Benny on the Loose! SusunW (talk) 14:42, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

• Many thanks for your advice here and at the peer review, SusunW. Hopefully I've now addressed your points above but let me know if I've missed anything. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 18:10, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Looks good to me, BOTL. SusunW (talk) 18:19, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Support from mujinga

• As noted I gave comments at peer review and thought it was close to FA standard then
• "the first principal part taken by a black actress for the company" - I added "by" and as I did so noticed "playing roles traditionally taken by white actresses" just above it, so perhaps one "taken by" can be rephrased

• I used "filled2,and also changed one of three instances of "played" in the lead. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 11:40, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

• "when it was unusual for black women to feature as leads in leading Shakespeare plays, Simon played several major roles for the RSC. Her first leading role," - three "lead"s in a short space of time

• I removed the "leading", let me know if you think another subsitution is required. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 11:40, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

• per MOS:…, ellipses should have a nbsp before them

• Added. BennyOnTheLoose (talk)

• "the couple had one daughter together but are now divorced" - maybe " the couple had one daughter together AND are now divorced" reads better but it's just something to consider

• Amended. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 11:40, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

• just a few nitpicks really, thanks a lot for bringing an article about a woman to FAC! Mujinga (talk) 10:47, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

• @Mujinga: Thanks for providing helpful feedback here and at the peer review. Let me know if there's anything else to address. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 11:40, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

• Nice one, happy to support on prose Mujinga (talk) 11:50, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Source review - pass

• fn 3 - page number?
  • Pending - I'll check if there are page numbers in the ebook at the British Library. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:42, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
    • There are no page numbers, or even locations, in the ebook. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:52, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
• fn 20 - page numbers?
  • Unfortunately, there are no page numbers in the ebook. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:42, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
• Where's Jefferson?
  • I added North Carolina. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:42, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
• Alphabetical order: Rokison-Woodall should come after Rogers
  • Corrected. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:42, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
• Since the two Rogers are the same book, why do we have two entries?
  • Because there are no page numbers, I was doing my best to make it easier to locate the relevant part of the source. Let me know if there's a better way to handle this. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:42, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
• Author-link Una McCormack, John Kenneth Muir, Abigail Rokison and Michael Scott (academic)
  • Added. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:42, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:59, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

• • Many thanks Hawkeye7; I'll reply on the first point in the next couple of days. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:42, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
    • Hawkeye7, I've made the changes I could. Unfortunately I couldn't get page numbers for the ebooks. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:52, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

      Alright then. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:34, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't mean to butt in here, but Gog the Mild offered me a solution when working on a similar situation. By inserting "|loc=Search phrase "blah blah" instead of pages, the reader can find the reference. It helps if the search phrase is a unique word or string of words. Don't know if that is helpful to you, but I offer it for your consideration. SusunW (talk) 14:06, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

that's a good tip SusunW - for an ebook on Lucy Parsons I used "|chapter=" but "|loc=Search phrase "blah blah"" is much more specific Mujinga (talk) 14:22, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks SusunW! I've implemented this; please let me know what you think, Hawkeye7. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:53, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi Hawkeye7, how is this looking now? Gog the Mild (talk) 14:46, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Passed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:04, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

SC

Putting down a marker - SchroCat (talk) 21:00, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

SchroCat ? Gog the Mild (talk) 14:47, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the nudge - forgot to bookmark the page. Will be here tomorrow. - SchroCat (talk) 20:09, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

General

• This swaps around a bit between the description of Simon as an actor and an actress. I see from the Guardian interview part way down she describes herself as an "actor", which may be the better path to choose

• I was about to implement this change, but I got a bit stuck trying to use non-clunky phrases in instances like "the first principal part filled by a black actress for the company" where specifying that Simon is a woman is required. I think the only uses of "actor" outside a quote or award title are in "the best actor for the role" and "failed to play to her strengths as an actor", so would amending these would work as an alternative? If not, what's the best alternative to "black actress"? BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 11:07, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

  I think there are a few uses of "actress" that can naturally be made "actor" - although obviously not in quotes or titles or where it causes confusion. For example, there are four uses of "actress" in the lead and one in the IB: these can all be made "actor", with the exception of Evening Standard's Best Actress award, and this can be reflected throughout. Things like "first for a black actress at the RSC" probably has to remain as actress, as I think there were some male actors prior to her. - SchroCat (talk) 16:11, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

• I've used actor (or another phrasing) to replace "actress" where I thought I could. Happy to revisit if required. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 23:55, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Lead

• "She trained for the stage": Don’t they train for all formats (stage, TV and film)? 'for the stage' could be deleted without a problem

• Deleted. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:16, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

• (2017–18) Probably best as (2017–2018) for consistency and per the MOS

• Amended. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:16, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

• "Simon starred alongside Brenda Fricker in the two-part television series Seekers, written by Lynda La Plante. She" Best to switch the name and pronoun around here as there is a "Simon" mentioned just before the first one and "She" could mean La Plante: "She starred alongside Brenda Fricker in the two-part television series Seekers, written by Lynda La Plante. Simon..."

• Amended. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 11:07, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Early life

• "moved to the United Kingdom" shouldn't be linked to Windrush generation per MOS:EASTEREGG

• Removed. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:16, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Blake's 7

• "sitcom The Cuckoo Waltz and teen drama The Squad": technically, "the sitcom The Cuckoo Waltz and the teen drama The Squad"

• Amended. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:16, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

RSC

• "forefront of 'colour-blind casting', playing": why the single quote marks? Are any needed at all here?

• I don't think they are needed. Removed. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:16, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

• "high status ...For the first time": per MOS:ELLIPSIS this needs a space between the dots and First

• Added. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:16, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

• "However, Coveney": Seeing 'however' at the start of a sentence isn't always best practice, and particularly here, I think. You can strike it out without issue.

• Removed. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 11:07, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

• "Academic Lynette Goddard": Firstly: "The academic" to avoid a false title; secondly "academic" is a bit woolly here and doesn't confer any background to the individual (if Goddard is a physicist, for example, does her opinion matter any more than anyone else). If possible, some indication of discipline is better "theatre historian" or whatever she is would give them more credence.

• At the time, Goddard was a Senior Lecturer in a Department of Drama and Theatre, whose research focus was on contemporary black British theatre, according to her brief bio in the book. I've gone for "The drama and theatre academic" but very happy for any proposed improvement. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 11:07, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

• "Scholar Jyotsna Singh" Ditto

• Amended to "The literature scholar". BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 11:07, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Other roles

• "garnered": horribly over-used word on WP and it always jars as it's technically wrong (See the OED for the proper definition); "Her performance earned her a ..." would be so much better

• Amended. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:16, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

• "Academic Claire Tylee": see above

• Amended. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:47, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

• "producer Charles Pattinson pitched, scriptwriter Winsome Pinnock" "the producer ... the scriptwriter" (c.f. false titles above)

• Amended. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:16, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

• "Their characters discovered that they were both married to the same man, who has now disappeared. They later worked as partners in the detective agency that he had founded" The tenses go a bit awry here ("has now"). I think removing the "now" would smooth it over

• I took out the "now". BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:16, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

• "in the Anansi Boys": I'm not sure what "the" is doing there

• Removed. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:16, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

• "the movie Detective Pikachu": film, not movie

• Amended. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:16, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Personal life

• "married tenor Mark Padmore": the tenor

• Amended. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:16, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

I hope these help - SchroCat (talk) 09:39, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

• Many thanks for identifying these improvements, SchroCat. The false titles point was one I wasn't previously aware of. Hopefully I've addressed every comment except the first, which I'd appreciate a bit of further advice on. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:47, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

• One more: I missed the 'colour-blind casting' with single inverted commas in the lead – you can probably drop these too. - SchroCat (talk) 16:11, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

• Done. Thanks again, SchroCat. Let me know if anything else is needed. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 23:55, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

• Support. I’m happy to support this. It satisfies the FA criteria and covers all the ground I would expect it to. - SchroCat (talk) 06:05, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:52, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 11 July 2023 [27].

---

40 Wall Street

Nominator(s): Epicgenius (talk) 15:19, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

This article is about yet another building on Wall Street in New York City. In sharp contrast to the humble House of Morgan or the short but storied National City Bank Building, this skyscraper stands out on the skyline of Lower Manhattan, with its limestone facade and green pyramidal roof. Built for the Bank of the Manhattan Company, 40 Wall Street was briefly the world's tallest completed building amid a fierce competition over the title. Later it was operated by interests representing Philippine dictator Ferdinand Marcos, and nowadays it's leased by former U.S. president Donald Trump.

This page was promoted as a Good Article three years ago after a Good Article review by CaroleHenson, for which I am very grateful. In addition, the page received a GOCE copyedit recently from Voorts, whose efforts I also appreciate. I think it's up to FA quality now, and I look forward to all comments and feedback. Epicgenius (talk) 15:19, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Source review

As per this revision. Decided to do one early on.

• Formatting:
  • Ref 2: Suggest |website= to be Skyscraper Center, add Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat as |publisher=.
    • Done. Epicgenius (talk) 14:48, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Ref 22: Suggest Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat as |publisher= instead of |website=.
    • Done. Epicgenius (talk) 14:48, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Suggest for most of NYT sources (at least those linking to the original newspaper copies) to include original page number (e.g. Ref 29 is on p=30, Ref 37 on p=12.) I might suggest adding the subscription icon since it seems most of them require subscription access. I personally wouldn't also add archive URLs since they wouldn't even work for non-subscribers to access.
    • I have noted that most of the NYT sources require subscriptions (anyone with an account can view a limited number of articles published after 1980 if they aren't subscribers). I can add the page numbers during the weekend, but I need to use my home computer for this, since it's much more powerful than the laptop I'm currently using. It will be harder to identify which archive URLs to remove, and they would just be added again when someone decides to run InternetArchiveBot. These archive URLs should still show information like the headline, date, page, and first sentence; however, I can remove these non-functioning archive URLs when I add the page numbers for these refs. Epicgenius (talk) 14:48, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

      As per discussion on Discord, use {{cbignore}}. ZKang123 (talk) 01:31, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

      That should work. I will be able to format those refs over the next few days. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:46, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

  • Ref 136: Similar to above. Seems it links directly to Times machine, which I don't have access to. Archive link also doesn't work.
    • I changed it to a regular NYT link. Epicgenius (talk) 14:48, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Ref 235 also requires subscriber access.
    • Fixed. Epicgenius (talk) 14:48, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Ref 88: change |url-status= to dead.
    • Done. Epicgenius (talk) 14:48, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
  • I see |via= newspapers.com for refs 72, 73 but not for refs 242, 247 despite also being linked to such websites.
    • These are now formatted all consistently. Epicgenius (talk) 14:48, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Ref 267 - WSJ article link behind paywall. Similar for archived link.
    • Done. Epicgenius (talk) 14:48, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Ref 278: I guess this magazine was retrieved |via= usmodernist.org where this was hosted. Add |via= parameter. Also suggest using title case for consistency (How they appeared in their original is irrelevant). Check other source titles, e.g. Ref 224, 271, 253.
    • I have fixed some references and will check the rest over the weekend. Epicgenius (talk) 14:48, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Minor thing, but I would have the book sources listed under "Bibliography" instead of "sources"
    • If I recall correctly, "Bibliography" sections are discouraged nowadays, since they can refer to works written by the subject of the article, rather than works written about the subject. Epicgenius (talk) 14:48, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

      Noted on this point. Thanks ZKang123 (talk) 01:32, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

• Spot-checks:
  • "The building was designed by lead architect H. Craig Severance, associate architect Yasuo Matsui, and consulting architects Shreve & Lamb.[12][8][13]", swap around Refs 12 and 8.
    • Done. Epicgenius (talk) 14:48, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Ref 8 - supports statement of architects and lot size
  • Ref 6 - "40 Wall Street is surrounded by several notable buildings...". Do you mean p3 (of the PDF) instead of p2? Ditto for subsequent sentence.
    • Yep (all of the "NPS p. 2" refs actually should be page 3). Epicgenius (talk) 14:48, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
  • "there are also elements of classical architecture and abstract shapes.[18][17][19]" Again rearrange in order. Source 18 supports statement.
    • Done. Epicgenius (talk) 14:48, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Generally refs by Landmarks Preservation and National Park Service supports statements in architecture of the building. No other issues.
  • Refs 70, 72, 84 supports relevant statements. (though does the Bank of Manhattan Building or the Manhattan Company Building need to be bolded in the body?)
    • Since the names are bolded in the lead paragraph, it would be redundant to bold them again in the body, so I have removed the bolding. Epicgenius (talk) 14:48, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Ref 109 is good.
  • Refs 211, 213 supports. (interesting facts on how the Phillippine dictator was involved in owning the building)
  • Refs 230, 231 supports.
  • "In 2011, Duane Reade opened its flagship branch inside the former banking space." - Suggest being more specific about when the branch opened (Ref 49 states it's a Wednesday after July 5). Otherwise add the month will do.
  • Ref 271 supports.
  • Ref 278 has the quote (though I might add - shouldn't the page parameter be "p" and not "pp"?)
• Overall, besides some formatting issues, links are good, sources are reliable.--ZKang123 (talk) 03:06, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the source review ZKang123. I have fixed all of the issues you mentioned, except the title-case issues and the NYT pages, which I will have to do over the weekend. Epicgenius (talk) 14:48, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

    Yeah I understand this will be rather tedious, so I wouldn't expect them to be cleared up very soon. ZKang123 (talk) 01:32, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

    I totally forgot about these source fixes. I'll fix the remaining sources soon, when I have time. – Epicgenius (talk) 02:46, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

    @ZKang123, did you have any issues with the sources other than the formatting of the NY Times refs? I will probably fix them by Thursday. – Epicgenius (talk) 01:01, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

    Not at all, I say. ZKang123 (talk) 11:58, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Random comments

• There are a lot of quotes and sources in the article, which shows that the article is rich in information and readers' trust is enhanced. It's worth learning when we edit articles in the future.GAOPEIYUN (talk) 07:24, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
• The reference literature is complete and helpful to confirm the content of the article.The references added to the article are reliable enough to support the content.YE SIQI (talk) 07:45, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
• This popular science article introduces Trump Tower from a professional point of view and rigorous words, without missing any details. From architectural features to history to planning, it is very clear. The author has done serious research on this article, which conforms to Wikipedia characteristics.Muqing112233 (talk) 07:51, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Support from PMC

Parking this here to comment shortly. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:52, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

• I've made some minor copyedits here and there as I read, feel free to revert or adjust them
• It feels odd that the second paragraph goes from describing the exterior appearance to then describing who rented it. Feels like that bit might fit better somewhere in para 3
  • This was an attempt to summarize the interior, since the rest of the paragraph describes the exterior. I've added details about these spaces and removed mention of the Duane Reade. Epicgenius (talk) 18:10, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
• "The former banking room was converted into a Duane Reade store." When? And why is that specific conversion significant enough to mention in the lead?
  • It isn't really important to mention in the lead, so I've removed it. Epicgenius (talk) 18:10, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
• Could be worth mentioning in the lead that it took until 1944 to be fully tenanted
  • Done. Epicgenius (talk) 18:10, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
• If 30 and 44 Wall St are such "notable buildings", why no article or link for them?
  • I don't know why the word "notable" was there, but I've removed it. Epicgenius (talk) 18:10, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
• Are there any surviving photos of Oceanus?
  • Unfortunately, I couldn't find any that were suitably licensed. Epicgenius (talk) 18:10, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
• I reworded several instances of the word "contains" really close together
  • Thanks for that. Epicgenius (talk) 18:10, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
• You also have like 22 instances of "contained" in this article, most concentrated under "Lower stories" - perhaps reword some of these?
  • I've rephrased these accordingly. Epicgenius (talk) 18:10, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
• Commons has a picture of a cool looking chandelier that the Smithsonian now has, not mentioned in the article - File:Chandelier, Bank of Manhattan, New York City (3303612056).jpg. Is it of any interest?
  • Although I appreciate you finding the link, I'm not really sure where in the article I would be able to place the image. The article doesn't mention chandeliers (or even lights), so the image would seem out of context if I added it to the article. Epicgenius (talk) 18:10, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
    • Right, I wasn't sure if maybe there was any sourcing available about the lighting that hadn't been included. A quick Google search suggests no, and I assume you know the offline sources well enough to say. No problem! ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:26, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
• Revised a couple of close-together usages of "intended to"
  • Thanks. Epicgenius (talk) 18:10, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
• Do you really need 5 refs for completion ahead of schedule? Seems a lot.
  • I have trimmed this down to 2 refs. I don't know why that claim has 5 refs in the first place, though. Epicgenius (talk) 18:10, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
• "At the time, 40 Wall Street was believed to be the most valuable real-estate property to be auctioned." - in the history of...New York? America? The world?
  • I clarified that it was believed to be the most valuable property auctioned in NYC. It may well be the most valuable property auctioned in the US or worldwide, but the reference that supports this fact is a local source (which doesn't elaborate further), so I assume they mean in a local context. Epicgenius (talk) 18:10, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

That's all I got! ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:19, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

• @Premeditated Chaos: Thanks for the comments. I really appreciate it, and I think I've fixed all of these issues now. Epicgenius (talk) 18:10, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

• Looks good to me! ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:27, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Vaticidalprophet

Pulling up a heading.

• The footnote in the infobox on "Tallest in the world from April 1930 to May 27, 1930" is broken.
  • I've fixed it now. I had to use a hack similar to the Singer Building article, because apparently the infobox doesn't allow editors to disable the footnote for world's tallest building. Epicgenius (talk) 23:18, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
• What is diaperwork? The name conjures...other ideas, and the piped article isn't super descriptive.
  • In this specific context, selected bricks are laid in a repetitive pattern to create a diagonal grid, kind of like in this image. I've tried to clarify this. Epicgenius (talk) 23:18, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
• "Der Scutt Architects renovated the lobby, and the Trump Organization also replaced several hundred windows, refurbished 30 elevator cabs, and added lights to illuminate the roof" doesn't need "also".
  • Removed. Epicgenius (talk) 23:18, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
• Is there a reason AIA Guide to New York City is in single quotes? Our article italicizes it.
  • The original source had the book in double quotes rather than in italics. Since this is a quotation, it was changed to single quotes. I have italicized it now. Epicgenius (talk) 23:18, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Will make further comments, but probably not many. Vaticidalprophet 20:09, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, Vaticidalprophet. I've resolved all of the issues you've pointed out so far, and I look forward to any other feedback you might have. Epicgenius (talk) 23:18, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

It's been a few days, sorry -- my life is finally a bit more stable now...Have looked back over the article, and while my comments were short, I honestly can't make any more. I'm willing to support this. Vaticidalprophet 04:14, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Image review

Either all images of buildings should have PD-US-architecture or none of them.

File:40 Wall Street Manhattan New York City.jpg. What is the evidence it was published between 1928 and 1963?

Otherwise all images appear to be appropriately used and have proper licenses.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:29, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the image review @Wehwalt. I've added PD-architecture to all of the descriptions on Commons. I've hidden File:40 Wall Street Manhattan New York City.jpg for now because I can't find evidence of when it was actually published (sources seem to indicate that it was published when it was created in 1930, though there's ambiguity about that). – Epicgenius (talk) 23:41, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

OK. All good. Wehwalt (talk) 00:14, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Comments from voorts

As Epicgenius noted, I conducted a GOCE copy edit for this article in May. As there has already been a spot check for citations, I won't conduct another one. The article meets criteria 1b, d, e, 2a-b, 3 (per Wehwalt's image review), and 4. I have some 1a suggestions and other comments:

• Other features of the facade include spandrels between the windows on each story, which are recessed behind the vertical piers on the facade. – I think this sentence needs to be rewritten because "[o]ther features" implies several different types of features, not multiple of the same feature (i.e., spandrels).
  • I have rephrased this. Epicgenius (talk) 16:00, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
• The lower floors contained the Manhattan Company's double-height banking room, a board room, a trading floor, and two basements with vaults. The remaining stories were rented to tenants; there were private clubs on several floors, as well as an observation deck on the 69th and 70th floors. – this is a non sequitur and should be in a new paragraph.
  • This was intended to summarize the interior of the building. The site, architectural overview, and exterior are summarized in the same paragraph. Epicgenius (talk) 16:00, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
• 40 Wall Street and the Chrysler Building were competingcompeted for the distinction of world's tallest building at the time of both buildings' construction;, though the Chrysler Building ultimately won that title.
  • Done. Epicgenius (talk) 16:00, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
• According to author Daniel M. Abramson, the classically-styled details at the base were intended to provide "context and support", while the Gothic-style roof was intended to emphasize the building's height. – it's not clear why any old "author" would be qualified to opine on the architecture of a building; what kind of author is he? An architectural critic? Historian?
  • Abramson is an art history professor at Tufts University. I've clarified this. Epicgenius (talk) 16:00, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
• In general, the facade is composed of buff-colored brick, as well as decorative elements made of terracotta and brick. – what color are the brick decorative elements?
  • They are also buff colored. Epicgenius (talk) 16:00, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
• The Oceanus sculpture had beenwas removed [SPECIFY YEAR]by the late 20th century.
  • I've reworded this sentence. Unfortunately, I do not know when the sculpture was removed, but it was no later than 1973, when a book referred to it as "lost or destroyed". Epicgenius (talk) 16:00, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
• As of May 2023, letters reading "The Trump Building" are above the first floor, while the fourth floor has a pair of flagpoles. – The citation here is to n28, the 1995 Landmark Preservation Commission source; can you find a more recent source confirming that it still says "The Trump Building" as of now?
  • There is a Bloomberg source from 2016 (which is already in the article). I've copied it over. Epicgenius (talk) 16:00, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
• The building's pyramidal roof was originally made of lead-coated copper. – (1) Why are two of the cites in the middle of this sentence? (2) This sentence implies that the roof is now made of something different. Is that correct? If so, what?
  • I've removed the cites in the middle of the sentence. The roof is still made of the same material, but the copper has oxidized over time (kind of like the Statue of Liberty), so it now looks green. Epicgenius (talk) 16:00, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
    • How about this: The building's pyramidal roof was originally is made of lead-coated copper, which has oxidized and turned green over time. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:52, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
• The ground story was highly decentralized, with seven entrances from Wall Street, which ledleading to various vestibules.
  • Done. Epicgenius (talk) 16:00, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
• Winter's murals have since been removed. – where are they now?
  • Unfortunately, I have not been able to find any record of the murals after they were removed. The murals were likely either lost or destroyed. Epicgenius (talk) 16:00, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
• As ofSince 2011, the second floor ishas been occupied by a Duane Reade convenience store.
  • Done. Epicgenius (talk) 16:00, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
• Wooden doors and fireplaces with segmental arches are on the eastern wall, while false windows are on the western wall. – should this be "were on the eastern wall", rather than "are"?
  • Yes. I've done that. Epicgenius (talk) 16:00, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
• Paul Starrett, of the Starrett Corporation, said:that, "Of all the construction work which I have handled, the Bank of Manhattan was the most complicated and the most difficult, and I regard it as the most successful."
  • Done. Epicgenius (talk) 16:00, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
• The author John Tauranac, who wrote a book about the Empire State Building's history, later stated that if 40 Wall Street had "ever had been the tallest building, they would have had bragging rights, and if they did, I certainly never heard them".
  • Done. Epicgenius (talk) 16:00, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
• In August 1950, the building's owners submitted plans for an alteration of the building, to at a cost of $300,000.
  • Done. Epicgenius (talk) 16:00, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
• After a U.S. circuit court – I assume this is the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit? If so, specify and wikilink.
  • According to the Los Angeles Times, yes. Epicgenius (talk) 16:00, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
• A federal judge ordered a foreclosure sale of the Marcos properties in August 1989 – SDNY? If so, do the same as the above note.
  • For this, I'm not sure, as neither source specifies which federal court. However, since it was in Foley Square, it probably is SDNY; I just can't verify this. Epicgenius (talk) 16:00, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
    • The only federal court house at Foley Square is SDNY. I don't think it would be synth to state that. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:48, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
    • I took another look. The WSJ source says that the judge was Pierre N. Leval. Also, the source doesn't say he made his decision in August 1989, but that the auction occurred then; that should be clarified. How about: Then-District Court Judge Pierre N. Leval ordered a foreclosure sale of the Marcos properties; the sale occurred in August 1989. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:57, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
• Resnick decided the next year to spend $50 million on upgrades. – It's not clear what "the next year" is referring to.
  • Clarified that it was 1990. Epicgenius (talk) 16:00, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
• The following sentence is unclear: The loan's servicer, Wells Fargo, requested an update on leasing developments the mortgagee.
  • Wells Fargo is the bank that is in charge of servicing this loan, i.e. collecting interest and principal payments on the loan from the Trump Organization, which is the mortgagee. Basically, Wells Fargo wanted the Trump Organization to update them on the status of various leases and/or the amounts of space that had been leased recently. This is fairly run-of-the-mill, though, so I've removed the sentence. Epicgenius (talk) 16:00, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
• Are there any free use photographs of the building's interior (both past and present) or close-ups of the exterior details that can be included in the article? A photograph of the Luncheon Club would be particularly cool. (I'm picturing the "those are rookie numbers" scene from The Wolf of Wall Street.)
  • I could take some close-up shots of the exterior later (I will be busy for the foreseeable future, but I can ask my fellow editors at WP:NYC to help out). Although there are compatibly licensed images on Flickr, none are close ups.
    Sadly, I have not found any freely licensed images of the interior that would be useful for this article. Perhaps in 2026 (when images from 1930 come into the public domain), there may be some images of the interior that could be uploaded. Epicgenius (talk) 16:00, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Once these are resolved, I will support. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:25, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the commentary @Voorts. I'll address them shortly. – Epicgenius (talk) 02:28, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

@Voorts: I have addressed or replied to all of your above comments now. Epicgenius (talk) 16:00, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

@Epicgenius: I have a few replies above. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:59, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

@voorts, thanks. I've fixed both of these. – Epicgenius (talk) 21:05, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Looks good. I support this article for FA. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:31, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:40, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

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 2023 [28].

---

Abishabis

Nominator(s): Z1720 (talk) 20:49, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Happy to return after a two-year absence. This article is about a Cree religious leader from the 19th century. Methodist missionaries and Hudson's Bay Company employees gave various accounts of his life and teachings, which have been analysed by modern-day researchers. Although the article is shorter than my previous ones, I think I have incorporated all the sources I could find. Thank you Phlsph7 for the PR, Firefangledfeathers for the GOCE copyedit and Mike Christie for the recent GAN review. I look forward to your comments. Z1720 (talk) 20:49, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Image review

For the first image, is a publication date known? If it was actually published in 1853 then it would be {{PD-1923}}. (t · c) buidhe 21:06, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

@Buidhe: While I could not find the exact image, a colour version of the image is available in the Libraries and Archives collection with the same information as the image in this article. The publication date listed is 1853, so I have changed the US PD template to PD-1923. Z1720 (talk) 02:11, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

@Buidhe: Is the above fine for the image? Z1720 (talk) 16:42, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes (t · c) buidhe 17:17, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Support from Gog the Mild

Recusing to review. Has it really been two years? It seems much more recent. Yet two years is too long, welcome back. Marking a space to have a look at this one. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:08, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

My last FAC passed in Aug 2021, so it's been 21 months! Z1720 (talk) 01:58, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: Ajpolino indicated that they would be busy the next few days. Do you want to start your review in the meantime? Z1720 (talk) 12:01, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

• I can't find any mention of "Small Eyes" in the main text.
  • I searched every source used in the article again, and I can't find any additional information about the "Small Eyes" name. I do not know if this is a nickname, a middle name, an alternate name, a translation, or something else. Since there's nothing more to say, I think it's best to have it in the lede with an inline citation. Z1720 (talk) 14:54, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

From the MoS: "Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article." I don't think that an alternate name about which we seem to know nothing counts as a "basic fact". If it is to be mentioned at all it should be briefly in the main article, with nothing in the lead.

• I moved the Small Eyes information to a note, as I did something similar in William Lyon Mackenzie. Another option is to mention Small Eyes in "Early life and background" at the beginning of the first paragraph, either in the text or as a note. Thoughts? Z1720 (talk) 18:48, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Either works, although personally I would be inclined to go for putting it in EL&BG.

• Link First Nations.

• Done. Z1720 (talk) 21:48, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

• "Stories of Abishabis were passed down by the Cree people, who claimed that Abishabis introduced Christianity to them." I am left unsure from this as to whether either of these is still the case.

• Added to the lede: "In 1930, John Montgomery Cooper reported that stories of Abishabis..." Z1720 (talk) 21:50, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

• The ISBN for Papers of the Algonquian Conference Volume 13 is 978-0770901233.

• Added. Z1720 (talk) 21:52, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

• The two Brown works and Williamson need page ranges.

• Done. Z1720 (talk) 21:59, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

• "Abishabis was from a district that contained York Factory." And so? What is York Factory and why is it significant?
  • Added that Abishabis's group traded with HBC at York Factory, to describe their relationship. Z1720 (talk) 15:00, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
• It would be helpful if what "Cree" means could be explained.
  • I added information about who the Cree were in relation to HBC (fur traders, etc.) Z1720 (talk) 17:21, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
• "by the Hudson's Bay Company". Which is/was what?
  • I added information about the company, including that they traded furs to Europe. Z1720 (talk) 17:21, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
• "frequent traders with HBC". Should that be 'the HBC'?
  • Hudson's Bay Company uses both, but to standardise I changed all instances to "HBC" (no the). Z1720 (talk) 17:23, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

That seems ungrammatical to me, but I shall let it pass.

• "The group that he belonged to were frequent traders with HBC, and relied upon guns to hunt." You and I may understand the link between the two parts of this sentence, but it is asking a lot of a casual reader. Possibly it will be explained when York Factory and HBC are unpacked a little above.
  • Some info was added further up, and I added to this sentence: "and relied upon guns to hunt the furs that they traded to HBC." Z1720 (talk) 17:30, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
• "manipulation from the devil". I think that should be an upper case D.
  • Source uses a capital D, so I changed it to a capital D. Z1720 (talk) 17:49, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
• "Abishabis's claims of receiving food and clothing in exchange for the faith of his followers went unfulfilled." Did he claim that he had received these, or that he would? I am unsure from the text.
  • Simplified to "and demanded larger quantities of food and clothing."
• "to travel to Severn House ... arrived in Severn". Which ?
  • Changed to Severn House in each instance (and fixed a wikilink). Z1720 (talk) 17:58, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
• "Hargrave gave this order to prevent an uprising of the Cree people against HBC." You state this as a fact. Do the sources agree that it was, or should we be saying 'Hargrave claimed that he gave this order to prevent an uprising of the Cree people against HBC'?
  • The source (N. Williamson) is interpreting Hargrave's action based on reports and letters sent by HBC employees at the time. In the article I clarified that this is Williason's opinion. Z1720 (talk) 18:08, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

The sentence seems to be unchanged.

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:41, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: Responses above. Z1720 (talk) 18:08, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

• "the possibility of not having enough food for the upcoming winter." I fail to see the connection between this and disobeying Hargreave's order.
  • I added information about Cromartie's anxieties about the food: It's a fair bit of text so I invite you to read it in the article (instead of posting here). Z1720 (talk) 22:55, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
• "Indigenous people". Why the upper case initial I?
  • In MOS:RACECAPS, Indigenous has an uppercase. In other policies and guidelines, capitalisation is also used, which is why I capitalised in this article. I did a ctr+F and ensured that all instances of Indigenous were capitalised in the article. Z1720 (talk) 23:00, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
• "a claim disputed by Norman Williamson." Is Williamson disputing "Indigenous people's claims" or what "Cromartie wrote".
  • I tried explaining it in the text, but it was too complicated so I just removed this. Z1720 (talk) 23:04, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
• "a group of Cree forcibly removed him from his jail cell, murdered him, and burned his body" is in the lead. The main article makes no mention of them being Cree.
  • Good catch! In past iterations of the article, the body also said that the people who took Abishabis were Cree. This is disputed in other sources, and it gets complicated, so the simple thing to do was change it to people. Unfortunately, we also forgot to change it in the lede. Z1720 (talk) 23:07, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
• "and paint books." Could this be unpacked a little? )I have a mental image of groups sitting round on Sundays painting over pages of bibles, but suspect I am wrong.)
  • Source doesn't have any additional information. The quote from the source is, "Followers sang psalms, observed the Sabbath, and painted books. Z1720 (talk) 23:11, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Ho hum. Ok.

• "he stated that he had traveled to the sky". Is this the same place as "the Christian concept of heaven as a place in the sky for morally good people"?
  • I re-read the text to get a better understanding: in short, no. When the Cree claimed to have gone to the sky, they claimed to have gone to a place to receive knowledge and blessings. This would be a different location to heaven (where good people go after they die), as the Cree believed that heaven was a location in the west. Z1720 (talk) 23:44, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
• "Norman Williamson wrote that the role of Abishabis's revelations was to ..." "wrote" → 'writes'.
  • Done. Z1720 (talk) 23:51, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
• "the winter of 1843 and 1844". Do you mean 'the winter of 1843 to 1844' or 'the winters of 1843 and 1844'?
  • Changed to "the winter following his death" as it is referring to a couple of months.
• Link Moose Factory.
  • Done. Z1720 (talk) 23:51, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
• "The Cree stated that Abishabis had introduced Christianity to them." Does this refer (just) to those Cree who Cooper spoke to?
  • The source only refers to the people who lived in Moose Factory. I tried clarifying in the article. Z1720 (talk) 23:51, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

A nice little article. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:08, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: More responses above. Z1720 (talk) 23:51, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Lovely stuff. A couple of minor come backs above. If I have not commented on one of your responses, then I am content with it. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:37, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: Responded to the Small Eyes comment, which might need your response. Did I miss other comments? Z1720 (talk) 18:52, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Er. No. Sorry. A great little article, happy to support - note my response on Small Eyes. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:16, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Aoba47

Apologies in advance as this article is outside of my normal comfort zone, but I wanted to try and review different articles to try and be more helpful with the FAC process. My comments are below:

• Small Eyes is currently only mentioned in the lead. I would be curious if more context could be provided for this name, either in the body of the article or in an endnote, as I was initially uncertain of what to make of this. I am guessing it is a translation of his name, but I think this should be clearer if that is the case.
  • I searched all the sources used in the article, and "Small Eyes" (if mentioned) is placed in brackets next to Abishabis's name (example: Biographi). If I find a source that explains the background of the name, I will add that information. Z1720 (talk) 22:36, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
    • Thank you for the explanation. It is an odd case, but if there is not any coverage about its meaning, there's nothing that can be done and this would seem like the best possible solution given the context. Aoba47 (talk) 23:41, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
• The lead identifies the murdered family as First Nations (which I would recommend linking), but the article itself (at least from what I can tell) does not identify the family this way.
  • Indigenous is added back into the body, as it is verified by Biographi and implied in the accompanying note as one of people murdered might have been Abishabis's in-law, who would be Indigenous. Z1720 (talk) 22:36, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
• Since Manitoba is linked in the lead, I would link it for the first instance in the article as well for consistency. I have the same comment for Ontario.
  • Some FAC reviewers only want the first instance of a word wikilinked, as mentioned below with windigo. If other reviewers mention this then I will wikilink Manitoba and Ontario twice, but for now I'll only link the first instance per MOS:REPEATLINK. Z1720 (talk) 22:36, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
    • To be clear, I am not asking for either location to be linked twice. Manitoba and Ontario are not linked at all in the article, which is treated separately from the lead, and that is why items like York Factory and Hudson's Bay Company are linked in their first instances in the lead and the article. Aoba47 (talk) 23:04, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
      • Manitoba and Ontario have now been wikilinked. Z1720 (talk) 02:13, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
        • Thank you for the edit. Aoba47 (talk) 02:25, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
• For this part, (as a form of tithing), I think a link for tithing would be helpful for readers like myself who has no idea what that word means.
  • I wikilinked to Tithe as I think that's a more accurate definition of what is meant by the word. Z1720 (talk) 22:36, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
    • Noting here that, due to a comment below, tithing was taken out so this is moot. Z1720 (talk) 01:48, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
      • Thank you for the update on this matter. Aoba47 (talk) 02:25, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
• The term windigo is linked twice in the article, and it should only be linked on its first instance. Also, this is more of a clarification question, but any reason for using this spelling rather than wendigo?
  • I removed the second wikilink to windigo. Z1720 (talk) 22:36, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
  • The "Brown, Jennifer (1982)" source spelt it as windigo, so I followed that example as that seemed to be the more comprehensive source about this information. Z1720 (talk) 22:36, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
    • That makes sense to me. Aoba47 (talk) 02:25, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
• I do have a quick clarification question about this sentence (The Cree stated that Abishabis had introduced Christianity to them.). Do we have any further information on how the Cree view Abishabis or if there is any deeper legacy or impression left of him either in the Cree community or that area of Canada? I am mostly curious about how much of a legacy he left. I completely understand if this is all the information available.
  • As far as I know, the sources don't give much more information than what is in the article. It seems like the Methodists and HBC were successful in getting the Cree to stop following him, and much of the information we know about him is from those groups of people. Also, oral histories of Indigenous culture are less likely to be commented on by Western scholars than European written documents, so the sources that I found did not comment on what the Cree (if anything) the Cree say about Abishabis today. Z1720 (talk) 22:36, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
    • That is what I thought from reading the article, but I wanted to double-check. Thank you for the explanation as that makes sense to me. Aoba47 (talk) 23:07, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

I hope these comments are helpful. Again, apologies in advance if they are not helpful as this is very off the beaten path for me. I will read through the article some more this weekend just to do my due diligence as a reviewer and to try and provide a review to the best of my capability. I hope you have a wonderful weekend, and best of luck with this FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 00:40, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

@Aoba47: Thank you for the comments. Non-expert prose reviews are really helpful because it ensures that the general reader understands the article. I responded to your comments above. Z1720 (talk) 22:36, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

I am glad that I could help! I have left some responses above, but I agree with and am appreciative of your edits and replies. I will re-read the article again tomorrow just to make sure that I did not miss anything. Aoba47 (talk) 23:07, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

• Thank you for your patience with my review. I have read through the article a few more times, and I could not find any further issues. I support this FAC based on the prose. Aoba47 (talk) 22:26, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Ajpolino

Interesting little article, thank you for the read. I had never heard of Abishabis so I gave it a quick Google to try to get a sense if anything in our article was missing or off. Some comments:

• Is James Hargrave's take that "there was nothing remarkable about Abishabis... missionaries to the area" worth including? The Williamson piece says about Hargrave "Working at the depot, he knew little about the Cree, nor had he learned to speak their language." and prefaces the bit you cite with "If Hargrave's account has any merit...". Doesn't exactly instill confidence.
  • I included this opinion in the article because there isn't much information about Abishabis's life (hence the short article) so it was a low bar to include information. I included Hargrave's position in the sentence in order to give the audience a sense of what Hargrave's perspective might be. I am open to a better rewording of the sentence. Z1720 (talk) 01:47, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
• What supports our text "Support further weakened when Abishabis asked for his followers' wives as a form of tithing"? The Francis book only attributes directly to (maybe not the most reliable?) Hargraves the idea that Abishabis "went too far when he began coveting other men's wives" (A) Can we say that in Wikipedia's voice? and (B) I don't see the tithe bit. The Williamson piece has the two halves of this, but separately, and with less of a sex-cult vibe. Williamson says "Abishabis assumed the responsibilities and accoutrements of a Cre man of importance. Among other things he acquired more wives, a traditional sign of power and success. He supported those responsibilities by means of the tithe provided by [followers]." I took that to mean taking several wives was a culturally normal sign of power; and I'm not sure the tithe is intended to mean wives rather than something more typical like money/goods.
  • After looking at the sources, I couldn't find instances of wives being offered as tithing so I removed that part of the sentence. Some sources (Biographi and Irwin, Lee (2014)) say with relative certainty that Abishabis demanded wives so I switched out the reference. The sources do not cast doubt on Hargraves's statement about Abishabis's demands, so I think adding doubt about Hargraves's reliability in the article is original research and I did not include that. Z1720 (talk) 01:47, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
• The handshake - I was surprised by the handshake as a turning point. Williamson gives a small bit of context that the ritual handshake had resonance in the native and Methodist traditions. Any chance you can incorporate a tiny bit of context to this moment to help the reader understand that this was a meaningful ritual and rejection?
  • I added this information as "One day after prayers, Abishabis approached Hargrave to shake his hand; the Cree considered a handshake as a ritualistic action, and Abishabis intended for this to signal HBC's support of his group." Thoughts? Z1720 (talk) 01:47, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
• "bothering the population and refusing to leave despite harassment from the people" is contradicted by Williamson pg 233 (which quotes Cromarty as saying despite accusing Abishabis of being a Windigo, the other Indians were doing him no harm.)
  • I removed the second part, as sources claim contradictory things and the timeline is difficult to determine. Z1720 (talk) 01:47, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
• "but Abishabis did not respond." - we cite Williamson pg 234 which gives the Cromarty quote. I think(?) it says Abishabis denied participating the killing ("all that he said that he did not doo it") but I might be misunderstanding the quote.
  • I changed the article to "which Abishabis denied involvement with". Z1720 (talk) 01:47, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
• "Indigenous people approached Cromartie... claiming that Abishabis was threatening them if they did not give him resources." Williamson appears not to believe this, giving it only as part of Cromarty's quote and instead attributing Cromarty's actions to fear for the winter/camp/political situation. Should we believe it? Or at least should we be writing it in Wikipedia's voice?
  • While Williamson does not believe this claim, other sources do not express doubt about Cromartie's claim. In an effort to not give too much weight to Williamson's opinion over others, I have added the qualifier that this is what was written by Cromartie, a fact verified by Brown (in Biographi) and Williamson. Z1720 (talk) 01:47, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
• Google found this article from Jennifer S. H. Brown which is a longer version of her Dictionary of Canadian Biography piece. Posting in case it's useful. Footnote 2 gives a potential alternative name spelling and parent's name. Also gives a name of the murdered, though of course it's different from the account Williamson seems to believe.
  • I added info from this source. Z1720 (talk) 01:47, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Added information about the 1832 list, including the alternate name and parent's name. Z1720 (talk) 01:47, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
  • The name of the murdered is added to the note and attributed to Brown. The identities of the murdered varies between sources, so it's probably best to put in a note. Z1720 (talk) 01:47, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
• Brown has a short article called "Aboriginal spiritual beliefs" in The Oxford Companion to Canadian History (accessible through Oxford Reference at The Wikipedia Library) where she claims there were two prophets Abishabis and Wasitek, and that they were of the Swampy Cree.
  • The two prophets is mentioned in note b: sources disagree on whether Wasitek was a real person, and there are not enough information or sources to justify a separate article for him. I think the note is sufficient. Z1720 (talk) 01:47, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Name of the Cree group added, with a link to Swampy Cree. Z1720 (talk) 01:47, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

That's it for now. Thanks again for the read. Ajpolino (talk) 13:33, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

@Ajpolino: Notes above. Z1720 (talk) 01:47, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

@Ajpolino: pinging in case you forgot. Have your concerns been addressed? Z1720 (talk) 02:00, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the ping and my apologies for losing track of this. Skimming the article, I think I'll just have a couple very small things. Give me a day or two to get back to you. Ajpolino (talk) 02:57, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

A second (and final) round of comments:

• "... and his group traded with HBC..." (a sentence later) "The group that he belonged to were frequent traders with HBC". Seems redundant. Maybe the second sentence can be cut?
  • Rephrased. Z1720 (talk) 00:36, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
• "Abishabis's preaching divided the Cree people" seems strong. Did he divide the Cree, the Swampy Cree, the Cree who resided at HBC? Skimming the source it just says "he deeply divided the community". Maybe you have a sense of what that statement means from the rest of the source?
  • The rest of the source is pretty scarce, and the word community was deemed too vague as it was unclear which community was referenced. I don't know how else to phrase this. Z1720 (talk) 00:36, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

  I'd suggest removing it, since it currently makes a claim that may be untrue. Certainly the other sources suggest the HBC employees considered Abishabis a divisive figure among the Cree residing at HBC, but I'm not sure how to neatly phrase a sentence about that. Ajpolino (talk) 11:58, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

• Removed. Z1720 (talk) 12:05, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

• "burned a 'track to heaven'" - I wondered what that entailed. The source says they burned a paper depicting the path to heaven. Perhaps you could clarify?
  • I rephrased to say that Barnston destroyed an artifact depicting a track to heaven. Z1720 (talk) 00:36, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
• I still think "asked for his followers' wives" could be tweaked to better match the sources. Imagine two scenarios: (A) Leader says "All of your wives belong to me now", (B) Leader says "I require more wives" obliging at least some followers to surrender their own. I think our text currently implies (A), but the sources imply (B)... Maybe in the first paragraph of the Religious activity section we could say something like "Abishabis's movement was supported by tithes from his followers. As his following grew he accumulated goods and additional wives, a traditional sign of success." (that last part is in Williamson pg 230) then in the second paragraph something like "As his following and influence waned, he was unable to support his wives, many of whom returned to their families."
  • I added some additional text in various places to clarify this. Z1720 (talk) 00:44, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
• I wonder if "Abishabis's missionaries... In response," could be cut without losing any real meaning from the article.
  • Removed: the windigo information is presented in the following section, and this is a little to specific. Z1720 (talk) 00:54, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
• "In response, HBC employees spread a rumor that Abishabis was a windigo" can probably be cut since the same information is given to us in context a paragraph later with "with orders to incite the Cree population to kill Abishabis by accusing him of being a windigo".
  • Removed. Z1720 (talk) 00:54, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
• I think the story would flow more cleanly if the information in "Before beginning his ministry... pictographs with lines drawn upon wood or paper." was moved up to the beginning of the Religious activity section, since it's more about his religious activity and less about his views.
  • The first paragraph describes Cree beliefs before Abishabis's ministry, setting the foundation that Abishabis built upon. I moved information from that first paragraph about Abishabis's ministry to a new third paragraph in order to keep the information more chronological. Z1720 (talk) 00:54, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
• Similarly "Abishabis claimed... demanded that his followers give him clothing and ammunition" could be chopped up. The tithe bit is redundant to what we read in the section above. The High Priest bit is interesting and could stay where it is or move up to when you describe his activity.
  • I removed the tithing bit. I decided to keep the High Priest info here as I don't think there' a good spot to put it in the biography section, as it's a little unclear when he made those claims. Z1720 (talk) 02:50, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

That's all. Again, a very enjoyable read. Thank you for all your work on this. Ajpolino (talk) 12:47, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

@Ajpolino: responses above. Z1720 (talk) 02:50, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your responsiveness and flexibility. I'm happy to support this FAC on the "comprehensive" and "well-researched" criteria. The sources are reliable as best I can tell, the article faithfully reflects the sources, and I failed to find significant information elsewhere that's not in the article. Ajpolino (talk) 11:56, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Comments

• "referred to as "Home Guard Indians" by Hudson's Bay Company" => "referred to as "Home Guard Indians" by the Hudson's Bay Company"
  • Done. Z1720 (talk) 01:56, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
• "In July 1843, Abishabis gathered supplies to travel to Severn House.[5] Abishabis was accused" => "In July 1843, Abishabis gathered supplies to travel to Severn House.[5] He was accused"
  • Done. Z1720 (talk) 01:56, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
• Windigo is linked twice
  • Fixed above. Done. Z1720 (talk) 01:56, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
• "Upon Abishabis's death, Abishabis's followers" => "Upon Abishabis's death, his followers"
  • This was reworded when responding to comments above, so this is moot. Z1720 (talk) 01:56, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
• "A woman and boy spread" => "A woman and a boy spread"
  • Done. Z1720 (talk) 01:56, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
• "Hargrave sent a report to the British government in London, which praised Hargrave's efforts" - was it the report or the govt that did the praising? --
  • Re-phrased as: "their response praised Hargrave's efforts to have Abishabis killed." Z1720 (talk) 01:56, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:35, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

@ChrisTheDude: responses above. Z1720 (talk) 01:56, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

@ChrisTheDude: pinging in case you forgot. Have your concerns been addressed? Z1720 (talk) 02:00, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support - apologies for not getting back sooner -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:54, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Comments Support by Kaiser matias

• Is it worth noting his name in Cree syllabics in the lead?
  • None of the sources gave a Cree translation of his name, and most of what we know about him is from HBC and missionary documents (not Cree) which used the Latin alphabet. I would not feel comfortable using a machine-translated copy of his name. Z1720 (talk) 16:15, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
• "Abishabis was from a district that contained York Factory." I realize York Factory is linked, but have you considered noting where this in modern times for readers (ex. "...contained York Factory (in modern Manitoba)", or something like that). I see that is done later in the article as well (the first paragraph of "Religious activity", for example).
  • Done. Z1720 (talk) 16:15, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
• "He was Omushkego Cree, referred to as "Home Guard Indians" by Hudson's Bay Company (HBC)." Should have a "the" before Hudson's Bay Company, no? The mention of the HBC in the lead uses one, so best to be consistent and either keep it for both, or remove for both. From a modern perspective, I know it as "the HBC" (or "the Bay"), but if the convention in historical writing is to drop "the" I have no issue.
  • Done. Wikipedia's article uses "The Hudson's Bay Company" so that is what I standardised to in this article. Z1720 (talk) 16:15, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
• "In the years preceding Abishabis's religious pursuits, the group believed something was wrong with their hunting grounds, as they struggled to hunt caribou." Any idea what the Cree thought the issue was here?
  • I went back to the source, and it says that the Cree thought there was something wrong with the land, but did not expand upon this. It seems like the Cree were also struggling to figure out what was wong. Z1720 (talk) 16:15, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
• Other than that I don't see anything else to note. As it is I mostly have questions about style, and the article is quite interesting. Kaiser matias (talk) 15:33, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
  • @Kaiser matias: responses above. Z1720 (talk) 16:15, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick work here. I'm happy with the above, and glad to support a solid article. Kaiser matias (talk) 16:27, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Source review

I'll leave a few comments, and I can also do the source review, if one needs to be done (Gog the Mild?). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:43, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

I believe that it does. Thank you. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:39, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Source review

• I don't believe Brown 1988 should be cited as a webpage, since it's an excerpt from the Dictionary of Canadian Biography; see the citation guidance at the bottom of the linked page.
  • I left it as a website template for two reasons: 1) that's where I got the information from, and 2) the website version is continuously updated, so this entry might be updated later, and I want to point people to the latest edition. Z1720 (talk) 18:07, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

• The website version is not continuously updated, otherwise the citation wouldn't be able to say Brown, Jennifer S. H. (1988) at all

• I have changed the ref to Template:Cite DCB. Z1720 (talk) 13:01, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

• The page number is included in both the inline and full citation of Ray 2004.
  • In the source, the entry for "Aboriginals in the Fur Trade" is only on page 12 (while the other entry from this book, Brown 2004a, is spread over multiple pages). Z1720 (talk) 18:07, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

• Yes, that makes sense.

• Sources checked for close paraphrasing and source-to-text integrity: Williamson 1980 and 2004, Brown 1988, and Round 2010. All good.
  • Thanks for doing this! Z1720 (talk) 18:07, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

General comments

• The article could use some wikilinks. "Windigo", "game", "missionary", "trading post", "tithes" etc. A lot more could be used for readers unfamiliar with the time period/sociocultural context.
  • I wikilined windigo and tithes, changed game to meat for simplicity's sake. I think missionary and trading post are pretty common words and wikilinking these might be WP:OVERLINK. Z1720 (talk) 18:07, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

• Added a couple for international/unfamiliar readers; feel free to revert.

• Should the acronymized Hudson's Bay Company be referred to as "HBC" or "the HBC"? A different example: the East India Company is normally referred to as "the EIC".
  • This was also brought up by Gog above: Wikipedia's article on the Hudson Bay Company uses both, so I chose to exclude the "the" in all instances, but I'm happy to put it in if other feel it is needed. Let me know your thoughts below, and I'll also post an informal thread at WP:CANADA to solicit other opinions. Z1720 (talk) 18:07, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

• Only "HBC" just sounds a bit odd, y'know? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:26, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

• Per responses in WP:CANADA and here, I've changed most instances to "the HBC" unless grammatically incorrect to do so. Z1720 (talk) 13:10, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

• On a similar note, you could vary the use of "the HBC" with "the Company" to avoid repetition.

• I don't think I'll capitalise company, but I replaced HBC with other uses. Z1720 (talk) 18:07, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

• The acronym in brackets isn't needed in the lead, as the shortened form isn't used until the body.

• Done. Z1720 (talk) 18:07, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

• Maybe you could decrease the usage of "Abishabis"—it's used 66 times in a 1500 word article (4% of the total), and alternatives are available.
  • I changed some of the usages to other variants. Z1720 (talk) 18:07, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Otherwise looks good, Z1720. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:28, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

@AirshipJungleman29: Responses above. Z1720 (talk) 18:16, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Just the two issues of Brown 1988 and "HBC" remaining, Z1720. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:26, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

@AirshipJungleman29: Responses above. Z1720 (talk) 13:10, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Gog the Mild, I pass the source review and support the promotion of this nomination. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:15, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Comments from CT55555

This is my first time chiming in at FAC, so take these as comments, not as expert advice. Some minor critiques, none show stoppers:

1. The Omushkego Cree relied upon guns to hunt the furs. Is this really the best way to say it? They didn't hunt furs, they hunted animals that they turned into furs.

• Changed to, "The Omushkego Cree relied upon guns to hunt animals, and the furs from these animals were traded to the HBC." Open to other wording suggestions. Z1720 (talk) 02:59, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

1. I find the addition of the (apparently not notable) James Hargrave's comments a net negative. This is basically: a non important European man did not consider an Indigenous man remarkable.

• This section focuses a lot on Abishabis's background; this sentence was placed here to give additional information about Abishabis's early life, of which little is known. Z1720 (talk) 02:59, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

1. I don't understand the sentence They also reported that followers relied upon wooden carvings for salvation and consequently starved to death. How does someone's religious ceremony result in starvation?

• Changed to "They also reported that followers relied upon wooden carvings for salvation and neglected the consumption of food or drink, causing some of them to starve to death." Z1720 (talk) 02:59, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

1. Before beginning his ministry, Abishabis separated himself from the group What group?

• Changed to "Before beginning his ministry, Abishabis separated himself from the Cree and the HBC employees." Z1720 (talk) 02:59, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

1. ...and painted books What does that mean? They painted in book? Or painted images of books?

• This was talked about above: the source says "Followers sang psalms, observed the Sabbath, and painted books." There's no additional information other than that. Z1720 (talk) 02:59, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

1. Consider linking psalms. might not be intuitive to non-Christians.

• Done. Z1720 (talk) 02:59, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Overall a good article. Great to see more Indigenous history being promoted on Wikipedia. It is easy to read and covers the topic with the right length. Everything seems well cited and neutrally written. It does seem to rely on what Europeans said about him, rather than Indigenous sources, but I recognise the challenge we have with history being written by the colonisers and Indigenous people's tendency to rely on oral story telling.

As a new reviewer, I think I should comment rather than support or oppose, but I'll just hint that it seems good notwithstanding the minor comments I made above. CT55555(talk) 02:39, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

@CT55555: Responses above. Z1720 (talk) 02:59, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

I find all the fixes to be good and the book painting explanation to be reasonable. I stand by my point about James Hargrave's opinion being a net negative. I'm new to this, so my grumble about that should be taken in the context of this being my first FAC review involvement. CT55555(talk) 03:17, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Just one follow up comment: are the Cree and the HBC employees two distinct groups? I assumed not (based on hazy memory of the topic). i.e. is ...separated himself from the Cree and the HBC employees going to be correct? Sorry to not have an elegant solution here, in the event that they are overlapping groups. CT55555(talk) 03:20, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes they are. "Early life and background" gives more information about the relationship between these two groups. Z1720 (talk) 04:10, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

OK, then my original "all the fixes are good" comment stands. CT55555(talk) 04:13, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 20:25, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

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 2023 [29].

---

British logistics in the Western Allied invasion of Germany

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:01, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

The concluding article in the series on British logistics in the campaign in North West Europe in 1944-1945, taking the story down to the conclusion of the war in Europe. (Its American counterpart is still in the works.) For some reason the campaigns of 1945 has not been covered in the literature or the Wikipedia nearly as well as those of 1944. Once again though, I have uncovered some striking images and maps and high quality sources. The article has recently passed an A class review. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:01, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

@Nick-D: I added the extra section you requested in the A class review. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:19, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Ling

• Current note 7, Ruppenthal 1953, pp. 475–478: "when the American Operation Cobra broke through the German defences west of Saint-Lô". Perhaps I'm missing something. I don't see it.

  Ruppenthal 1953, p. 475: "Postponed for a week because of unfavorable weather, Operation COBRA as finally launched on 25 July. Following an air bombardment on an unprecedented scale, the heavily reinforced VII Corps (four infantry and two armored divisions) initiated the offensive on a narrow front between Périers and St. Lô... By 31 July the Americans had captured both Granville and Avranches, thus unhinging the enemy’s left flank and opening the door into Brittany." Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:53, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

• Current note 96, Payton-Smith 1971, p. 448: " By this time the system consisted of 1,811 kilometres (1,125 mi) of pipelines and storage tanks with a capacity of 104,770 tonnes (103,120 long tons)" Perhaps I'm missing something. I don't see it. § Lingzhi (talk) 07:58, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

  This comes from the accompanying note 93 to Carter and Kann 1961, p. 372: "In all, 1,125 miles of piping complete with pumping stations and storage tanks for 103,120 tons were laid in 351 days at an average of over 3 miles per day." Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:53, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

• refs look nice. I request a spot check. § Lingzhi (talk|check refs) 15:19, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Support from Gog the Mild

Recusing to review. I had a look at this at ACR and will see what else I can find.

• The caption "Map of Operation Goldflake" will be unenlightening for almost all readers.

  Do you have a suggestion? I realise that it says that on the image but it would be informative to a reader wuith the images turned off. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:18, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

  Maybe 'Map of Operation Goldflake - the transfer of Allied units from Italy to Belgium'?

  Sure. Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:55, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

• Could we have the OCLC for Stacey? (317352926)

  Added. Thanks for that. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:18, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

I remembered tracking it down for one of mine.

• "They were augmented by 1,891 and 1,446 anti-aircraft guns and anti-tank guns." Is that 1,891 AA and AT guns from the 2nd army or 1,891 AA guns?

  Aaagh no. Rewritten. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:18, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

• "the British Second Army burned 7,600 tonnes (7,500 long tons) of petrol a day". If this is written in UKVar, should that not be 'burnt'?

  This is another one of those instances where the native speaker knows what is correct but cannot explain why. Both forms are usually acceptable in UK English, but they are not alternative spellings! They are pronounced very differently. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:18, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:30, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

• "A new base was developed around Brussels". As this is the first mention of bases it may be helpful to make that 'A new supply base was developed around Brussels'?

  I am using "base" is a technical sense. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:01, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

• "Petrol was brought in tankers and over the Operation Pluto pipeline." In the lead you specify that these were from the UK.

  Added, but trimmed the lead a bit. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:01, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

• "Eisenhower ordered Montgomery to resume his preparations for Operation Veritable". A date would be helpful.

  Added the date. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:01, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:22, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

• "a bulk petrol transport company, a petrol depot, a bridge company". The terminology may be correct, but "a petrol depot" sounds more like physical infrastructure than a unit, and is used in that sense elsewhere.

  It is a unit, and is only used in that sense in the article. I have added a footnote to describe its function. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:39, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

• Optional: Maybe some footnotes explaining what some things were or did? Eg detail issue depot; FIDO.

  FIDO has its own article. But added some footnotes about the rest. Thinking about whether this would be better in the body. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:39, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

  Decided to fold the footnotes in. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:34, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

• Nicholson (1956): The pdf link is broken.

  Replaced the link. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:39, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

• "where there was 51,000 tonnes (50,000 long tons) of storage capacity. Antwerp had 300,000 tonnes (300,000 long tons) of POL storage". It seems odd that different conversions of the same thing are to different levels of accuracy.

  Tweaked the template to avoid this.

• Could things like section, platoon, company etc be linked at first mention.

  Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:39, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

• "followed by daily deliveries of 14,000 litres (3,000 imp gal) per day." One of "daily" or "per day" is arguably redundant.

  Redundancy removed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:39, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

• "he rest returned to the War Office for disposal ... stocks remaining in the RMA were transferred to the control of the War Office." Is this duplication?

  Yes. Resolved. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:39, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

• "The 17th and 19th Line of Communications Sub Area". Should "Area" be plural?

  Yes. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:39, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

• "an additional 1,471 rounds in addition to the". Can anything be done about "an additional ... in addition ..."?

  Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:59, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

• "Road maintenance was made especially difficult by the winter weather." Personally I would delete "especially".

  Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:59, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

• "were normally stocked on a commodity basis". Which means?

  Re-worded to clarify that each stocked a particular commodity. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:59, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

• "It did not remove the need from road transport entirely though". Should "from" be 'for'?

  Yes. Corrected. Well spotted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:59, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

• "Some of the ammunition that had earlier been dumped was to be made inaccessible by flood waters." Delete "to be"?

  Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:59, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

• "It would also free transport to support a rapid advance." Possibly a reminder of what "it" is, and why/how would it free transport?

  Expanded on this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:59, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

• "18,000 tonnes (18,000 long tons) of POL, 5,100 tonnes (5,000 long tons) of supplies, 30,000 tonnes (30,000 long tons) of engineer stores and 5,500 tonnes (5,400 long tons)". Differing levels of accuracy again.

  Fiddled with the rounding. Note that the source uses different levels of precision. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:59, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

• What is the "seaborne tail" of an airborne division?

  Logistical support elements that travel by sea and road. Linked, added a few words, per the other article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:59, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

• "the sole class 70 route (ie one capable of carrying loads of up to 70 tonnes (69 long tons))". I had thought that a class 70 route could carry up to 70 long tons. No?

  Yes. Corrected. Actually it is more complicated. During World War I the British came up with this to address the recurring problem of vehicles that were too heavy for bridges they tried to drive over. Rather than ask the troops to do a calculation each time, they had an engineer do it and slap a sign on the bridge. Then they put one on all the vehicles. All you had to do was match them up to see if your vehicle could cross. However other factors come into play when it comes to vehicles, so these were taken into account to produce the NATO Military Load Classification that we have today. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:59, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

• " Each man crossing the Rhine was issued with a 24-hour ration, an emergency ration, a tin of preserved meat, a tin of self-heating soup or cocoa, a packet of biscuits and a tommy cooker with six hexamine tablets." This reads as if the "tin of preserved meat, a tin of self-heating soup or cocoa, a packet of biscuits and a tommy cooker with six hexamine tablets" were in addition to the two rations. Just checking that that is what you wanted to say.

  Yes, in addition to the rations. Tried to make this clearer. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:59, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

  The 24-hour rat pack contained ten hard biscuits, two oatmeal blocks, a meat block, three slabs of chocolate, four boiled lollies, two packets of gum, and two tea-sugar-milk blocks, each capable of brewing a pint of tea using the tommy cooker. So you would share your tea with a mate. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:34, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

• "baulk": I thought the usual UK spelling was balk.

  That is the American spelling. The British spelling is "baulk". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:59, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

• "ammunition that had been pre-loaded on some of the transport that had been allocated by". "that had been ... that had been"?

  Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:34, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

• "the 1944-1945 harvest". This seems an odd phrase; what gets harvested during winter?

  re-worded, hewing more closely to the source. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:34, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

• "21st Army Group organised the effort to get the coal industry working again." Should that be 'The 21st Army Group ...'?

  Yes. Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:34, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Gog the Mild (talk) 13:19, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by PM

G'day Hawkeye, great to see this series continue. As few comments from me:

Lead

• suggest "the British and Canadian forces employed mechanisation and materiel to maximum effect during combat operations.

  Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:02, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

• is there a link that could be used for medium artillery?

  Not aware of one. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:02, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

• introduce and link Montgomery

  Added and linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:02, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

• link Second Army and first mention (and unlink second mention) and link Ninth Army

  Added and linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:02, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

• link engineer and pioneer

  Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:02, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:15, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Background

• suggest "Once opened, Antwerp had sufficient port capacity..."

  Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:57, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

• suggest "and the importation of additional locomotives"

  Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:57, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

• what civilians were employed by 21st Army Group at the base? Locally employed or British etc?

  Local. Added this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:57, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

• The Rhineland Campaign – 6–10 March 1945 map seems oddly placed, given the Background section doesn't really address the Rhineland campaign and is largely focused on the situation at the end of 1944.

  Moved the maps down. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:57, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

• the mention of the US forces placed under Monty's command begs the question of where their logistics came from. Worth mentioning here whether or not the Brits had to provide any logistic support to them, or whether that remained a US responsibility.

  They remained a US responsibility. I thought I had said this, but it was in the other article. Added here. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:57, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:04, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Operation Goldflake

• initial cap for 21st army Group

  Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:30, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

• it would read better if you introduced the BSD, fd bakeries etc and relevant initialisations, then expanded on each in the same order, using the initialisation after they have been introduced, and continue that for the rest of the para. No need to introduce the initialisations twice.

  Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:30, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

• suggest reversing the order of the personnel and vehicles accommodation in Marseilles, it would be clearer.

  Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:30, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

More to come Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:19, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Development of the LOC

• suggest explaining what bulk and packaged POL are when discussing capacity

  "Bulk" is defined as being in containers holding at least 450 litres or 400 kilograms. In practice, "packaged" means in jerry cans and 44-gallon drums. Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:56, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

• do fn 40 and 39 need to be out of numerical order?

  An artefact of the editing process. Reversed the footnotes. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:56, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

• suggest "a three platoon company" not another, as the others have been converted by this stage.

  Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:56, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

• suggest explaining where the barges operated. I may have missed this earlier, so perhaps this is not the place, but it needs to be explained at the first point barges are mentioned as a means of transport.

  The details appear in a later paragraph. Simply added that they were used on the canals. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:56, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:56, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Operation Veritable

• suggest "including some that waswere"

  Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:09, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

• I am not sure I understand pepperpot tactics as practiced with AT and AA guns. Both are essentially direct-fire weapons, and what seems to be described here seems to be indirect fire?

  They can be used that way. The idea was simply to generate enough fire. As an aside, somebody in the Australian Army thought that it would be a great idea to celebrate the tenth anniversary of the Battle of El Alamein in 1952 by duplicating the pepperpot. According to my father, nine miles of guns were assembled at Puckapunyal, and when they fired, the resulting shock wave blew out windows as far away as Seymour. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:09, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

• suggest sticking a nbsp between XXX and Corps, and in general, to avoid line breaks. Same for "No. 167" and similar.

  They make it hard to find things when I'm editing. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:09, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

• "which required 64,000 tonnes (63,000 long tons)" of gravel?

  Yes. Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:09, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

• "taken from the formations" which formations?

  Changed to "the divisions" to make this clearer. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:09, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

• suggest moving comma as follows: "No. 167 FMC established by the XXX Corps, which"

  Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:09, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

• suggest linking Grave, Netherlands and Mook en Middelaar at first mention in the article.

  Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:09, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:14, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Operation Plunder

• remind the reader when Antwerp port opened, as this was related quite a long distance above, suggest "With Antwerp open from late September..."

  26 November 1944. Added, although it is there above. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 12:41, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

• suggest one of 14 days→margin of 14 days

  This is actually really interesting. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 12:41, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

• already being shipped at the maximum rate? What was the limiting factor? Manufacturing?

  Yes. Pretty incredible eh? Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 12:41, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

• 7.2-inch howitzers

  Appended. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 12:41, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

• suggest "two 8-inch howitzers fired 176 rounds"

  Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 12:41, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

• suggest "employed forty eight 3.7-inch anti-aircraft guns"

  Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 12:41, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

• so the 22,000 US engineers were supporting the British crossing? But logistically supported by the US?

  Yes. It means that the Americans were drawing their supplies from COMZ except for POL, and were under 12th Army Group for administration (eg pay and discipline). Hawkeye7 (discuss) 12:41, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

• should Navy be navy when not the Royal navy in full?

  I guess so. De-capped. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 12:41, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

• suggest linking pier (architecture) and abutment

  Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 12:41, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

• 4,000 tank transporters for 662 tanks? Is that a typo?

  It is what the source says. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 12:41, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

• suggest "Meanwhile, the class 40 Bailey pontoon bridge at Xanten" dropping the second comma

  Dropped. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 12:41, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

• suggest "class 15 Bailey pontoon bridge named/designated "Lambeth"" and similar for the others, as it is a bit confusing, making it seem like it is a Lambeth-class bridge, if you know what I mean?

  Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 12:41, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

• suggest "The second class 40 Bailey pontoon bridge" dropping the comma

  Dropped. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 12:41, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

• suggest "At Rees, steel-piled" inserting a comma

  Inserted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 12:41, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:59, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Beyond the Rhine

• in "grounding artillery and armoured units", this is an odd use of "grounding" IMHO, which is generally used for air units. Could an alternative be used?

  Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 12:41, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

• could "and the corps started drawing from it on 9 April" be clearer (assuming it is being used in the plural here)? all three corps etc?

  Yes. Expanded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 12:41, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

• could fns [100][99] be re-ordered without losing anything?

  Swapped. There used to be a tool for this but I can't remember what it was. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 12:41, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

• wasn't PWX the PW Executive Branch of SHAEF? Perhaps XPW is preferable as an initialisation?

  PWX was the abbreviation used. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 12:41, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

How odd. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me)

More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:55, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Post-war

• "Director-General of Civil aAffairs"?

  Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:53, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

• " Arrangements were made"?

  Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:53, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Outcome

• "He had to do so without incurring excessive casualties in order to" doesn't really follow. Why were limited casualties important to a prominent British role?

  Tried to make this clearer. "Excessive casualties could reduce the size of the British force and hence its role and visibility." Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:53, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Other comments

• there are a few ndashs needed to replace hyphens in page ranges of the footnotes to (pp=339–340 of Carter & Kann), and an instance of an ndash needed for "1944–1945 agricultural season"

  Ran the ndash script. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:53, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

• the OCLC for Ridgway is 1084199521

  Never occurred to me that it might have one. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:53, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Otherwise, all good from my perspective. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 19:50, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Great stuff, Hawkeye, very pleased to add my support. Excellent article. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:45, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Comment by Askedonty

Hi; really an article I appreciate - however:

The sentence "By January 1945, some 90,000 civilians were employed.." needs to be time-shifted back to 1944, otherwise rewrited.

• That same situation was already true at British logistics in the Siegfried Line campaign, so that there the sentence might emerge for 1944.

  It is in 1944. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:53, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

It's the two different dates associated with the same data in two different articles that's giving me headaches - if I'm that kind of reader, acceeding the two articles in sequence for whatever reason . That reader needs to know that reading those is not a reserved privilege of the imperturbable ( if I wanted to suggest him that maybe yes it is, I probably would play on the placement of an already - and preferably otherwise in fact as the word could be removed after someone considered it superfluous. ) --Askedonty (talk) 13:45, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

P.S. Now that I see that the sentence notably features in the lede (in Siegfried.. ) I see it much less of a problem, except that, problematic removals remain possible there too. --Askedonty (talk) 14:30, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Cheers --Askedonty (talk) 08:24, 10 June 2023 (UTC);

SC

Placeholder for now. - SchroCat (talk) 13:05, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

General

• You should have a spin over to ensure you're consistent in your conversions. For half the distances you have 320 kilometres (200 mi) and half you have 400 miles (640 km). Prob best if you have them all the same (your call as to which). Ditton on tonnes / long tons, which swap around a little

  I've done another pass through the conversions and they should all be okay now. Note that the MOS calls for inconsistency: MOS:METRIC: in non-scientific articles with strong ties to the United Kingdom, the primary units for most quantities are metric or other internationally used units, except that: ... the primary units for distance/​length, speed and fuel consumption are miles, miles per hour, and miles per imperial gallon Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:22, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

  That's fine - it was just that some lead with km, others with miles, so having them all leading with miles is best. - SchroCat (talk) 07:50, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Lead

• "Petrol, oil and lubricants (POL)": As POL isn't used again in the lead, you don't need the abbreviation here.

  Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:22, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

• Ditto for LCM and LCVP

  The problem here is that the abbreviations are the better known forms. Switched to redirects of the abbreviations. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:22, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Background

• "The 21st Army Group (Field Marshal Sir Bernard Montgomery) and consisted of the First Canadian Army (General Harry Crerar) and the Second Army (Lieutenant General Sir Miles Dempsey)." This sentence doesn't make sense to me

  Somebody changed this on me. Re-written. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:22, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

• "over the Operation Pluto pipeline": through, rather than over?

  Changed to "through". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:22, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Operation Goldflake

• "It had a supply section and a POL section": needs the full description of petrol, oil and lubricants here and not at the beginning of Development of the line of communications section

  Moved up. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:22, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Done to the start of Operation Veritable; more to come. - SchroCat (talk) 14:56, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Operation Veritable

• "First Canadian Army, which was built up to 449,865 personnel ... its ration strength was 476,193": it's a suggestion rather than anything else, but for the non-military minded, you may want to think about a footnote to explain the difference between "449,865 personnel" and a "ration strength" of 476,193 (either clarifying the terminology, or explaining the 25k difference)

  Already added in the Operation Goldflake section. "At this time the ration strength of the 21st Army Group (which also counts civilians and prisoners of war being fed by the army as well as the troops) was around 1.2 million" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:22, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks - missed that. - SchroCat (talk) 07:50, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

• "corps's" - > corps' (twice)

  Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:22, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

• "48-hours notice" - > "48-hours' notice"

  Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:22, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Operation Plunder

• United States ... United Kingdom in the first para: per MOS:ACRO1STUSE these should be US and UK respectively

  I don't see that MOS:ACRO1STUSE requires them to be abbreviated at first use, just because it permits it. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:26, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Done to the end of the war. - SchroCat (talk) 16:11, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Post-war

• "Civil affairs supplies": I'm not sure what these are and it's not a common term – maybe an explanation inline or footnote?

  Linked to the article on the subject. Added a bit about the nature of the civil affairs supplies. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:22, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Outcome

• Isn't "Lend-Lease" hyphenated?

  Hyphenanted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:22, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

That's it. Excellent article and the above are minor niggles in the grand scheme of things: I hope they help. Cheers. - SchroCat (talk) 19:43, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

• Support on prose. I'm no expert on anything military, but from a layman's perspective this covers all I would want to see and more. Nicely explained for the non-expert too. Great work. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:50, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Image review—pass

• File:Troopers with a Sherman tank of the Ontario Regiment on a railway flatcar en route from Italy to Northwest Europe.jpg — no evidence of publication prior to 1972 as the license asserts. If it wasn't under crown copyright it would be ok as a photograph created before 1949, but I'm not sure what the copyright status would be if unpublished before 1972.

  Bummer. There is a whole series of Crown copyright images of Goldflake [30], but no indication of if or when they were published. Removed the image. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:10, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

• Other licensing is ok

(t · c) buidhe 16:58, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Source review

Sources are reliable as far as I can tell, not being an expert in the field.

• The title of Donnison (1961) appears to include "1944-1946", per the linked title page.

  Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:35, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

• The link for Nicholson (1956) takes me to a query page; it's not clear what I would have to do to find the PDF from there.

  The user has to press the button for the English or French version. To dsave them from this, I have substituted an alternative site. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:35, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

• Missing a period for Ruppenthal's middle initial for the 1953 source.

  Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:35, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

• Can we get a publisher location for Inglis (1945)?

  Added "Germany" as a location. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:35, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:17, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Fixes look good; pass. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:39, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 20:14, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

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 2023 [31].

---

Mars in fiction

Nominator(s): TompaDompa (talk) 18:59, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

This article is about how the planet Mars has been depicted in fiction, a topic that has been the subject of a fairly extensive body of literature including a few full-length books. I previously overhauled the article completely starting in March 2022 and brought it to WP:Good article status by December. Since then, it has been at WP:Peer review for a few months. I just closed that peer review after receiving a decent amount of feedback and being encouraged to move on here to FAC. This is my first time nominating an article here at FAC.

As far as I can tell, there are currently no featured articles of this kind ("X in fiction/popular culture/whatever"), and I would like that to change. It would be beneficial to have high-quality articles to point to as examples to follow, since unfortunately a large number of "X in fiction" articles are rather poor. A handful of featured articles might go a long way, and I hope this could be the first. TompaDompa (talk) 18:59, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

First-time nomination

• Hi TompaDompa, and welcome to FAC. Just noting that as a first time nominator at FAC, this article will need to pass a source to text integrity spot check and a review for over-close paraphrasing to be considered for promotion. Good luck with the nomination. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:55, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

@FAC coordinators: A question for the coordinators: This has obviously slowed down a bit over the last couple of weeks. I note that there are several editors who weighed in on the WP:Peer review who have not commented here (yet), in one instance even expressing an intention to review the FAC. What's the policy on leaving those specific editors a message about reviewing this FAC, vis-à-vis WP:CANVASSING? TompaDompa (talk) 20:01, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

It is fine to prompt these editors for a review, so long as you do so via a neutrally phrased request. Sometimes placing a polite neutrally phrased request on the talk pages of a few of the more frequent reviewers also helps. Or on the talk pages of relevant Wikiprojects. Or of editors you know are interested in the topic of the nomination. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:46, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Wehwalt

Support per my detailed comments at the peer review.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:41, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Comments by Kusma

I'll try to give this a proper read within the next few days. Just first impressions for now: I love red links (and I am happy they are no longer showstoppers at FAC as they were back in the mid-noughties), but even I think the amount of red links is excessive here, especially in "Early depictions". I'd suggest to choose to link either the English or the Latin title instead of making two long red links, and perhaps link either the author or the work in case both do not yet have articles. It generally feels overlinked (don't link to reference work, for example). There are more MOS:DUPLINKs than I am comfortable with (and I usually belong in the defenders of duplinks camp) including multiple duplicated redlinks. I can't tell whether it is overcited, but it looks overcited. The "Further reading" section seems to duplicate quite a few of the references; while this isn't prohibited by Wikipedia:Further reading, it would be nice to have some short commentary explaining what we should read and why; the section feels a bit overwhelming otherwise. —Kusma (talk) 20:46, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

I have reduced the number of WP:REDLINKS, removed all duplicated redlinks I found, removed links to a few common terms, and split the "Further reading" section by type of source. TompaDompa (talk) 23:21, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

This is an interesting read, but I'm not really sure the way it is done is working. We usually are presented with some aspect of Mars in fiction together with a bunch of examples, but very often there is little detail explaining why the example is an example for this particular aspect.

• Early depictions: I was suprised to see that Conversations on the Plurality of Worlds says it is "popular science"; is that article wrong?
  • The lines get a bit blurry with works like this. The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction says "This is one of the earliest works ever written popularizing science, notably Astronomy, for the layman, which it does by wittily presenting its speculations – many about the possibility of Life on Other Worlds, and during which he was dismissive of any likelihood that Mars contained life – in the form of conversations after dinner between the author and a marquise, and by being published in French rather than Latin." TompaDompa (talk) 07:53, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
• A Voyage to the World in the Centre of the Earth: To understand what is meant by "inhabitated by spirits", I just had a look at the book, and from what I can see, Mars is a world where certain heroic souls from Earth are being re-embodied after their death. (Of course no country supplies more such heroic souls than England).
• In contrast, I think Swedenborg's spirits are extraterrestrial, but I didn't read the primary text. [32] [33]
• s:fr:Les Voyages de Milord Céton dans les sept Planettes also has spirits of the dead on Mars; not sure how embodied they are. In any case, it seems that the theme of "reincarnation on Mars" is already in these older books, not a feature that only came about in the 1880s.
  • The sources discuss the emergence of this trend in the late 1800s. If these are forerunners to that trend (which I suppose depends on how one views the distinction between spirits and reincarnation in this context), the sources don't really describe them as such. TompaDompa (talk) 07:53, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
    • In any case, I think you should explain what "is home to spirits" means and whether these are spirits of dead Earth people or others. —Kusma (talk) 22:05, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
      • Elaborated somewhat. TompaDompa (talk) 03:30, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
        • Better. —Kusma (talk) 21:54, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
• I like the "Canals" subsection best so far. It isn't completely clear why it is part of "Early depictions", though.
  • Well, it's a theme that appeared in the late 1800s. TompaDompa (talk) 07:53, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
• Utopias: "the first work of science fiction set primarily on Mars" this is a bit surprising now; Across the Zodiac has been mentioned before without telling us this rather important fact.
  • Good point. I moved that piece of information to the end of the earlier paragraph that discusses planetary tours. TompaDompa (talk) 07:53, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
• You are missing an important dystopia set on Mars: Cat Country or 貓城記 by Lao She, one of the few examples of Chinese SF between 1910 and 1950.
  • None of the sources on the topic that I've read mention this work (which might reflect a Western/English-language bias in the sources). I'll see if I can find an appropriate source to include it somewhere in the article. TompaDompa (talk) 07:53, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
    • Hm. Having read up a bit on it, sources don't really discuss this work as part of the Martian tradition. Part of the explanation may be that, as Lisa Raphals says, "Lao She comments on both his choice of cats and his choice of location, and explicitly denies that either is important in itself." From what I've read the Martian setting appears to be treated as incidental by scholars, and as the quote shows, it was viewed that way by the author as well. TompaDompa (talk) 09:18, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
      • It doesn't matter much that it is Mars and not, say, Laputa, but doesn't the same point also apply to A Voyage to the World in the Centre of the Earth? —Kusma (talk) 22:05, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
        • Maybe, but that's not really for us to say. Ashley discusses A Voyage to the World in the Centre of the Earth in the context of how Mars has been portrayed in fiction across history. TompaDompa (talk) 03:30, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
          • It might be worth thinking/talking about something like "incidental uses of Mars", which would probably also cover Unveiling a Parallel. —Kusma (talk) 21:54, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
            • I suspect that would be very difficult without veering into WP:Original research. At any rate, I found a place to mention Cat Country. It's perhaps a bit shoehorned, but that might be considered worth it to compensate for the heavy English-language focus of the sources on the overarching topic. TompaDompa (talk) 04:00, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
• The War of the Worlds: I don't think the long list of uncommented "sequels" is very helpful. Admittedly the only one I've read is The Second Invasion from Mars. It isn't listed at List of works based on The War of the Worlds; from what I remember it mentions that the Martians visited before and then tells a completely different story.
  • The idea is to demonstrate that the impact Wells' novel had was both immediate and long-lived, and variegated to boot—not just a bunch of English-language novels, but also short stories, comic books, and works from other parts of the world. The large number of derivative works is a major point made by the sources, e.g. by Westfahl here. TompaDompa (talk) 07:53, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
    • Generally, I am not fond of sentences like the one about the War of the Worlds adaptations that just mention examples without any explanation as to why and how they are examples. The redness of the links makes it extra difficult to understand this. —Kusma (talk) 21:54, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
      • Elaborated somewhat. TompaDompa (talk) 02:33, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Stopping here for the day. —Kusma (talk) 20:22, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

• Life of Mars: "Westfahl refers to these as "good parents", "bad parents", and "dependent parents", respectively" why do we need to know this about Westfahl?
  • It's not strictly speaking necessary to include this, but I thought it was illustrative and connects nicely to the "Mars is older than Earth" concept, not to mention being less dry than plain "inhabitants of Mars have variously been depicted as enlightened, evil, and decadent". TompaDompa (talk) 03:30, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
• Enlightened: "The Twilight Zone and The Outer Limits also occasionally featured Martian characters" what were they like? Were they enlightened?
  • Elaborated somewhat. TompaDompa (talk) 03:30, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
• Colonization: The red link Usher II really could just be a link to The_Martian_Chronicles#April_2005/2036:_Usher_II, similar for the other one.
  • That would certainly be an option. The main reason I decided to do it this way is to use the same approach as with "Mars Is Heaven!." TompaDompa (talk) 03:30, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
• I must admit to never reading We Can Remember It for You Wholesale. Is the Mars there more realistic than the one in The Three Stigmata of Palmer Eldritch and is that the only Mars story by Dick that you omit?
  • I don't know if either is more realistic than the other. There are other Mars stories by Philip K. Dick that are not mentioned in the article such as The Simulacra and "Martians Come in Clouds". TompaDompa (talk) 03:30, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
    • Ah, I need to have a look at those. Thanks to Arnie, We Can Remember It for You Wholesale certainly is one of the more influential Dick Mars stories. —Kusma (talk) 21:54, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
• The games at the end of the section seem a bit tacked on, especially the steampunk game.
  • That's fair; they kind of are. I added that part in response to an objection below that the article did not mention any games. I am not particularly attached to their inclusion, so they can simply be removed if you think that would be best. TompaDompa (talk) 03:30, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
    • As I have said a few times, I think every example should have a good justification for being there, and I can't see that here. —Kusma (talk) 21:54, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
      • Removed. TompaDompa (talk) 02:33, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Another break for sleep! Sorry for reading so slowly. —Kusma (talk) 22:05, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

• The "Terraforming" section is again very nice. My only complaint is that we learn so little about Robinson's early stories.
• Robinsonades: are these all stories of people stranded on lifeless Mars, or are some of these Marses inhabited by intelligent life forms? (Just asking with Cat Country still stuck in my mind).
  • To quote The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction, "Indigenous lifeforms are frequently featured in these novels, but few are hostile". TompaDompa (talk) 21:51, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
• First landings: I was expecting Andy Weir's The Martian to be mentioned here again (there are other works you mention multiple times). Is The Lady Astronaut of Mars too new or too alternate-history to be listed here?
  • The Martian is not really a first landing story in that sense, being all about stuff that happens after humans have already made it all the way to Mars (I also seem to recall it being the third mission or so?). The Lady Astronaut of Mars might be too new for the sources to have taken notice of it (yet); at any rate, they don't discuss it. TompaDompa (talk) 21:51, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
• If you have books that are red links, you should say more about them than just list their author as with Beachhead and Mars
  • Elaborated somewhat. TompaDompa (talk) 21:51, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
• Moons: Phobos also plays a bit of a role in the Mars trilogy.
  • It does, though the sources basically only mention it in passing as a minor detail when discussing the trilogy in depth. TompaDompa (talk) 21:51, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Further general comments:

• I think the video games are not helpful for the article. There seems to be no claim that the video game Marses were influential in literature; if you get into trouble with comprehensiveness I would rather go the other direction and clarify that "fiction" mostly means "literature" (losing the films wouldn't actually lose much, and a separate Mars in film could be pretty awesome).
  • I don't think it's a good idea to restrict the scope of the article in a way that doesn't reflect the sources, especially considering this article is part of a set. Video games get a minimal mention in the sources and right now a minimal mention in the article as well. TompaDompa (talk) 21:51, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
• Please do something about the overciting. If you really, really, really need all of "[20][23][35][77][78][79]", consider {{sfnm}} to at least make it not disrupt the flow of reading.
  • I have gone through all instances where five or more references appeared in a row and eliminated them by variously removing superfluous sources, moving sources to a different place, replacing sources, and rewording the prose to make those things possible. TompaDompa (talk) 21:51, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
• There are still massive amounts of duplicate links, consider using User:Evad37/duplinks-alt.js to find them. A few carefully chosen deliberate duplicate links are fine, but so many are just a distraction.
  • I have removed a large number of duplicate links. I can remove even more if you think it necessary. TompaDompa (talk) 21:51, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
• I am unconvinced that individual short stories should be linked to separately if this introduces red links. As I have probably said a few times, there are too many red links in the article.
  • I have removed a few WP:REDLINKS where my research indicated that they were probably not notable, and turned a few others blue. I could work on turning more of them blue, but that would take a not-insignificant amount of time. TompaDompa (talk) 21:51, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Finally finished reading :) Lots of great stuff, but the last three points (and a few listy collections of unexplained examples) still give me pause. —Kusma (talk) 21:54, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Partial support on content and prose. My content concerns have been essentially resolved, and I respect your resistance against those where we differ in opinion (and you know the sources much better). For the questions of overciting and red links, I still have doubts but I will shut up about those now. Excellent work overall. —Kusma (talk) 09:03, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

I've started working on Alice Ilgenfritz Jones, which turns out to be a first class red link. If the others are equally good (not totally sure about some of the short stories), I would suggest to fill them with decent (DYK+ quality) articles in the time it takes until this article hits the Main Page. —Kusma (talk) 12:07, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

I think Alice Ilgenfritz Jones and Ella Robinson Merchant have both been listed on WP:Women in Red for quite some time. I'm working on reducing the number of references at the moment, and will likely turn some of the red links blue after that. TompaDompa (talk) 12:13, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

While researching Alice Ilgenfritz Jones (I hope to finish the article very soon), I came across this description of a course on Mars fiction that may or may not be of use; it certainly may help in discussing what to focus on. —Kusma (talk) 20:11, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

That's a great find and a very interesting read (to me, at least), thank you very much indeed! I found reading it encouraging in terms of the article's focus, since I think they agree rather well with each other. TompaDompa (talk) 21:23, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Image review

• File:A_Plunge_into_Space,_cover_image.jpg: is a more specific tag available?
  • I don't know. Going by this, it would appear to have been published in the US in 1890 and thus be in the public domain? TompaDompa (talk) 09:36, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
    • It's also public domain according to the British Library, and I suppose they should know. TompaDompa (talk) 05:06, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
      • Got help at WP:Media copyright questions and tagged it accordingly. TompaDompa (talk) 00:55, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
• File:Orson_Welles_War_of_the_Worlds_1938.jpg: source links are dead
  • They are all available at the Wayback Machine: [34][35][36] TompaDompa (talk) 09:36, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
    • Archive links added. TompaDompa (talk) 05:06, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
• File:Mariner_4_craters.gif is tagged as lacking source information
  • It can be found (with higher resolution) on NASA's website here: https://mars.nasa.gov/resources/6731/mariner-4-takes-first-images-of-craters-on-mars/ TompaDompa (talk) 09:36, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
    • Source information added (and higher resolution uploaded). TompaDompa (talk) 05:06, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
• File:Lowell_Mars_channels.jpg needs a US tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:12, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Per the description page it was published before 1914, so I suppose that would make it public domain? Lowell died in 1916, so that's the latest it could possibly have been created. TompaDompa (talk) 09:36, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
    • Having unsuccessfully tried to track the image down to its source (I can't actually verify that it is by Lowell), I swapped it out for a different one that does have a US tag: File:The_American_Museum_journal_(c1900-(1918))_(17539936613).jpg TompaDompa (talk) 03:22, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: I'll freely admit that this is not my area of expertise, so I have refrained from making any possibly erroneous edits to the images themselves. See my responses above. TompaDompa (talk) 09:36, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: I took a stab at it, and I believe I have addressed all the issues above. Take a look, and feel free to revert if I messed anything up. TompaDompa (talk) 00:55, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Looks good. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:04, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Comments by Hahnchen

• Oppose - The article largely deals with the depiction of Mars in literature. It mentions movies and comics. It completely neglects games. This is a blind spot and the article fails the 1b (comprehensive) of the featured article criteria. I suggest taking a look at Terraforming Mars, Surviving Mars, Doom, Red Faction, and others. Some games may be set on Mars incidentally, but it is core to others, exploring the human survival aspect. - hahnchen 12:17, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
  • This reflects the coverage found in sources on the overarching topic of Mars in fiction, I'm afraid. I'll see if I can find some brief mention of games in the sources, but the coverage of non-literature fiction will necessarily be a minor aspect (and games in particular a very minor aspect) of this article if we are to follow the sources. TompaDompa (talk) 12:27, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
    • @Hahnchen: I have added a couple of very brief mentions of games to the article. Note that this represents pretty much the entire extent of game coverage in the sources on the overarching topic (or at least the ones I have found)—only a couple of sources mention games, and they only do so briefly. I could not in good conscience add much more about games to the article, because it would then not be a "representative survey of the relevant literature" as mandated by WP:FACR 1c for reasons of overemphasizing what per the sources is a WP:MINORASPECT. TompaDompa (talk) 13:37, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, non-actionable, I suggest. I would be essential to a broader article on Mars in popular culture, though. SN54129 13:42, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

I love the Surviving Mars game but I have to agree, videogames are a minor subtopic in the body of works of fiction related to Mars, and Wikipedia is not TV Tropes (meaning, we are not supposed to simply list every time Mars has been featured in a work of fiction, as in their entry). I was also tempted once to mention the current X-Men comics, where Mars has been fully terraformed and colonized and became a regular location in stories, but I did nothing because I respect the current approach to the article and couldn't find sources from outside comic book niche. Mars is important for the topic of those works, but those works are not important enough for the topic of Mars in fiction if we compare them to "War of the Worlds" or "The Martian". In short: the oppose above is non-actionable. Cambalachero (talk) 23:25, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

The oppose was not given because any particular work was omitted. But the complete omission of video games was a clear indication of WP:BIAS. I remain unconvinced that this article is comprehensive, and that its view gives too much weight to western literature compared to other media. You can see this in the sources, The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction is cited many many times, yet Mars in the Movies, a book which I assume largely covers Mars in fiction, is cited once. Kusma mentions above the omission of Cat Country, there is no coverage of any Asian perspective. - hahnchen 21:30, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

The history of Mars in fiction is, per the sources, largely (but not exclusively) a literary one. I daresay I've conducted a fairly thorough survey of the relevant literature and this reflects what aspects they deem significant and choose to focus upon. The same thing is true of the focus on Western or even English-language works. Some effort has been expended to mitigate this by including works that are not English-language literature where possible, but there is only so much that can be done before it ends up misrepresenting the overall state of the sourcing or engaging in WP:Original research. Inasmuch as there is a bias here, it comes from the sources and is unavoidable without violating our WP:Core content policies.

I don't quite see your point about the sources used. The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction isn't limited to literature, nor is it limited to Western works or English-language ones. Mentions of Mars Attacks!, Capricorn One, and Total Recall all come from that source (among others). You say "Mars in the Movies, a book which I assume largely covers Mars in fiction", but it doesn't really. Or at least, it doesn't in the overarching way that is necessary to write an article on a topic like this. It consists of the author giving their opinion on individual movies. Says Miller, "This book is not a filmography per se; rather it takes a more personal approach; it's more about my personal impressions of these films [...]("

At any rate, the article now includes mentions of video games (Doom) and Asian works (Cat Country). TompaDompa (talk) 14:13, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Based on my skim reading, the article places a high emphasis on historical portrayals (those that are fundamental and defining) of Mars, and while works post-2000s are mentioned, they are comparatively limited. There's a fine line between recentism and referencing new forms of media that may not have been prevalent when the primary source works were written. However, video games are a form of fiction and it would be disingenuous to exclude them from an article about fictional works: citing the ABC, Annette Froehlich writes "video games 'are now reaching a cultural legitimacy previously reserved for things like film, music and literature'". In the context of Mars in fiction, they may be a subtopic, but I argue that if incorporated properly (i.e., little more than a passing mention a la Doom), they would surpass WP:MINORASPECT.

Indeed, I am by no means expecting a summation of Category:Video games set on Mars, but a brief mention of some of the front-runners in Mars exploration games should be included. For example, Surviving Mars (2018) is exactly what is says on the tin: a colony management game. Take on Mars (2017) has also been mentioned, but I'm not personally familiar with it. Kerbal Space Program (2011) is another example, but it's more generalised for interstellar travel rather than Mars specifically.

I found a few sources that may be of use in this area to avoid the need to argue against original research or undue bias. They are Outer Space and Popular Culture (2022) by Annette Froehlich and Playing Utopia: Futures in Digital Games (2019) by Benjamin Beil et al (I could not find a PDF or full-text version of this, but the Google Books excerpts may be useful). The book chapter Space Tourism in Contemporary Cinema and Video Games may also be a useful reference but it's again less about Mars and more about general space travel. It's available on ResearchGate. I could not find any scholarly works on the other games mentioned by Hahnchen outside of the typical video game media.

Outside of this, I mostly support promotion but I'd need a more in-depth readthrough later. Anarchyte (talk) 14:00, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

I've found a book on narrative production in the 21st century that mentions Red Faction in detail that could be used to provide a passing mention in the same way Doom appears in the article. The relevant excerpts are on page 195 (Chapter 5, Introduction). I've also found an article on Mass Effect, another series set on Mars that explores the concept of alien outposts. Anarchyte (talk) 05:33, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

An important distinction to be made here is that the Doom example comes from a source specifically on Mars in fiction, rather than a source on some other topic where the "Mars in fiction" lens can be applied by the reader but isn't inherently present in the text. We must take care not to work backwards from the assumption that XYZ should be mentioned and go hunting for sources to justify it, lest we end up with an article that reflects our perspective on the relative importance of different aspects rather than the sources' perspective (especially if we rely on sources of that latter variety). That being said, the same source that is currently used for Doom also mentions Red Faction. It used to get a mention until another reviewer requested its removal for reasons of coming off as being shoehorned in (which it kind of was). I'll see what I can do. TompaDompa (talk) 22:17, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

I understand and agree, which is why I'm not suggesting the article uses game guides or reviews or anything of that nature. The books and articles I've linked above are about the general topic of narrative/games/media within outer space. Anarchyte (talk) 03:30, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Well, space in general and Mars in particular are rather different focuses for a source to have in this context. At any rate, I'm working on something. We'll see how it turns out. TompaDompa (talk) 16:47, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

I have managed to basically shoehorn in a mention of Surviving Mars, and even that is a bit iffy from a perspective of WP:OR and WP:PROPORTION. Giving "a brief mention of some of the front-runners in Mars exploration games" as suggested above would, absent some yet-undiscovered source on the topic of Mars in fiction taking that perspective, to my eye fall squarely on the wrong side of those policies. I'll see what I can do while abiding by our WP:Core content policies, but the coverage of video games will ultimately necessarily be brief. TompaDompa (talk) 00:06, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Added a bit more about video games in fairly general terms. TompaDompa (talk) 01:31, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

• Comment - I have not read this article properly, just had a skim. I do not believe it is a barrier at all to FA status, however I personally feel the red links are excessive. I personally find them distracting and may be confusing to the many casual readers who will click on this article if it's appearing on the main page. Even though it should not reflect on the article itself, it does (to me anyway), make it feel incomplete, even if it may not be. MaxnaCarta (talk) 01:27, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

  (it may be that some redlinks are for authors or works that are not notable. Perhaps do a BEFORE check on each redlink and ensure they're notable enough for an article and remove if not) MaxnaCarta (talk) 01:29, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

  I'll reiterate what I said in the peer review: "The redlinks are basically all people or works mentioned by the sources, and probably meet the notability guidelines. Many of them I'm certain qualify for stand-alone articles, and the rest I think it's reasonably probable that they do." I could spend an afternoon turning a lot of the WP:REDLINKS blue by creating stubs with sources that demonstrate notability and not much else, but then we would of course end up with a bunch of stubs that don't serve much other purpose than making this page less red. On the flip side, this means that there are a lot of potential articles to write for anyone interested in doing so. TompaDompa (talk) 03:59, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Support from Serial

Per my remarks above; a tight, academic treatment of one of the earliest historical tropes of modern popular culture. SN54129 18:55, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Just as an FYI, but if @FAC coordinators: are waiting for responses from Hahnchen wrt his oppose, I'll just note that we might not be hearing anything from him anytime soon: their last 50 edits go back two and a half years.[37],[38] Frankly, an opposer who lobs a grenade and then does not return to justify or discuss it, impacts the value of their position (very) negatively. SN54129 16:57, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Comments by Cambalachero

Lead

• "...eventually confirmed by data from Mars exploration probes." You can be more specific and mention the Mariner program by name, without going off-topic by doing so.
  • It's phrased like this to include both Mariner and Viking. TompaDompa (talk) 20:54, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Early depictions

• "Click on a planet to see the article about its depiction in fiction." goes against MOS:YOU.
  • Changed to "Clicking on a planet leads to the article about its depiction in fiction." TompaDompa (talk) 20:54, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
• "Mars is home to spirits in several works of the mid-1700s: in the anonymously published 1755 work A Voyage to the World in the Centre of the Earth, it is a heavenly place where among others Alexander the Great enjoys a second life;[9][10] in the 1758 work De Telluribus in Mundo Nostro Solari by Emanuel Swedenborg, the planet is inhabited by beings characterized by honesty and moral virtue;[5][9][11] and in the 1765 novel Voyage de Milord Céton dans les sept planètes [fr] by Marie-Anne de Roumier-Robert, reincarnated soldiers roam a war-torn landscape." Please rewrite, that sentence is 4 lines long.
  • I honestly don't think it's a problem that some sentences are fairly lengthy. This isn't a run-on sentence, it's three examples with some explanatory context included for each. I have split it into four separate sentences anyway, but that makes it a lot more "listy". TompaDompa (talk)
• "It later appeared alongside the other planets in the anonymously published 1839 novel A Fantastical Excursion into the Planets where it is divided between the Roman gods Mars and Vulcan, the anonymously published 1873 novel A Narrative of the Travels and Adventures of Paul Aermont among the Planets—where, unlike the other planets, it is culturally rather similar to Earth—and the 1883 novel Aleriel, or A Voyage to Other Worlds by W. S. Lach-Szyrma where a visitor from Venus relates the details of Martian society to Earthlings.[3][5][13][14]" Again, that sentence is way too long.
  • As above. TompaDompa (talk) 20:54, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
• I'm not sure about this (English is my second language), but isn't "trope" an informal word when used with this meaning?
  • I shouldn't think it's inappropriately so since it's used by several of the cited sources. One example would be "Yet there were also evil Martians, intent upon conquering Earth, a trope introduced in H. G. Wells's The War of the Worlds (1898) and found in innumerable later stories and films." TompaDompa (talk) 20:54, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Means of travel

• "The issue of how humans would get to Mars..." does not sound quite optimal to me. "Issue" sounds as if someone had another word on the tip of his tongue but couldn't figure it out.
  • Changed to "question". TompaDompa (talk) 20:54, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Canals

• "These were generally interpreted—by those who accepted their existence—as waterways" That reads as if the Martin canals was a widely accepted theory except for some people rejecting it, when actually it was a contested and controversial one even in its time.
  • The intended meaning is indeed the opposite. Added "disputed". TompaDompa (talk) 20:54, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
• It may be worth pointing out that the Mariner 4 debunked not just the idea of the Martian canals, but the general hopes of finding aliens (or at least intelligent aliens) anywhere in the Solar System as well.
  • That's covered—as it relates to Mars—later in the article. TompaDompa (talk) 20:54, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Will continue tomorrow Cambalachero (talk) 19:16, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Utopias

• "...a civilization on Mars based on a variation on Christianity where woman was created first." That's a misleading link. It may appear to be a link to a trope or type of myth where a woman is the first human, but it's just a link to the regular one (God creates the world in 6 days, Adam and Eve, the apple, etc). It can be fixed with a small change, "...a civilization on Mars based on a variation on Christianity where woman was created first, unlike the Genesis creation narrative."
  • Good point. Tweaked. TompaDompa (talk) 20:23, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
• "...Mars became the setting for socialist utopias and revolutions." We have an article on Utopian socialism, but I'm not sure if it would be a better link target because it mixes fiction (socialist utopias in works of fiction) and reality (the alleged ultimate stage of a socialist community).
  • I don't think so. Maybe if we had an article for utopian socialist fiction (or whatever it should be called). TompaDompa (talk) 20:23, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

The War of the Worlds

Seems fine.

Life on Mars

• A link to Extraterrestrial intelligence would be useful here, and it would be better than the later use.
  • I'm not sure I understand where you think this link should be included, but I think the current link in "occasionally used to refer to extraterrestrials in general" that goes to Extraterrestrial life is more appropriate than one to Extraterrestrial intelligence would be. TompaDompa (talk) 20:23, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Enlightened

• Does the source explain the backstory of Martian Manhunter? Because, as far as I know, there used to be a Martian civilization, and they all died out with his sole exception (and a handful others introduced over the years). Seems more of a case for the "Past and non-humanoid life" section.
  • It doesn't, no. Westfahl uses him as an example of benevolent Martians. TompaDompa (talk) 20:23, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Will continue tomorrow Cambalachero (talk) 19:56, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Evil

Seems fine

Decadent

Seems fine

Past and non-humanoid life

• Do any of those stories of ancient Martians try to explain why those civilizations collapsed? Is there any recurring plot type about worth mentioning?
  • Not that I recall the sources discussing, no. TompaDompa (talk) 16:42, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Lifeless Mars

• A lifeless planet with intelligent creatures in hibernation sounds like there is some overlap with the previous section. If so, point that out: that the mentioned trope of an ancient collapsed civilization is used to reconcile the modernly lifeless Mars with some life to keep a plot going.
  • From what I can gather from the sources, this was more a question of writers wanting to write about a Mars that was not completely devoid of life without contradicting what was known about the planet. TompaDompa (talk) 16:42, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Will continue tomorrow Cambalachero (talk) 18:51, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Colonization

Seems fine

Terraforming

Seems fine

Robinsonades

• The section is too small, just a paragraph of 3 lines. If it can't be expanded with more examples or specific information, then it may be merged into the "Colonization" section (as that was probably the original mission of all stranded astronauts, and the plot would likely reminds us of that quite often).
  • Expanded somewhat. TompaDompa (talk) 23:13, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Nostalgic depictions

• You added a link to Face on Mars and later another to Cydonia (Mars). The first one is actually a redirect to a section in the Cydonia article (the face does not have an article of its own). Each link should be made in an article only once, see MOS:REPEATLINK.
  • Removed the second link. TompaDompa (talk) 23:13, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
• "...and a 2002 episode of the animated television show Futurama." - Why not call the episode "Where the Buggalo Roam" by name? All books and short stories are named in the article, not inferred in a generic "a book by X author", so it would simply keep the style.
  • Named the episode explicitly. TompaDompa (talk) 23:13, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

First landings

• "...became popular after US president George H. W. Bush [[Space Exploration Initiative|proposed in 1989]] to accomplish this feat...". Again, that's an easter egg link. Just call the initiative by name, as in "...proposed the [[Space Exploration Initiative]] in 1989 to accomplish..."
  • Named the initiative explicitly. TompaDompa (talk) 23:13, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Moons

Seems fine Cambalachero (talk) 19:50, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Final comment

All my comments have been dealt with. Support. Cambalachero (talk) 18:02, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Source review

It seems like the source formatting is consistent and the essential information is there. Given the reviews on The Visual Encyclopedia of Science Fiction I wonder if that is a source suitable for a FA. I presume this isn't usergenerated? Spot-check:

• 1: OK.
• 2: I can't access most of the source, but the few things I can see don't look too-closely paraphrased or misstated.
• 3: I am not sure that this source says anything about Lowell popularizing an idea of a decadent Mars. Nor that it says that terraforming had become the dominant theme in 1990s.
  • The article doesn't really say that Lowell popularized that idea either. It says that "The conception of Martians as decadent was largely derived from Lowell's vision of Mars."—as this source (#30) says, "knowingly or not, Lowell had crafted an evocative and powerful myth that went on to have an impact on innumerable sf stories about Mars, its ancient but decadent culture [...]". On the other hand, this source (#11) says that Lowell "popularised the idea of Mars as the abode of a decadent civilisation struggling to survive in the red desert by means of vast irrigation projects". TompaDompa (talk) 18:28, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
  • I think it's a reasonable way to summarize the source's "strife between proponents of Terraforming and those who prefer Mars in its natural state (the "red-green" schism that would preoccupy the Mars fiction of the 1990s)." and later "The idea that Mars might be a promising world for Terraforming invigorated some of the best Mars fiction of the early 1990s. [...] The rise to prominence of Martian Terraforming stories had been prefigured by the work of the poet and cultural critic Frederick Turner [...] As the Mars Pathfinder and Global Surveyor missions of 1996 galvanized public attention around the world, tales of Terraforming gave way again to those of near-future missions and settlement." Robert Markley also says (source #16) "Like the terraforming projects that dominate late-twentieth-century science fiction, the canals are socialism’s epic response to conditions on a dying world." TompaDompa (talk) 18:28, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
• 11: Can't access this one. I have to wonder about the accuracy of the page numbers, too.
  • The "Mars" entry in Science Fact and Science Fiction: An Encyclopedia covers roughly the second half of page 281, all of page 282 and 283, and roughly the first half of page 284. There are a couple of other editions at Google Books [39][40] as well as one at the Internet Archive [41] that you can try. TompaDompa (talk) 18:28, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
• 16: Can't access this one.
• 23: Can access part of this one, some things I could verify but that huge page range is a problem.
  • It's a rather lengthy chapter that covers a lot of ground, I'm afraid. TompaDompa (talk) 18:28, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
• 25: I am not sure I see the Genesis commentary there.
  • Crossley says "The Martian version of the Eden story says that woman was created prior to man" (p. 102). TompaDompa (talk) 18:28, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
• 27: Can't access this one.
• 37: Can only access part of it, but it checks out.
• 38: OK.
• 45: OK.
• 47: OK.
• 51: OK.
• 52: OK.
• 59: OK.
• 78: OK.
• 81: OK.
• 90: OK.
• 94: Can't access this one.
• 105: Can't access this one.

Except for a bit of 78 and 90, I didn't find any close paraphrasing issues but some of the sources are many pages long and are given huge page ranges. I did not check the further reading section. Not a questionable source from what I know of his non-fiction output, but I am surprised to see George R. R. Martin appearing in a source list - I am too used to A Song of Ice and Fire. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:32, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

For future reference, the numbers above refer to this version (right?).

• Some page ranges are extensive because the article cites chapters that are lengthy and cover a lot of ground. This should not be a problem for verifiability, especially if one has access to the index (if reading on paper) and/or a search function (if reading electronically).
• I'm not sure I understand about The Visual Encyclopedia of Science Fiction. From what I can gather, the main criticism it received was that the structure/organization of the work is somewhat unhelpful (which is not entirely unfair), not that there is anything wrong with the accuracy of the content as such.
• The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction is not WP:USERGENERATED but written by subject-matter experts such as David Langford and Brian Stableford.

TompaDompa (talk) 18:28, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that is the version. It's primarily the "superficial" that worries me a bit. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:12, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

I see. To the extent that's a problem at all (and I don't know that it is), it's kind of a self-limiting one inasmuch as the source can only be used for things it actually covers—we may wish that it went into more detail about certain things, but where it doesn't we can either stick to covering the basics or supplement its use with other sources. TompaDompa (talk) 16:31, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

To be on the safe side, I have replaced all citations to The Visual Encyclopedia of Science Fiction, making the point moot. TompaDompa (talk) 23:09, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: You mentioned something about close paraphrasing that I'm guessing needs to be fixed. Seeing as both sources mentioned are used more than once, would you mind indicating the relevant passages in the article? TompaDompa (talk) 21:49, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

In this version, the sentences with "rudimentary" sourced to #78 are quite similar to the source. Probably more than necessary. It seems like I can't see the pertinent pages in #90. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:44, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Rephrased. TompaDompa (talk) 19:14, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Great work as usual @Jo-Jo Eumerus: Any further comments? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:53, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

No, although I am undecided on the scope question Anarchyte raised (The books and articles I've linked above are about the general topic of narrative/games/media within outer space) and whether it raises completeness concerns. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:37, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

If I may, I don't think sources "about the general topic of narrative/games/media within outer space" should take precedence over sources on the more specific topic of, well, Mars in fiction when it comes to determining appropriate weight for an article on Mars in fiction. Video games are mentioned in the article (see Mars in fiction#In the new millennium), supported by a source on Mars in fiction. TompaDompa (talk) 22:11, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Comments from Anarchyte

(See also discussion in #Comments by Hahnchen)

Reserving a spot. Will do a more in-depth review through soon. I doubt I'll find many issues at this point, based on my cursory reads. Anarchyte (talk) 04:25, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

• "was mistaken for the real thing" -> "was mistaken to be real"?
  • Tweaked. TompaDompa (talk) 05:04, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
• It is unclear how The Massacre of Mankind depicts Mars and how WW1 is stopped. As it's an authorised sequel, it might benefit from an additional sentence of context.
  • Elaborated somewhat. TompaDompa (talk) 05:04, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
• "inspiring among others C. L. Moore's stories" - does this mean he inspired Moore and others, or that he was one of many influences for Moore?
  • The former. I tweaked the phrasing. TompaDompa (talk) 11:25, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
• The paragraph starting "In Chinese science fiction" indicates (following the precedent of the Russian paragraph earlier) that the entire paragraph will be about Chinese science fiction. Perhaps modifying the first sentence of the paragraph will remove the non sequitur.
  • Added a sentence to clarify what this paragraph is about. TompaDompa (talk) 11:25, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
• A wiktionary link for Terran could be useful.
  • Added. TompaDompa (talk) 11:25, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
• Isaac Asimov is named in full every time, while other people are referred to by surname.
  • Removed first name at second mention. TompaDompa (talk) 11:25, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
• "Tom Chmielewski's 2014 novel Lunar Dust, Martian Sands is a piece of noir fiction set partially on Mars, while Weir's The Martian is hard science fiction—the film adaptation was described by the production team as being "as much science fact as science fiction"." - unclear connection between these two. Better to split The Martian into its own sentence.
  • The lack of a clear connection was somewhat intentional (Mars fiction having "ramified in several directions"), but I have at any rate split the sentence. TompaDompa (talk) 10:04, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
    • Is The Martian sentence only talking about the film adaptation, or is it saying that the book is hard science fiction while the film is a mix? Anarchyte (talk) 11:34, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
      • They are both hard science fiction (it's a fairly close adaptation), but "as much science fact as science fiction" (another way of emphasizing that it's hard science fiction) was specifically said about the film. I've tried to clarify this. TompaDompa (talk) 13:08, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Support. Anarchyte (talk) 13:19, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

• Following up just to note that I have no issue with the quantity of red links. Anarchyte (talk) 13:50, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
  • I'll just take this opportunity to mention that an additional two red links have nevertheless turned blue since I last commented: A Honeymoon in Space (shameless plug: on the WP:Main page through WP:DYK tomorrow!) and Science-Fiction: The Gernsback Years. TompaDompa (talk) 13:45, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Ling

• Inconsistent use of Publisher Location (12 with; 84 without);
  • Removed all. TompaDompa (talk) 01:17, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
• 14 CS1 maint: url-status errors (fixing these involves archiving links; optional but good practice).
  • Fixed. Archiving The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction adds a fair amount of bloat to no real benefit (the online entries themselves link to the Wayback Machine). TompaDompa (talk) 01:17, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
• 13 instances of Missing ISBN
  • I count 86 references with ISBN out of 111 total, so 25 without. Of those, 13 are The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction, which is online (so ISBN does not really apply). I'm guessing those are the ones you have as missing ISBN, since the numbers match and there are only 12 other references without ISBN. TompaDompa (talk) 01:17, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
• 2 instances of Missing identifier (ISSN, JSTOR, etc.);
  • Which ones? I believe they have been provided wherever possible (which may not be everywhere). TompaDompa (talk) 01:17, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
    • They are both for "Webster, Bud (1 July 2006). "Mars — the Amply Read Planet". BTW, you have that ref in your sources AND your further reading. I suggest you delete the latter. § Lingzhi (talk|check refs) 07:36, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
      • Identifier added. Appearing in both the list of references and the "Further reading" section is intentional (per MOS:FURTHER, since "the References section is too long for a reader to use as part of a general reading list"). TompaDompa (talk) 08:31, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
        • ...which is a stupid exception. But someone added it to MOS, so what can I do. § Lingzhi (talk|check refs) 14:16, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
• 18 instances of Caution: Missing pagenums for book chapter? § Lingzhi (talk|check refs) 00:15, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
  • That seems like a script error to me. There are a small number of instances where it has not been possible to provide page numbers (book that does not use page numbers, pagination messed up beyond repair by Google Books, and so on), but nowhere near 18 of them. TompaDompa (talk) 01:17, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

I haven't looked into this in detail, but your not being able to access what a chapter page range is, when it clearly has one, would not be sufficient reason for ignoring what is generally considered an MoS requirement at FAC. If you cannot find the page range purely because this in not available from Google Books I would suggest querying Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request. Encyclopedias organised in a conventional alphabetical way do not require page ranges; they do require publisher locations. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:11, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

In any event, citing to a whole chapter when only one page is being referenced would not be acceptable. I note that some of the missing information seems trivially easy to find. Eg, the page range for cite 32 is pages 1-11, see here. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:22, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

And can I preempt any suggestion that I am being unreasonable by pointing out that part of the FAC instructions is "Nominators must be sufficiently familiar with the subject matter and sources to deal with objections during the featured article candidates (FAC) process." Gog the Mild (talk) 16:26, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Page numbers added (one book does not use page numbers, and this has been noted with an invisible comment in the citation template). I wasn't aware that publisher location was required information for "Encyclopedias organised in a conventional alphabetical way", but that's good to know if I ever nominate an article that uses such a citation style. TompaDompa (talk) 22:17, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

(←) W-e-e-e-e-e-e-lll, I am gonna be a monumental pain in what Ceoil would call the "arse". Well. I dunno. I will defer to Gog's judgment on whether a large change should be made. B-u-u-u-t, it is very possible that all of those Encyclopedia of SF entries have different authors. The very first one I clicked does. If you click the "About This Entry" link near the top of the article text, it takes you to a page with "Incoming Links" and far more importantly "Who Wrote This Entry?". The "MARS" entry says "The entry for Mars has 6,292 words, was last updated on 24 April 2023 and is signed [RKJK/BS/DRL]. RKJK Robert K J Killheffer: former Books Editor of Omni Magazine. BS Brian M Stableford DRL David Langford " and goes on to provide "How to cite this entry" with two suggestions:

• Suggested format

Robert K J Killheffer, Brian M Stableford and David Langford. "Mars". The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction edited by John Clute and David Langford. London: SFE Ltd and Reading: Ansible Editions, updated 24 April 2023. Web. Accessed 27 May 2023. <https://sf-encyclopedia.com/entry/mars>.

• MLA format

Killheffer, Robert K J, Brian M Stableford and David Langford. "Mars." The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction. Eds. John Clute and David Langford. SFE Ltd/Ansible Editions, 24 Apr. 2023. Web. 27 May 2023. <https://sf-encyclopedia.com/entry/mars>.

• Please Note To save you a huge amount of trouble, if we do change the format, there's a fair to middlin' chance that I could make all these programmatically for you. Then you would just have to carefully copy/paste. Which would still be trouble, but a lot less trouble. I dunno. Whatever you and Gog agree on... oh, I think I could add them programmatically too, maybe. If so, you would do... nothing. § Lingzhi (talk|check refs) 08:23, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure what you're saying, exactly. The citations to The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction already give the individual entry author(s). TompaDompa (talk) 08:35, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
    • '(2023). "Mars". In Clute, John; Langford, David; Sleight, Graham (eds.). The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction (4th ed.). Retrieved 13 May 2023.' Oh, so the first entry is the only one that's wrong? That's good. I didn't look beyond the first one...OK, then you fix that one. problem solved.... And BTW, it's listed in the sources and in further reading, again. § Lingzhi (talk|check refs) 09:19, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
      • It says

        Killheffer, Robert K. J.; Stableford, Brian; Langford, David (2023). "Mars". In Clute, John; Langford, David; Sleight, Graham (eds.). The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction (4th ed.). Retrieved 13 May 2023.

        The code is

        {{Cite encyclopedia |year=2023<!-- 24 April --> |title=Mars |encyclopedia=[[The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction]] |url=https://sf-encyclopedia.com/entry/mars |access-date=2023-05-13 |editor-last=Clute |editor-first=John |editor-link=John Clute |edition=4th |author2-last=Stableford |author2-first=Brian |author3-last=Langford |author3-first=David |author1-last=Killheffer |editor3-link=Graham Sleight |editor3-first=Graham |editor3-last=Sleight |editor2-first=David |author1-first=Robert K. J. |author3-link=David Langford |author2-link=Brian Stableford |editor2-last=Langford |editor2-link=David Langford}}

        Do the authors not show up on your device? I've tried different devices and browsers without any such problems. TompaDompa (talk) 09:34, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
• Ah, I see now. Thanks, sorry for the confusion. § Lingzhi (talk|check refs) 09:44, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Comment by Reywas92

I see this has been brought up a few times above but I think there's still an awful lot of redlinks. Several of these are short stories, which are typically not notable on their own. For example, "Ulla, Ulla" is written by Eric Brown (writer), none of whose works, including short story collections, have articles. Not that this particular one can't be notable, but I see no reason to presume this one, as well as those by Edmond Hamilton, P. Schuyler Miller, etc., would be expected to have an article among the many out there – redirects to articles on collections (if any) or authors seem more appropriate.

Moreover, there are quite a few works, especially in the Early depictions section, whose authors do not have an article either. This makes me question the due weight of many of these mentions altogether. It becomes clutter here of apparently non-notable works by non-notable authors. Most of these are just very short mentions stating how Mars was depicted in the work, without further analysis, relationship with other works, or impact on the understanding of Mars in popular culture. I read "The 1910 novel The Man from Mars, Or Service for Service's Sake by Henry Wallace Dowding portrays a civilization on Mars based on a variation on Christianity where woman was created first, in contrast to the conventional Genesis creation narrative." but wonder why I'm supposed to care if this was just a random person and few people read his book. Just because you think someone could see these redlinks and make little stubs on the short stories doesn't mean there should be so many of them either.

In contrast, the Human survival section only says "The subgenre was later revisited with the 2011 novel The Martian by Andy Weir and its 2015 film adaptation" at the end about a book and film that have likely been read/watched by more people than everything else on the list. It's mentioned again later, but it may deserve a bit more here. Further, the original version of the article, namely the film/TV section has several bluelinked items that are not included here at all, including Tom and Jerry: Blast Off to Mars, The Expanse (TV series), and Doom (film) (Mission to Mars is just mentioned as depicting the Face but not as a landing). I know this is a broad topic that was converted from a largely sourceless list, but this article loses its utility when it has more on obscure short stories than wide-release depictions. I echo Hahnchen's concerns and can't support how this is structured and weighted. Reywas92^Talk 13:52, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

I am not sure that the notability of a work is a good proxy to determine whether its mentioning is due weight, though. The sources discuss individual works as examples of trends and tendencies in the depiction of Mars; that's a completely different thing than the works themselves being notable. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:39, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

To add to that point, whether a link is red or blue is an imperfect, even poor, indicator of WP:Notability. Several links have turned blue during the course of this WP:FAC, the latest (if I'm not mistaken) being Alice Ilgenfritz Jones and Bellona's Husband: A Romance. More are on the way, but it's going to take some time if we're going to end up with proper articles rather than purely notability-demonstrating stubs.

On the broader question of due weight, I have no problem admitting that what the sources focus on did not correspond to my preconceived notions of what they ought to focus on. But then, this is an encyclopaedia, not TV Tropes. Articles are not supposed to reflect editors' notions of what should be said but rather the coverage found in the sources. As it turns out, the sources focus heavily on history, and lightly on contemporary depictions. It's always possible to add more about "popular" works, but at some point that turns into straight-up misrepresenting the relative weight assigned to different aspects by the sources.

The old version of the article linked above was, for all intents and purposes, a TV Tropes article hosted on Wikipedia. These two websites serve different purposes, and the place for TV Tropes-style articles is of course TV Tropes. TompaDompa (talk) 16:35, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Comments from Mike Christie

TompaDompa asked me (neutrally) to take a look at this FAC; I had commented at the PR that I'd like to review this at FAC. Unfortunately I'm not sure I'll have time to do the article justice, but I've looked through the comments above and I do have a couple of opinions I can give in response to some of the issues that have been raised.

• Personally I would have a few less redlinks but I don't think it's an issue for promotion; it's not an FA criterion. Featured articles have to comply with the MoS, but MOS:RL makes it clear this is up to the editors at the article and there's no hard-and-fast prescription.
• I am sympathetic to the idea of mentioning more video games, as a good deal of fiction is written in that format, but unless there are sources that cover the topic I think it would be OR to pluck examples from that world. From the commentary on this I think TompaDompa has done reasonable diligence in searching for those sources and has added what they can. I see there's an outstanding oppose on this but without cited sources and with nothing coming up from research I don't see how that's actionable.
• I think it's easy in an article like this to pull popular examples from the shelf, rather than from survey works; this article avoids that pitfall.

I've read some sections and found nothing to complain about, but have not read the article thoroughly enough to support or oppose. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:42, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Comment: A comment with respect to the oppose above – "The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction is cited many many times, yet Mars in the Movies, a book which I assume largely covers Mars in fiction, is cited once". A quick look at Google Scholar shows that the the sources used in the article are widely cited (eg. [42], [43]), while the suggested additions aren't. So I think the weighting is fine. I don't have enough time for a full review, but I did a literature search when I participated in the PR and did not find any gaps in coverage. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 18:48, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Comments from Piotrus

I've been also asked, neutrally, for my input. Overall, I think it's a solid article, that suffers from an issue with comprehensivness (systemic bias due to focus on English fiction, and the issues of insufficient coverage of non-literature sources as mentinoned above by others). At the same time, as TD already noted, this is a consequence of bias in the Anglo- and fiction- centric sources used, and it some cases, sources to improve the situation may simply not exist. I am glad to see the article mention's Strugatsky's The Second Invasion from Mars. I wonder if we can improve this slightly be adding mentions of The Man from Mars by Polish writer Lem? Some other works that may deserve mention, if they are covered in secondary sources (Polish, obviously): 1) pl:Mars (powieść), 2) pl:Trzeci najazd Marsjan and 3) a 2021 Mars-focused Polish sf anthology called Mars. Antologia polskiej fantastyki [44], in which of particular interest likely would be "przedmowa Wojtka Sedeńki, w której znajdziecie historię Marsa w literaturze fantastycznej w Polsce i na świecie" ("foreword by Wojtek Sedeńka, in which you will find the history of Mars in fantasy literature in Poland and around the world"). In general, I would be happy to expand the article with information from Sedeńka's foreward, and TD should have asked me to look into it before nominating this here. Unfortunately, as far as I can tell, this work is not available online, and I am not in Poland, so the best I can do is to ask some Polish Wikipedians to see if they have the book or can access it and send me the scan of that chapter. As such, I'd conditionally oppose promoting this, or suggest putting this on hold, until me and TD can get and digest that chapter. Sidenote: it is possible similar relevant works exist in other languages, but who knows :( For better or worse, however, now that we know there is a relevant article about on Poland, I think we should do our best to get it and use it. PS. In the meantime, here's an academic article in Polish (that is open access and OCRed and should work with machine translation) on colonizing Mars that may contain some useful content to address the systemic bias issue (although having quickly scanned it, I don't think it will have that much to add, but at least it does mention Kosik's book, if in passing). As for the aformentioned work by Lem, here's an English academic source that should be relevant: [45] (it also mentions another of his stories related to mars, "Anake", that does not seem to have a separate wiki article, en or pl, yet). -_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:48, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Reading Piotrus's comments reminded me that there's a strong science fiction tradition in Italy, so I had a look on the Italian Wikipedia. This section of the "Terraforming Mars" article mentions a board game that apparently won multiple awards, but more usefully the article links to it:Marte nella fantascienza, the equivalent Italian article. It's only intermittently sourced, but there are a few items there that might be worth mentioning if appropriate sourcing can be found -- a list of depictions of Mars in comics and manga, for example. There are lists of films, TV shows, and video games, but no sources are given so it might not be possible to find usable discussions of those. The article cites this webpage, which is not a reliable source, but it might be worth scanning to see if anything there could be added. I also spotted this, which I think is a reliable source.

Piotrus suggests delaying to add more material. I don't know enough about the works he's referring to to have an opinion on that, but I do think that if there are sources for sf about Mars in Polish and Italian, as seems to be the case, there are probably sources for sf about Mars in French, German, and Japanese, at least, and perhaps other languages. I couldn't oppose on those grounds, though; I think at FAC more than just a suspicion that other sources exist is required for an oppose. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:04, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't think any of the sources I've read about Mars in fiction cover any of those Polish works (I recall specifically looking for coverage of anything by Lem and only finding brief references to Solaris as a point of comparison), but I managed to find a spot for The Man from Mars to expand upon a point made by the sources. I have requested the foreword from Mars. Antologia polskiej fantastyki via WP:RX, though it seems likely to me that it would largely cover the same ground as the other sources since there is a large degree of overlap between the existing sources—or one might say a consensus about the main points. This Italian source (linked in the "Further reading" section), for instance, mostly covers the same ground as the other sources with Lowell and Schiaparelli, Wells and Burroughs, Bradbury and Clarke, and Robinson and Weir (among others, of course). https://www.fantascienza.com/6657/america-marziana, brought up by Mike Christie above, explicitly draws from The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction and Baxter's "Martian Chronicles: Narratives of Mars in Science and SF" (both cited in the article), is specifically about the American history of Mars, and likewise covers mostly the same ground as the other sources. TompaDompa (talk) 12:08, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Mike - good point about board games. As a board game afficitionado, I will agree that it would be good to mention stuff like Terraforming Mars (board game) - but is board game "fiction"? The game does have some plot but... Hmm. In other news, I was able to locate and buy an epub of the Polish anthology with Sedeńko's article I mentioned, I'll try to read it soon (if anyone would like it, shoot me an @). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:51, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That's great! I would certainly be interested in reading it. In the meantime, I have added the anthology itself as an example of how Martian fiction has diversified in the new millennium. On board games, I was honestly kind of surprised to find none of the sources discussing Terraforming Mars, a game that even I who am by no means a board game enthusiast has heard of, but I think it might be an intentional omission on their part ("is board game 'fiction'?" indeed). TompaDompa (talk) 14:07, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

PS. Mike also makes an intersting point about manga/anime aka Japanese science fiction. Sci-fi anime is another topic I am reasonably familiar with. In general, from what I know of this genre, Mars is not a major icon, but there it would be good to mention Japanese sci fi/anime/manga in a sentnece or two somewhere. Follow are some meh sources (not academic) but worth taking a look at: [46], [47]. At least they mention some major shows that might be worth looking into - maybe there is an academic work that tackles something here? (Ideally we would have a Japanese speaker look into Japanese sources, but we have to do with what - or rather, who - we have here... perhaps someone would like to leave a message at WikProject's Japan or Anime?). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:01, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) PPS. It's getting late on my end, but I did read Sedeńko's not very long article. The overview of international (mostly American) literature will likely not contain anything new (I did not check each work), but there is a useful section on Mars in Polish sci-fi literature. Works mentioned: 1) pl:Władysław Umiński's

W nieznane światy (1895, later renamed Na drugą planetę); I'll try to translate/write an entry on Umiński - called by some "Polish Verne" - in foreseeable future; 2) pl:Władysław Satke's Goście z Marsa (1897), 3) Lem's Men... we already mentined, then as Sedeńko writes - nothing much until recent times, leading to 4) Konrad Fiałkowski's Star City. Opowieści z Marsa (2007) and Rafał Kosik's Mars (2003) I mentioned above; he finally mentions Arkady Saulski's (no pl wiki article yet) recent works, a dylogy Kroniki Czerwonej Kompanii – Czarna kolonia (2016) and Wilk (2016). He does provide a brief overview of each of those works, and then there is the anthology itself he discusses in the next section of his article. Do we need to mention all of these works? I am not sure - my gut feeling is that Fiałkowski's and Saulski's works are not that significant; I'd encourage mentioning of the others. Umiński's and Satke's works are historically significant for Polish sci-fi, and Kosik is a popular modern author. And the anthology itself would be good to mention too, perhaps in the section that mentions English-language works like Mars Probes. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:23, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Having now read the foreword, it did indeed largely cover the same ground as the other sources already examined. I personally think this is a good thing, as it demonstrates that there exists some kind of academic consensus about the main points of the topic. I did manage to expand the general topic a little bit using the source and added a mention of Umiński's novel in the appropriate place. The article now mentions three Polish works: that one, Lem's The Man from Mars, and the anthology itself. I think that strikes a reasonable balance between countering WP:Systemic bias in the sources on the one hand and not overemphasizing certain aspects that get comparatively little coverage in the sources on the other. It's perhaps no surprise that English-language sources on the topic mostly focus on English-language works, but (evidently) so do German, Italian, and Polish-language ones.

On a separate note, is it possible to figure out what the pages for the foreword are (so we can add that information to the citation template)? TompaDompa (talk) 19:05, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Managed to work in a mention of Kosik's novel as well. TompaDompa (talk) 19:50, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

I am afraid not, until someone gets a hold of they physical book or it is scanned with at least a snippet view for Google Books or something else we can access :( We could try to apprixate it by comparing page numbers of ebook to paper book, but is it worth bothering? Well, that's a good question for FA regular and reference experts - how do you cite page ranges in an ebook? Maybe ask on Talk:FA or such? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:46, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Alright. Asked at WP:RX per a suggestion above. TompaDompa (talk) 06:10, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Re "how do you cite page ranges in an ebook?": you can put in a short phrase to search for -- e.g. "Search for 'Lorem ipsum'" -- as part of the citation. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:44, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

I suppose giving the chapter title should suffice in this case then, since it is a short chapter and the (repeated) citations to it refer to content throughout the chapter. TompaDompa (talk) 11:04, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

We can always find more examples of treatment of Mars in various media that are not yet in the article, from French comics to Doctor Who. The question is a bit where to stop, or whether there should be various sub-articles "Mars in anime and manga", "Mars in bandes dessinées", "Mars on television" etc. Alternatively, is there a rough scholarly consensus on what types of media to include in the topic "Mars in fiction" and how prominently? —Kusma (talk) 14:18, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Clicking on the French comic link reminded me of Battle Angel Alita: Mars Chronicle... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:25, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

This is a pretty amazing website covering Mars in fiction from all aspects (video games, American comics, Franco-Belgian comis, ...) but it is in French and probably not WP:RS reliable, so only useful as inspiration. The topic is certainly vast. —Kusma (talk) 14:29, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

I'd argue that even "vast" is an understatement; as Westfahl notes, there are thousands upon thousands of relevant titles. Obviously, we cannot (and should not want to) include all of them in an article like this. On the question of "is there a rough scholarly consensus on what types of media to include in the topic 'Mars in fiction' and how prominently?", I'd say you're pretty much looking at it (but then I would, wouldn't I?); looking at the sources, (prose) literature is by far the most prominently discussed medium, with film a clear but distant second. Television and comic books get brief coverage. Games—video or otherwise—barely get mentioned at all (only by a minority of sources, not by any of the highest-quality sources, and only briefly). If anything, I'd say this article is a bit over-inclusive when it comes to the less-discussed forms of media. TompaDompa (talk) 19:05, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

It would be nice to add at least one if not more mentions of something related to Japan (here's an academic source that should allow us to include the classic Cowboy Bebop: [48]). I think the Polish angle is covered duly at present, given the sources we have (I'd however suggest mentioning Satke as well, Sedeńko discusses him at reasonable lenght). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:48, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

I took a look at that source, and I don't think it's much help here. Despite a title like "Manga is from Mars: Cowboy Bebop", that source barely mentions Mars at all (just once, in the sentence "The setting for Cowboy Bebop is a metropolis shielded beneath a sky dome in a crater on Mars, where the populace of this urban colony are cheerful despite the prevalence of gigantic and unethical pharmaceutical companies, regular downsizing (that has led one gang of security men to rob the places they used to guard), as well as the general, run-of-the-mill crime of a big city."). It's a review of Cowboy Bebop: The Movie, a film described by Thomas Kent Miller as "only a Mars movie by a technicality". I think it would be better to keep looking. TompaDompa (talk) 05:54, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Found a suitable Japanese work to include: Moto Hagio's Star Red. The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction even describes it as a homage to Bradbury's The Martian Chronicles, so I think that works nicely. TompaDompa (talk) 06:05, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Hmmm. Do you think stuff from the media listicles I linked above (CBR, Gamerant) can be used to add something more? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:38, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Not really. I would only use those sources as complements, i.e. for additional details about things where significance has been demonstrated by being discussed in higher-quality sources. TompaDompa (talk) 10:30, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough. Have you given any thought to mentioning Satke, per my comment above? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:00, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Minor issue I noticed: you don't provide English titles for foreign works (Auf zwei Planeten, the Polish anthology, etc.). Overight or purposeful choice? I think we should provide Englsh titles in addition to original, given that this is an English Wikipedia...? It is also inconsistent - Auf's article is at Two Planets. But Japanese work we added (Star Red) is referred to in English in our text, not in Japanese... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:04, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

One more issue: the "highlight duplicate links" gadget I use suggests the article has quite a few duplicated blue links. Polish science fiction is linked three times, for example - I think per MoS it's two too many? I suggest you install that gadget if you don't have it active yet. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:07, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

I thought about adding the Satke novel, but decided against it. There is (now) a fair coverage of Polish literature about Mars in the article and this particular work was as Sedeńko alludes to rather overshadowed internationally by the works of Lasswitz and Wells from the same year. So in the context of Mars in fiction I think we're fine without it (and I'm wary of overcompensating for WP:Systemic bias), though perhaps there is stronger reason to mention it in the Polish science fiction article.

The lack of English titles for some works is intentional. In some cases, it's because there isn't a clear "correct" English title to give (e.g. if the work has no translation into English, or several competing ones with different titles). In the case of Auf zwei Planeten, it's additionally because that novel didn't even get an English translation until three quarters of a century later (which is a point the sources emphasize). In some other cases like Conversations on the Plurality of Worlds I've deferred to the title of the Wikipedia article, but for Lasswitz' novel it just didn't seem appropriate to use the English title. I also don't particularly want to add a whole bunch of parentheses with alternate or translated titles if it's not necessary.

The duplicate links are intentional. MOS:DUPLINK was recently amended to relax the restrictions against repeated links following discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Linking#DL, sections, and mobile readers which was decidedly in favour of doing so. The article is still (to my eye) on the conservative side when it comes to repeating links, considering its length. TompaDompa (talk) 04:18, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

@TompaDompa Thanks for telling me about relaxation of DUPLINK rule. I am still a bit wary regarding not translating some titles, which I feel some readers will find jarring/arbitrary, and I urge you to reconsider. IMHO, for works that debuted in language other than English, we should always provide both titls (original and translated). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:26, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Tried adding translated titles. I frankly think it looks way worse, but there you go. TompaDompa (talk) 12:09, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

• Support. While the article is still not as comprehensive as it should be, this is not for the lack of trying, but rather, lack of sources, or our lack of ability to search for sources in non-English language. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:38, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

SupportComments from Chiswick Chap

• Well, I note that many reviewers are finding this difficult to assess. Any '... in fiction' topic is automatically across domains (e.g. science, literature); TD has noted that such topics have rarely if ever appeared at FAC; and scholars, too, have tended to avoid science fiction, whether for reasons of taste or again because of its domain-spanning nature (leaving a mass of low-quality or primary sources). All of this makes evaluation tricky. I've brought several '... in fiction' topics to GA, i.e. asserting that these are 'decent' without attempting to demonstrate 'comprehensiveness', whatever that might mean when an encyclopedia article is necessarily orders of magnitude smaller than the literature on which it reports.

• For what it's worth, I find the coverage here admirable, indicating the breadth of the topic in time (from the 17th century), by aspect, and by medium.

• I note the skimpy 'See also' mention of Mars in culture. There ought to be some intersection of the two articles, e.g. as cultural aspects of Mars (male, warrior god, angry red planet, aggressive astrological sign, etc) impinge on the thinking of authors creating fictional versions of life on Mars. A quick look at the other article reveals its poor state. Its coverage of 'Mars in fiction' is limited to a 'see also' hatnote, a curious choice, while its fiction coverage is limited to a section which occupies most of the article, 'Intelligent "Martians"', entirely failing to address the rest of the 'in fiction' topic. Clearly it should have a summary-style section named 'Mars in fiction' with an overview of the current article, but that's not our concern here; we should I think have here some discussion of cultural aspects.
  • There is some discussion of the cultural aspects as they relate to fiction, in proportion to the coverage in the sources. There is significant cross-pollination between fiction and culture more broadly when it comes to the Martian canals, for instance. Other such aspects covered by this article are the focus on the supernatural in the late 1800s and the planet being named after the Roman god of war. TompaDompa (talk) 10:57, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Given the above, and the comments already made by other reviewers, I have only the most minor of comments to make on the text itself:

• "Mediums" (used in lead) usually means people with a link to the spirit world, so "media" is preferred for the meaning "books, film, TV, newspapers and such".
  • Tweaked. TompaDompa (talk) 10:57, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
• "by the middle of the century". Which one?
  • I thought that the context both from the preceding section and the following sentence made it clear, but I have at any rate made it explicit now. TompaDompa (talk) 10:57, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
• "between the unsuccessful 1905 Russian Revolution and the successful 1917 Russian Revolution" could be made less repetitive, especially as the 1905 event has already been mentioned in the previous sentence.
  • Tweaked. TompaDompa (talk) 10:57, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
• "which refers to the planet as Malacandra". => "which calls the planet Malacandra." (and perhaps the name should be quoted).
  • Tweaked. TompaDompa (talk) 10:57, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
• "This would carry on to later works" => "This carried on to later works" (or "in later works").
  • Tweaked. TompaDompa (talk) 10:57, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
• "civilization on Mars now extinct." => "civilization on Mars, now extinct."
  • Tweaked. TompaDompa (talk) 10:57, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
• "anthology of new Barsoom fiction:" – I'd consider a repeat link here, as Barsoom was last linked a long way up the article, and the presence of an anthology is rather more substantial than a single story. We have been rather timid with "overlinks", but they have in fact always been permitted, and the rules have recently been sensibly relaxed to permit them when clearly helpful to the reader. I'd say this was an obvious case in point.
  • Agreed, and added. TompaDompa (talk) 10:57, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
• The presence of a substantial 'Further reading' section begs the question "so why aren't we incorporating key claims by these scholars"?
  • We are, for most of them (see below). For the ones we aren't, they either have a particularly narrow (though relevant) scope or largely cover the same ground as the other sources (and I've happened to cite the other sources that cover those points instead). TompaDompa (talk) 10:57, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
• There seem to be overlaps between the inline citations and the sources listed in 'Further reading'. For instance, "Stableford, Brian (2006) is described in ref [10], but I see that "Stableford, Brian" in fact consists of two bluelinks to the article on that author, where I'd have expected a single link of "Stableford 2006" to the full citation below, and would suggest therefore removing the redundancy, either by reducing the inline citation to e.g. a harv link to the cited source, or by removing the entry from 'Further reading'. There may well be other examples.
  • There is indeed substantial overlap, and this is intentional. Per MOS:FURTHER, sources used as inline references can be repeated in this section if "the References section is too long for a reader to use as part of a general reading list", which I think is pretty clearly the case here. TompaDompa (talk) 10:57, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
• It would be helpful to disarm the (complete set of) distracting Harv warnings in 'Further reading' by adding "|ref=none" to all the unused links, but I doubt this is part of the FAC criteria.
  • I'll admit that I don't quite understand what warnings you are referring to, but I have added "|ref=none" across the board. TompaDompa (talk) 10:57, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
    • There's a script that turns them on.

Overall, I think that it's very desirable that this should be accepted as an FA. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:23, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

@Chiswick Chap: I have replied to your comments above. TompaDompa (talk) 10:57, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

• Happy to Support. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:19, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Coord note

Hi Tompa, I was walking through the article with a view to promotion when I noticed Klaatu in The Day the Earth Stood Still explicitly referred to as a Martian and was curious to see the sources for that as he is only implicitly so in the film, based on the distance he says he travelled to Earth. I could see Westfahl describing him as a "parental Martian" while acknowledging his home planet is only suggested, but I couldn't see Ashley's or Crossley's mentions -- do you have access to the complete text of those works to explain how they support the article text as is? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:35, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Certainly. I do have access to the complete text of both of those, but neither Crossley nor Ashley discuss that particular work. Westfahl does, and has in several publications (Interzone (June 2001), p. 57–58 contains a fairly lengthy discussion of the issue that concludes that Klaatu is a Martian both textually and intertextually; The Greenwood Encyclopedia of Science Fiction and Fantasy (2005), p. 499 says "Klaatu in The Day the Earth Stood Still, whose journey of 250 million miles suggests a Martian origin"; and The Stuff of Science Fiction: Hardware, Settings, Characters (2021), p. 151 says "when Klaatu of the original The Day the Earth Stood Still (1951) twice asserted his journey to Earth had taken 250,000,000 miles, and that his planet and Earth were 'neighbors,' he effectively communicated that Mars was his home planet, since Mars is the only known planet that is ever 250,000,000 miles from Earth (when the planets are in opposition)."). There are some other sources (from other authors) that are relevant, but in the interest of brevity I will simply link to a discussion on this topic on the article's talk page back in January: Talk:Mars in fiction#The Day the Earth Stood Still. TompaDompa (talk) 13:07, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Mea culpa, I ended up looking at the second and third citations for the next clause re. Stranger in a Strange Land, which were Ashley and Crossley, rather than Sherman and Westfahl (for the second time) for the Klaatu reference. Yes, Westfahl certainly makes a good case for Klaatu being a Martian although I'd have preferred to see more than one prominent author asserting this. As is, I think a bit more equivocation such as "Klaatu, whose origins strongly hint at Mars" or some such might be more in keeping with the sourcing -- WDYT? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:58, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

I think Westfahl is a sufficiently authoritative source (and the evidence he bases it on solid enough) that we can just leave it as it is, especially considering that Westfahl is not alone in this identification of Klaatu as Martian. TompaDompa (talk) 16:18, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

After reading ref. 62 (Westfahl 2001) I think the identification of Klaatu as Martian merits at least a footnote. —Kusma (talk) 16:34, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Very well, I added one (reused the one I created for the article Klaatu (The Day the Earth Stood Still) a while back). TompaDompa (talk) 16:50, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

I think that does the trick, tks guys. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 18:09, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

@Ian Rose: Anything else that needs to be addressed? TompaDompa (talk) 15:57, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Apologies, I meant to acknowledge this before I went on a short break, I will return to it soon. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:37, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 17:50, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 9 July 2023 [49].

---

Angel Aquino

Nominator(s): Pseud 14 (talk) 21:49, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Having previously worked on Filipino BLPs, I've decided to start working on another Filipino actress. Angel Aquino began her career as a fashion model before she ventured into acting. Since then she has appeared in primarily independent films and primetime television series of varying genres. She is noted for her versatility and adaptability in portraying protagonists and villains, and has received praise and accolades for her work on screen. Constructive criticism, in any form and from anyone, will be appreciated. Happy to address your comments and thanks to all who take the time to review. Pseud 14 (talk) 21:49, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Comment

It seems necessary to add a reference to the sentence that she has been mentioned in various media as the most beautiful face in the Philippine entertainment industry. Kloyan.L (talk) 07:47, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

MOS:LEADCITE states that citations are often omitted from the lead section as this information is repeated and sourced in the article prose. The same information is mentioned, repeated and sourced in the body. Pseud 14 (talk) 13:09, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

The MoS on quotations: "[t]he source must be named in article text if the quotation is an opinion". Emphasis in original. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:16, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, not sure if I follow Gog. Should I add citations in the lead for this bit? Or will the sources in the body where it is discussed be sufficient? Pseud 14 (talk) 20:03, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

It means that every time you use a quotation which is not a fact (eg "it was the highest-grossing film of the year") you have to state who said or wrote it in line. I think that I confused matters as you don't use any quotes in the lead. You attribute quotations appropriately elsewhere so it may be best if you simply ignore my ill-judged attempt to be helpful. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:28, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

No worries at all Gog, thanks for clarifying as well. It is very helpful nonetheless, and will take that into account in cases when such use arise. Most grateful for any help you have shared otherwise, especially with the source review re titles. Pseud 14 (talk) 20:42, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Media review—pass

• File:Angel Aquino (cropped).jpg is a cropped version of an image uploaded by the owner and is appropriately licensed.
• File:Angel Aquino The Vagina Monologues Public Reading.jpg is taken from a video available under the CC license and an archive is included.
• File:Angel Aquino in 2008.jpg is available under the mentioned license.
• File:Angel Aquino - Short Film Astray (cropped).jpg is appropriately licensed.

That should complete media review.--NØ 15:22, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you very much for doing the media review MaranoFan. Pseud 14 (talk) 15:33, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Comments from ChrisTheDude

• "Aquino has three younger siblings. They were raised by their mother...." - this sounds like only the three younger siblings were raised by their mother

Revised for clarity

• "the erotic drama Laro sa Baga (2000), whose script" => "the erotic drama Laro sa Baga (2000), the script of which" ("whose" should really only be used with people, not non-human things like a film)

Done

• "Aquino and Roño reunited in the action drama La Vida Rosa (2001), co-starring Rosanna Roces, Liza Lorena, and Jiro Manio. She played" => "Aquino and Roño reunited in the action drama La Vida Rosa (2001), co-starring Rosanna Roces, Liza Lorena, and Jiro Manio, in which she played" (join two short sentences together)

Done

• "critically acclaimed independent comedy-drama Crying Ladies, co-starring Sharon Cuneta and Hilda Koronel.[24][25] She played" => "critically acclaimed independent comedy-drama Crying Ladies, co-starring Sharon Cuneta and Hilda Koronel,[24][25] in which she played" (as above)

Revised as above

• " a Martial law-era " - no need for capital M

Done

• "in Eddie Romero's final directorial effort, Faces of Love (2007).[55][56] The film premiered" => "in Eddie Romero's final directorial effort, Faces of Love (2007),[55][56] which premiered"

Done

• That's what I got as far as 2012, back for more later.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:44, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for taking up this review ChrisTheDude. Your comments have been actioned. Looking forward to the rest of your review. Pseud 14 (talk) 19:25, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

More comments

• "The year 2013 marked a high point in Aquino's career, as she became a performer nominated" - just "The year 2013 marked a high point in Aquino's career, as she was nominated" is sufficient

Done

• "as she did neither understand nor respect her character's actions" - I think "as she could neither understand nor respect her character's actions" would be better wording

Agree, revised.

• "he had a guest role in an episode of the anthology series Maalaala Mo Kaya.[133] She was paired opposite Adrian Alandy" => "he had a guest role in an episode of the anthology series Maalaala Mo Kaya,[133] in which she was paired with Adrian Alandy" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:02, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Done

Thanks ChrisTheDude. Additional comments have been actioned. Pseud 14 (talk) 16:11, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support on prose -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:20, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your review and support. Pseud 14 (talk) 17:59, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Support Comments from NØ

• "Among her notable performances include an assasin's wife" - Needs a grammar correction, try "Among her notable performances are an assasin's wife"

Done

• Not sure public figure needs a link.

Removed

• "she and her siblings were from their father's second marriage, and were estranged from him" - "estranged from their father, she and her siblings were born from his second marriage" could be simpler

Revised as suggested

• "She was featured in several television and print advertisements for products, including being the face of hair care brand Pantene" - "She was featured in several television and print advertisements for products, and became the face of hair care brand Pantene"

Done

• "critic Bayani San Diego Jr. of the Philippine Daily Inquirer noted how much Aquino's supporting part aided the narrative" - This should be conveyed as the critic's opinion as it seems subjective. So maybe "critic Bayani San Diego Jr. of the Philippine Daily Inquirer believed Aquino's supporting part really aided the narrative" or something along those lines.

Revised as suggested

• "She has advocated for children's education and is actively involved with Juan Day, an initiative which raised money to help provide educational supplies to students in rural areas and from disadvantaged families" - If she is actively involved with them, the second part of this sentence probably shouldn't be in past tense.

Done

• "Aquino has voiced her approval for equal rights and opportunities in the LGBT community" - "for" the LGBT community?

Done

• I am a bit confused about the first paragraph of the Acting credits and awards section. Aren't all of these television projects mentioned in more detail in prior sections? Do any other acting bios include a whole paragraph dedicated to Rotten Tomatoes rankings? Apologies if this is common practice and I just didn't know, but it would seem this being trimmed to just "Awards" (the second paragraph) would suffice.

For "Acting credits and awards", I tailored this section to existing FAs of BLPs which seem to be consistent with providing a summary style mention of both Rotten Tomatoes and Box-office data for "acting" and a summary of "awards". This section is much shorter though, than what you would find in examples such as Kate Winslet, Jessica Chastain, Emma Stone, Amy Adams or Christian Bale, as I have only referenced available data.

Great work and kudos on 96.9% authorship on such an elaborate article. Can't wait to see what you'll work on next.--NØ 08:44, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments and kind words. I appreciate you doing a prose review MaranoFan. I have actioned your comments above and provided an explanation regarding the last point. Let me know if they are to your satisfaction or if I may have missed anything. Pseud 14 (talk) 12:55, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Support by DWB

• I feel like "On stage, Aquino has performed in local theater productions of The Vagina Monologues (2002) and Closer (2013)." should be part of the paragraph above or even the second paragraph since that is discussing her career, it just randomly veers from Stage to her public life. If you want something to beef out that last paragraph I can see there is a line about her being among the finest actresses of her generation. Maybe something like "Described by some publications as among the most beautiful and finest Filipino actresses of her generation, Aquino has used her public profile to promote various causes, including education, gender equality, and women's rights." - I'm not hardline on it though.

Fair point and I've also thought about lumping it in the previous paragraphs, but reading similar actor FAs such as those of Jessica Chastain, Amy Adams, I found that theatre ventures tend to be separate and usually in the final paras along with other ventures. (although GAs, this tends to be the same case as well i.e. Jake Gyllenhaal and Andrew Garfield). On the other hand, I have revised and tweaked the latter sentence per your suggestion.

• "Aquino and her three younger siblings were raised by their mother in" -> "The eldest of four children, Aquino and her siblings were raised by their mother in", I think this helps because the rest of the sentence is "were raised by their mother in Barangka, Marikina, where she attended elementary school. " which makes it sound that's where the mom went to school, not Aquino.

Done

• "made them feel cared for and that she was clever and ingenious." Is clever and ingenious a quote? Might be worth quoting it, seems a bit non-neutral.

I actually paraphrased it and used synonyms for resourceful. The article mentions her mother is "resourceful" and ventured into multiple business gigs to make ends meet. I did revise it a bit to say driven and ingenious.

• "She is reluctant to publicly discuss her family background; estranged from their father, she and her siblings were born from his second marriage.[5] She has stated that her mother suffered physical abuse.[4]" - "Reluctant to disclose aspects of her personal life, Aquino has stated that she is estranged from her father who physically abused her mother, his second wife."

Thanks for this, reads much better actually. Revised.

• I'm not sure why this is a note - "Aquino was a recipient of the Tulong Dunong Scholarship funded by the Philippine Commission on Higher Education.[4][7]" just include it in the text.

Removed efn and included in text.

• "She found it in the drama series Honesto (2013), which re-teamed her with Torre. She" two sentences starting with "she"in succession.

Revised

• "Described by the Philippine Entertainment Portal to be among the "busiest actresses", Aquino is noted for appearing in a range of material." Can you clarify this? What is the range? Multimedia? Genre?

Revised as appearing in material of varying genres

• "She also advocated for LGBT rights and participated in the "I dare to care about equality" movement by Bahaghari Philippines in support of the International Day Against Homophobia, Biphobia and Transphobia.[163] " This makes it sound like it happened once, do we have a year?

Year added

• " actress and producer" film producer?

Changed to film producer

• "According to the online portal Box Office Mojo and the review aggregate site Rotten Tomatoes, Aquino's most critically and commercially successful films include " are their BO figures for these to give context?

It is actually a mix of movies with high review ratings and high BO returns. The BO figures aren't listed as it would be found in the source itself via Box Office Mojo. (Similar examples I have tailored it with are Kate Winslet, Julianne Moore)

• I'm not sure the second note is required, you've added the hidden note after the link to it's Wiki page so they can go there to find out what it is, there's plenty of description of other films she is in so I'm not sure why this is necessary as a hidden note or to be present in the article at all.

I have removed this efn too.

• That's all I can find, hopefully this will be useful but feel free to challenge anything. Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 20:45, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your review Darkwarriorblake. I have provided my responses and have actioned your comments above. Let me know if they are to your satisfaction or if I may have missed anything. Pseud 14 (talk) 00:51, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Much improved for small changes Pseud, good luck Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 09:08, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your time in reviewing and for your support. Pseud 14 (talk) 16:34, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Source review

On this version Mujinga (talk) 08:17, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

• 10 Cruz, Francis Joseph → Cruz, Francis Joseph A.
• 11 What's going with this bundled citation? Is each cite being used to provide evidence of each film, respectively? Then I would prefer a secondary source to replace rottentomatoes, or is that not possible? Wikipedia:Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic does say RT is a reliable source, but it's just an essay

Correct, each cite is to source each film respectively. I was able to find a secondary source for Lea's Story using it's local title. However the only other source I could find for the last film is the full movie from the film studio's official YouTube channel. So I kept RT if that is acceptable. I think sources such as RT/AV Club/TV Guide have been acceptable in its usage to cite for roles/appearances in movies/television in filmography sections (as well as within the FLC space). Pseud 14 (talk) 13:22, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

• 8 13 Brizuela, Jayson → Brizuela, Jayson B.
• 14 Torre, Nestor → Torre, Nestor U.
  • I'm starting to think you are missing out the initial by design? but you do use for example Scott, A.O. so right now this is inconsistent

You're right. I purposely excluded using the initials, as Philippine naming conventions are different from North American conventions. Middle names/initials for Filipinos use the mother's maiden last name. Most of these authors are usually referred to by their Given Names and Last Names ([50] [51]). They have also been cited in similar design with other Filipino FAs (Judy Ann Santos, Angel Locsin, Angeline Quinto). As for A. O. Scott, I do think this is an exception, as he officially goes by A. O. instead of his full name Anthony Oliver. I can switch it to his full name though, if it helps with consistency. Let me know otherwise. Pseud 14 (talk) 13:22, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the rationale about not using initials, I was wondering if there was a convention for this. I'm left a bit puzzled since (leaving aside A. O. Scott as a different case) if the source itself is using the initial for Filipino names I don't see why we wouldn't. Is there any MOS guidance here? Looking at Filipino name and Double-barrelled_name#Filipino_naming_tradition there doesn't seem to be a definitive answer. Don't see any discussion of this specific issue in the FAs you linked. Thanks, Mujinga (talk) 15:36, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

@Mujinga: thanks for your response. There seems to be no guidance on whether to include the initials from what I've checked. I've written them as Given names and Last Names for the better part of my FAC experience, as it was not brought up in the prior source reviews of the FAs I've listed. I'd be fine updating it if that's a cause of concern formatting-wise. I can do that as we go along with your next batch of comments, as I'll have to go thru each citation. In case there's additional names not on the initial list. Pseud 14 (talk) 16:34, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

@Pseud 14 sure it's just good to talk it through. If you have done this consistently through the article then I guess it's ok. Sorry to be nitpicky! Mujinga (talk) 17:05, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

@Mujinga: no worries, and thanks for being thorough. Should be fixed now to include initials as you've outlined below. Pseud 14 (talk) 19:47, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

ok I see you've added them, nice Mujinga (talk) 18:58, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

• 15 Angel Aquino as a kontrabida → TWBA: Angel Aquino as a kontrabida

Done. Pseud 14 (talk) 13:22, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

• 17 Pablo A. Tariman
• 19 Torre, Nestor U.
• 25 Nepales, Ruben V.
• 27 Nepales, Ruben V.
• 28 suggest for this and other news articles with no author to use: <!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> or similar

Per Template:Cite web or Template:Cite news, if there are no author(s), that parameter can be omitted. As far as I'm aware. Unless I've missed something. (I've referred to similar recent FA BLPs i.e. Oscar Isaac, Christian Bale). Pseud 14 (talk) 13:22, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

No action required but I was thinking about this and I suppose one advantage of using |author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> is that if a reviewer is checking for author names, then they know there isn't one, rather than seeing a gap and needing to check. For myself, I'd say it saves me having to check if I forgot to add a name. Anyway, that's just food for thought. Mujinga (talk) 19:01, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

• 30 NYT article should be marked as paywalled; Scott, A.O. → Scott, A. O. (in text as well)

Added paid subscription mark. Pseud 14 (talk) 13:22, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

• 32 what is the AV club ref doing here? Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources says it is reliable for reviews

Same rationale as above re movie/television appearance. But I found a secondary source, so it has been replaced. Pseud 14 (talk) 13:22, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

• 33 not seeing author in source?

Rito Asilo is named as author in this source. Pseud 14 (talk) 13:22, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

• 34 Torre, Nestor U.
• stopping here for now Mujinga (talk) 09:50, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for taking up the source review Mujinga. I have provided my responses to above, including rational for exclusion of using initials for Filipino authors. Let me know if these have been addressed satisfactorily or if I may have missed anything. Pseud 14 (talk) 13:22, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Nice one thanks for the quick responses, that all look fine then, I just want to discuss the naming convention more. And I'll continue with a new section Mujinga (talk) 16:08, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, I've provided my response on your point re naming convention and will do so as we go along in your next comments/review. Pseud 14 (talk) 16:34, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Source review 2

On this version

• 39 is this being used to prove she was in the film? it seems unnecessary

Yes it is, but I have since removed it, as it is supported by the succeeding citation

• 40 Bruce, Emmy - source says Emmy Burce

Sorry a typo - fixed now.

• 45 not sure what "No. October 21, 2007" is doing

Should be fixed now. parameter should be |date not |issue

• Article titles should consistently be in either sentence case or title case, irrespective of how they appear in the original, per MOS:TITLECAPS. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:11, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Reviewed each sections, stuck with sentence case for consistency. (all capitalized instances I believe are proper names, titles, etc)

indeed! thanks Gog Mujinga (talk) 16:30, 5 July 2023 (UTC) eg 94, 131, 132, 137, 141, 145, 151

A couple more still need doing:

• The Kontrabida Girls We Love: Whose Style Is Most Wicked?
• Angel Aquino Movie Box Office Results

Mujinga (talk) 19:04, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Should be fixed now for consistency. Pseud 14 (talk) 19:46, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

• 59 I have to say I'm confused by this way of referencing her appearance in a film by linking to the film on youtube and (presumably) the time of her first appearance. Is there no other source? Also 39 has "– via YouTube", this doesn't.

Generally, if I am unable to find a secondary source for a film appearance, I've relied on the media itself as a primary source. I've found a secondary source and have replaced it, hopefully it will suffice. Ref 39 per above has been removed as well, with a secondary source. Pseud 14 (talk) 19:45, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

• 60 author is Sylvia Santamaria

Done

• 61 not sure about the SJ in Lim, Michael SJ per above discussion

I'm not sure about SJ as well, so I just took it out, and left at Lim, Michael

I suppose since you are using initials it should go back in, but it is confusing! Mujinga (talk) 19:05, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Reinstated it. Yeah the double initials is confusing. Alas it is how it's written I guess. Pseud 14 (talk) 19:46, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

• 62 I don't think you can use a film appearance to reference the detail in "She made special appearances in television pilots throughout 2008, first featuring in the supernatural fantasy series Lobo as a werewolf's mortal wife"

Revised this so only the work/appearance is referenced. Removed the first opening wording.

• 63 same as 62 for an episode citation on "She also shared a role with Picache, portraying the latter's character during a younger phase in her life in the drama series Iisa Pa Lamang.[63]"

Removed this.

• 83 She is among the few performers to be nominated for two Gawad Urian Awards in the same year. - not seeing that in source?

I've added references to source performers that have been double nominated

My issue here wasn't that I wanted other performers who have been double nominated to be mentioned, rather I don't see the source backing the assertion that "She is among the few performers to be nominated for two Gawad Urian Awards in the same year". You could by all means say she was double nominated like John Lloyd Cruz and Anne Curtis, but on the present version it seems like original research to say "among the few performers". Hope that makes sense! Mujinga (talk) 19:13, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Revised as suggested. Pseud 14 (talk) 19:46, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

• 103 full title is Angel Aquino kisses Althea Vega for short film Astray: "This was the first time that I kissed a girl onscreen" and since you have done such a good job of italicizing films in titles, then Astray prob should be as well

Done

• 119 I can accept this as a ref for " In preparation for the part, she trained in wushu" but not "and hand-to-hand combat" since Hung is a wushu trainer

Remove hand-to-hand combat

cool Mujinga (talk) 19:13, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

• 136 I used User:Ohconfucius/dashes.js to see if the hyphen is ok, seems like it is
• 143 can be standardised with 15. So "physicalizing" and "internalizing" are direct quotes from the source? It might heklp to write in Tagalog what she said using |quotation per WP:NONENG

Added TWBA. I only quoted "physicalizing" and "internalizing" as these were said verbatim, the rest of the statement was rather non-technical and can be easily paraphrased, and would make sense to write it in prose as oppose to quoting in non-English, since it is also followed by a direct quote in English.

Sorry to insist but this is supposed to be an example of wikipedia's best work. I do realise that NONENG can be interpreted in different ways; my suggestion is to include in the citation using |quotation= the Tagalog original version of the quotation you have translated, I think this is especially worthwhile since you are using a quote from a youtube clip. If this doesn't make sense, a similar example is at We Are Here (collective) where I've inserted the relevant section in Dutch for the material I am drawing on. Mujinga (talk) 19:13, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

I see what you mean, I've added it, hopefully that works. Pseud 14 (talk) 19:46, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

• 146 same argument as 143

For this quotation, it was spoken in English and is not a translation.

• 150 same reference as 135?

Fixed (i think)

What i meant what to make it the same ref, I've done this using <ref name="SC">, feel free to change it Mujinga (talk) 19:17, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for catching. Yes agree with the change. Pseud 14 (talk) 19:56, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

• 166 link gives no info (not archived version)

I've added the paid subscription mark to clarify. (similar usage with Box Office sections for other actor FAs i.e. Kate Winslet, Julianne Moore)

Mujinga, I've actioned the rest of the comments on sourcing. Let me know if they are to your satisfaction and if there's anything a may have missed. Pseud 14 (talk) 19:45, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

@Pseud 14 Nice work! I've replied on a few points, happy to discuss anything Mujinga (talk) 19:18, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

@Mujinga: Thanks for the second look. Believe I have addressed the remaining items. Pseud 14 (talk) 19:46, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

@Pseud 14 Cheers for the fast reply - it all looks good now, but I want to have another with fresher eyes before supporting, I'll ping when I do that Mujinga (talk) 20:03, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Source review 3

On this version:

• cite 60 backs: "She also featured in the supernatural fantasy series Lobo as a werewolf's mortal wife" and the source is " "Lobo (2008) – Episode 1" (Video) (in Tagalog). ABS-CBN Entertainment. 15:30 minutes in. Archived from the original on April 3, 2023. Retrieved April 3, 2023 – via YouTube." The youtube clip is from ABS-CBN so that's fine, but I don't think the level of detail in the text can be backed by reference to an appearance at 15:30. The blurb on the clip says "Episode Cast: Piolo Pascual (Noah) / Angel Locsin (Lyka) / Pilar Pilalpil (Eleanor / Elle / Lady Elle) / Robert Arevalo (Manolo) / Shaina Magdayao (Gabby) / Gio Alvarez (Elton) / Dimples Romana (Trixie) / Ryan Eigenmann (Anton)" so she doesn't seem to be a main character - do we need this sentence?

Removed and replaced with a secondary source. Bot doesn't work hence there is no archive link atm. Fix soon

• cite 142 backs "Aquino has commented that "physicalizing" and "internalizing" as part of her acting is a technique she views as an obvious requirement in her portrayals. When questioned as to how she personifies the vileness of her character, she remarked: "I have to stand up straighter, I have to put my chin up, I have to look proud and ready to eat someone alive"." - "physicalizing" and "internalizing" still read to me like direct quotes but she says "physicalize" and "internalization" so i'd suggest taking away the quote marks on "physicalizing" and "internalizing" - also happy to discuss.

Removed quote marks

- Hi again @Pseud 14:Just those two now Mujinga (talk) 09:23, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

@Mujinga: Both addressed. Pseud 14 (talk) 15:29, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Great, support based on reviewing sources Mujinga (talk) 17:45, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:54, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 9 July 2023 [52].

---

Esplanade MRT station

Nominator(s): ZKang123 (talk) 08:46, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

This article is about another MRT station in Singapore. As Wikimania is being held in Suntec City, Singapore, on August 14 to 16 this year, I hope to have this passed before August to showcase another Singapore-related work. In addition, the station serves said location.ZKang123 (talk) 08:46, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Media review - pass

• Images are all appropriately licensed and own works of the uploaders.--NØ 17:46, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Comments from MyCatIsAChonk

Since this is one of my first FACRs, I won't be giving a support/oppose, but I'm still happy to give comments! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 13:14, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

• I'm surprised to have no comments about the prose, it's very well written!
• Earwig is showing no copyvios/plagiarism
• I suggest adding Template:Use Singapore English tag (or similar for whatever dialect is used)

I'm very impressed with this article, nice job ZKang123! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 13:14, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Usually for Singapore articles British English is used by default. ZKang123 (talk) 07:23, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

• Hi MyCatIsAChonk, 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) 20:41, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

  Sure, the article is very good already and I don't see any other major concerns brought up. Support. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 22:16, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Comments

I think this is a relatively comprehensive, but expandable article.

• No important details are overlooked, and the location of the main services of the subway station is described in great detail. I think it's very helpful.
• And the article is well researched, and the citations in the article are comprehensive and representative. Citing sources is also high-quality content.
• This is a neutral introductory article, not promotional.
• And in line with Wikipedia's copyright policy, there is currently no plagiarism.

But I think the article can be expanded, such as adding a practical introduction to what time the station is crowded. This will be of great help to users.Thanks.Hhhh2 (talk) 07:29, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Well, for the suggestion it will make the article read too much of a guide than anything encyclopedic. In addition, there are no official sources for the exact passenger numbers of the hour. ZKang123 (talk) 07:24, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

CommentsSupport from Chris

• "Esplanade MRT station is an underground Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) station on the Circle line (CCL)." - I would specify "in Singapore" here. I know it's mentioned in the next sentence but I think it really needs to be "front and centre", especially given that there's a far better-known Circle Line in London.
• "On 7 August 2001. the" - that full stop should be a comma
• "Road diversions began from 4 August 2002" => "Road diversions began on 4 August 2002"
• "A sheltered linkway at One Raffles Link and a temporary pedestrian bridge was constructed" => "A sheltered linkway at One Raffles Link and a temporary pedestrian bridge were constructed" (as there are two subjects to the sentence, not just one)
• "Esplanade station is within walking distance to City Hall MRT station" => "Esplanade station is within walking distance of City Hall MRT station"
• "The work is a collage of Lim's early works[30] which includes" => "The work is a collage of Lim's early works,[30] including"
• "Finding that his works on theatre to be relevant for the station" => "Finding his works on theatre to be relevant for the station"
• "were digitally edited from the original cravings" - presume that last word is meant to be "carvings" ;-)
• "before passing on" => "before dying" (MOS:EUPH)
• That's what I got! :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:44, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

  Not sure if ZKang123's missed this or been busy - nothing here looks controversial so I changed all as suggested. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 11:02, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

  Oh yeah I almost forgot about this and thought no one else made their input yet. I'm fine with the edits. ZKang123 (talk) 11:14, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:54, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Comments by Epicgenius

I will comment more in depth shortly. – Epicgenius (talk) 13:30, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Lead:

• "the station serves the Esplanade" - I would clarify that the Esplanade is a performing arts centre. (Strangely, when I click on the link, the Esplanade article mentions the statutory board first, but I'm not sure)
  • Yeah I guess the article tends to conflate the two.--ZKang123 (talk) 09:17, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
• "Esplanade station is linked to the nearby City Hall station via an underground retail development CityLink Mall." - I would put a comma after "underground retail development".
  • Rewrote to "CityLink Mall, an underground retail development". I find adding a comma disrupts the flow of the original way this sentence was written, at least for me.
    • Your rewording works for me as well. Epicgenius (talk) 01:55, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
• "First announced as Convention Centre MRT station as part of the Marina MRT line (MRL)" - I suggest adding the year, i.e. "First announced in 1999"
  • Done.--ZKang123 (talk) 09:17, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
• "The station was renamed to its present name through a public poll in 2005." - Instead of "The station was renamed to its present name", I'd just say "The station was renamed Esplanade"
  • Done.--ZKang123 (talk) 09:17, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

History:

• "The station was first announced as Convention Centre station in November 1999 as part of the Marina MRT line (MRL)" - It may make more sense to move up the date, e.g. "The station was first announced in November 1999 as Convention Centre station and was part of the Marina MRT line (MRL)".
  • Done.--ZKang123 (talk) 09:17, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
• "A pedestrian underpass linking One Raffles Link and Suntec City was closed from 20 January 2003" - I'd say "on 20 January 2003".
  • Done.--ZKang123 (talk) 09:17, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
• By the way, did the underpass predate the MRT? I'm asking because we don't have many underpasses in NYC unless they were built as part of a subway station or a major development.
  • I guess so, as per the source suggests.--ZKang123 (talk) 09:17, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
• "From the end of 2007" - Similarly, I'd say "At the end of 2007".
  • Done.--ZKang123 (talk) 09:17, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
• "the diverted roads were rerouted back to their original alignments" - Is there a better way to say this, e.g. "the diverted roads' original alignments were restored"?
  • Done. Used "reinstated".--ZKang123 (talk) 09:17, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
• Were there any modifications made to the station after it opened? I realize it only opened 13 years ago, but it's fine if the station has remained unchanged since then.
  • Unfortunately no significant news since.--ZKang123 (talk) 09:17, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Station details

• "The station has provisions to allow it to interchange with a future MRT line." - What exactly are these provisions (extra exits, unused space somewhere in the station, additional platforms, additional tracks, etc.)? Or was the station merely planned as an interchange that hasn't been completed yet?
  • The source didn't have much details on this.--ZKang123 (talk) 09:17, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
    • That is unfortunate. Epicgenius (talk) 01:55, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
• "Through a public poll to replace its working name "Convention Centre", "Esplanade" garnered more votes at 49% against "War Memorial" at 41%. The name was finalised on 7 July 2005." - This might fit better in the History section. Did LTA just decide to host a poll out of the blue? Or was "Convention Centre" always intended as the temporary name?
  • I guess Convention Centre was intended as temporary. If I recall this was one of the first time LTA did a poll. Added details on this.--ZKang123 (talk) 09:17, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
• "the three-level station" - What are the three levels, by the way? I'm guessing there's one platform level and two mezzanines, or a platform level, a mezzanine, and a ground floor.
  • The source didn't have much details on this.--ZKang123 (talk) 09:17, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
    • That is also unfortunate. Epicgenius (talk) 01:55, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Public artwork:

• "Depicting the origins of theatre, the work is inspired by the nearby Esplanade Theatres, to which the artwork pays homage." - I would condense this, e.g. "Depicting the origins of theatre, the work is inspired by, and pays homage to, the nearby Esplanade Theatres".
  • Done.--ZKang123 (talk) 09:17, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
• "Depicting the origins of theatre, the work is inspired by, and pays homage to, the nearby Esplanade Theatres. This work was Lim's last and largest commission before his death in 2008. The work is a collage of Lim's early works" - The word "work" is used quite frequently in these three sentences. I suggest using synonyms for some of these.
  • Done.--ZKang123 (talk) 09:17, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
• "Karen at the time hoped" - I would use the full name for this and for other mentions of Karen Lim, per MOS:SAMESURNAME. This is fine if Karen Lim was related to Lim Mu Hue, but this doesn't seem like the case.
  • Done.--ZKang123 (talk) 09:17, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
• "as it is getting rarer in Singapore" - I would change "is" to "was", as you're otherwise switching from past tense ("hoped") to present tense ("is getting") in the same sentence.
  • Done.--ZKang123 (talk) 09:17, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
• "Lim went on to experiment fusing his works with technology" - Computers being the technology in question, I presume. If it's unclear, I'd just write "Lim went on to experiment with fusing his works technologically".
  • Done.--ZKang123 (talk) 09:17, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
• "the work had to be digitally altered for it to fit on the slanted wall so that it does not look distorted when viewed from the ground" - I would change "does not" to "did not" for consistent tense, as above.
  • Done.--ZKang123 (talk) 09:17, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

That's all I have. – Epicgenius (talk) 20:19, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

• ZKang123 ? Gog the Mild (talk) 20:44, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
• Oh sorry I didn't see this on my watchlist. I've also been busy at work so I will look into them later ZKang123 (talk) 00:26, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
  • No problem. I was also very busy at work this past week, so I forgot about this as well.
    Support - everything seems to have been resolved now. Epicgenius (talk) 01:55, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Source review

Footnote numbers refer to this version. Sources are reliale.

• The archive link for FN 20 isn't working.
• The archive link for FN 25 is coming up as a blank page for me.
• Can we get a date for FN 24?

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:39, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Fixed the above. FN 24 details.-- ZKang123 (talk) 08:51, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

The archive link for FN 25 behaves oddly. It's actually bringing up the parent page, "Visitor Guide", which has a link to the "Getting Here and Parking" page. However, when you click on that link, instead of taking you to an archive of that page, it takes you to the live page itself. So this doesn't appear to be an archive link. If for some reason it's not possible to archive this page, I would just remove the link. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:48, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Changed to the web archive link. ZKang123 (talk) 11:23, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

That works. Pass. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:31, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:20, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 5 July 2023 [53].

---

Maurice Suckling

Nominator(s): Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 07:24, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

This article is about Maurice Suckling, a Royal Navy officer of the eighteenth century. He fought in only one major battle and much of his career was, as one historian puts it, "uneventful and perhaps even lacklustre". For three years before his death he did serve competently as Comptroller of the Navy, enough to make him notable. What makes naval historians prick up their ears about Suckling is less to do with himself and more to do with his nephew, one Horatio Nelson. Suckling was Nelson's first patron in the navy and his influence saw the young naval officer rise quickly through the ranks, such that after Suckling's premature death from illness Nelson remarked "I feel myself to my country his heir...And it shall, I am bold to say, never lack the want of his counsel". Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 07:24, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Support by Unlimitedlead

Hello, Pickersgill-Cunliffe. It is very nice to work with you again; I will take on this review over the next few days. Unlimitedlead (talk) 13:19, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

• "Despite misgivings over Nelson's suitability for the navy, Suckling supported him...": Were these misgivings from Suckling or from others? This is not clear.

• Reworded.

• Why is note 1 not at the end of the sentence? And why does the article accept the 1726 date instead of the 1725 one? What confirms that Suckling was actually born in 1726?

• Moved. I believe it to be physically impossible for Maurice to have been born on 4 May 1725, because his sister Catherine was born on 9 May 1725.

• "...historian John Sugden...": false title?

• Changed all I could find (did I do this correctly?)

• "With the end of the War of the Austrian Succession...": it might be worth noting when the war ended.

• I've reworded this slightly instead, because the war doesn't officially end until four days after Boyne reaches Spithead

• "...which naval historian David Syrett...": another false title?

• As above.

More to follow. I have read up to First commands, and everything seems to be good so far. Unlimitedlead (talk) 19:20, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

The First commands section seems okay. Will look further soon. Unlimitedlead (talk) 15:47, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

• "...Suckling was unable to stop the French ship escaping": Suggest changing to "...Suckling was unable to stop the French ship from escaping".

• Done.

• "...Suckling was happy to use his influence for Nelson...": Suggest changing to "...Suckling was happy to use his influence for Nelson's benefit/advancement..."

• Done.

• "...navy while it was at peace": What is meant by "it"?

• Reworded.

• Can note 8 be formatted as a sentence?

• Done.

• He would often spend days at a time "in much bodily pain": What is the reason for these scare quotes? It should be attributed to someone.

• Done.

• "...William Cavendish, 3rd Duke of Devonshire, another powerful family": William Cavendish is not a family, but the Cavendish family is.

• Reworded.

An interesting read. Your writing style is reminiscent of the ancient classics; perhaps they have influenced you? In any case, you have done a thorough job researching Suckling and I look forward to offering my support for this nomination once the above comments have been addressed. Unlimitedlead (talk) 20:13, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

@Unlimitedlead: Hi, thanks for the review! Not the first time I've been told I write in an old-fashioned style. If you read enough of the books, I suppose it seeps into you! Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 21:26, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me so quickly. I will support this nomination. Cheers, Unlimitedlead (talk) 21:44, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by Chris

• "His mother then, along with his sister Catherine and brother William, moved the family to live at Beccles" - reads oddly, as it sounds like it was a three-way joint decision to move. I would say "His mother then moved the family, which also included his sister Catherine and brother William, to live at Beccles"

• Done.

• That's all I got as far as the end of "first commands". Back for more later........ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:57, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

More comments

• "The French squadron having received heavy casualties, retreated back into Cape Français" =>"The French squadron, having received heavy casualties, retreated back into Cape Français"

• Done.

• "Palmier was off Port au Prince" - aren't there hyphens in that place name?

• Added.

• That's it on the Seven Years' War section -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:19, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Even more comments

Sorry to keep doing this in dribs and drabs, I seem to keep getting part way through and then having to drop off......

• "he never voted or spoke during his tenure in the House of Commons" - maybe change to "he never voted or made a speech during his tenure in the House of Commons" so it doesn't imply that he was literally mute......?

• Done.

• "At the time of his official join date Nelson was in fact still at school in Norfolk" => "At the time of his official joining date Nelson was in fact still at school in Norfolk" (unless "join date" is a specific naval term.........?)

• Done.

• Think that's it - great work! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:59, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

@ChrisTheDude: Hi, thanks for leaving a review! I've responded above. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 21:32, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:08, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Source review

Spotchecks not done

• Check alphabetization of References

• Agh, that's not something I usually mess up!

• What makes Allen a high-quality reliable source? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:48, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

• While an old source, I believe it to be regularly used still. In 2004 The Seaforth Bibliography described Allen's two volumes as "older, extensive listings". Speaking more broadly of Allen and his various naval histories (inc. a biography of Nelson, etc), Sugden uses three of his works in A Dream of Glory and two in The Sword of Albion.
• @Nikkimaria: Hi, could I just confirm that I still need spotchecks? Thanks, Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 15:09, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

• I didn't do them, but you'd have to ask @FAC coordinators: whether they are needed. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:33, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

  You're not a first time FA writer so technically they are not required, but I would encourage any editor to do them if they have the time and ability. (t · c) buidhe 16:10, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

  I note that @Ykraps: did a pretty thorough source review at ACR, if that might be acceptable and Ykraps agrees that it's so? Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 17:25, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

There is no policy but usually spotchecks are only demanded for first time nominators per this essay. I usually do them for FAC because the criteria says sources should be verifiable and the article should be free from close paraphrasing, and I don't know a better way of checking that. As Pickersgill-Cunliffe says, I did a source review for ACR here, which included spotchecks and which, if agreeable, can be used here. Or I'm happy to do additional spotchecks if required. --Ykraps (talk) 19:03, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

• Hi Nikkimaria. Is this one good? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:11, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

• The part I did, yes. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:08, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Support Comments from Ykraps

Lead

• A few odd (to me) turns of phrase:

"During the aftermath of" sounds odd to my ears. Isn't it in the aftermath of?

• Changed.

"...brought his nephew Nelson with him" doesn't sound right either. Shouldn't it be took his nephew? To use 'brought' wouldn't one need to be at the end destination?

• Changed.

I've never heard the word 'translated' used in that way. Translation implies some sort of conversion, to me.

• Translated from one command to another. A phrase I've read and used before, and believe to be suitable.

I have also seen the term being used in a religious context, so turns out it can have a wide variety of meanings! I think we're all good here. Unlimitedlead (talk) 01:45, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Delighted to hear it; gives me another synonym to use.--Ykraps (talk) 08:10, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

You may have it right in all these cases but they just seem a bit alien to me. --Ykraps (talk) 07:10, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Still picking this over but hope to finish up over the next few days.--Ykraps (talk) 08:10, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Early life

• "...to live at" seems redundant to me. For conciseness, I would just say, His mother then moved the family... ...to Beccles...

• Done.

• My comma usage is probably outdated so feel free to take what I say about them with a pinch of salt but I would put one between ending and Suckling in "With the War of the Austrian Succession ending". I'd also put parenthetical commas around "on 1 November" and "on 2 January 1754".

• Done.

• "Suckling's command of Lys, being a ship of the line and officially the command of a post captain, combined with his patronage..." - I might be inclined to add Syrett suggests or something similar. I'm not entirely sure of his point but lieutenants commanding post ships armed en flute but still carrying more than 20 guns, isn't that unusual.

• Agree that lieutenants commanding ships of the line, especially when en flute or in use as transports, was not unusual. Argue, however, that it is the combination of this point with the start of a large war and his great patronage that makes the promotion a "guarantee" rather than the command alone. I would also note that Lys was not made en flute by Boscawen, but was captured in that configuration.

Fair enough but it sounds, to my ears anyway, that, that this had a bearing on Nelson's promotion was more Syrett's opinion rather than a widely accepted fact.

First commands

• "In Baltimore Suckling spent most of his time..." - I would put a comma between Baltimore and Suckling but as I've already said, that may be old fashioned so feel free to disagree.

• Will leave this one be.

Fair enough.

• "...but having done so he could expect to be…" - Comma between so and he?

*Ibid; there are lots of commas in this sentence already.

Ditto.

Seven Years' War

• "Alongside his promotion Suckling was given command…" - Comma between promotion and Suckling?

• Done.

• "On 21 October 1757 Dreadnought and two other 60-gun ships..." - Comma after 1757?

• Done.

When I learned to punctuate, we put commas everywhere we paused or drew breath; I get the feeling this isn’t how it is now, so I’m going to stop questioning comma usage.

• mid-day or midday?

• Midday!

Comptroller of the Navy

• "...with particular emphasis put on attempts to make Royal Navy shipyards more productive." – What about, 'with particular emphasis on making Royal Navy shipyards more productive', for conciseness?

• Done.

• "Suckling proved an adept hand at the head of the Navy Board,..." - What about, 'Suckling proved adept as head of the Navy Board'?

• Done.

Overall

• Probably needs some sort of note indicating whether dates before 1752 are Julian or Gregorian.

• Added to first refn.

That's all I've got. --Ykraps (talk) 18:48, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

@Ykraps: Hi, thanks for your comments and my apologies for not getting back to them sooner. I've responded above. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 09:19, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Image review - Pass

• "File:HMS Triumph 1764.jpg" has three separate declarations that it is in the public domain in the UK, but none regarding the US. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:16, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

  @Gog the Mild: Hi, have cleaned up the licensing on that. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 19:50, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

All images are appropriately licenced, positioned, captioned and alt texted. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:04, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 03:33, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 4 July 2023 [54].

---

Kyriakos Pittakis

Nominator(s): UndercoverClassicist (talk) 19:48, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Following my previous nomination of Panagiotis Kavvadias, this article is about another Ephor General of Greece. Where Kavvadias was a bureaucrat, professionaliser and master politician, Pittakis... wasn't. This story involves revolution, forgery, academic intrigue and at least two cases where Pittakis was almost killed by the ancient monuments he obsessively loved.

As with Kavvadias, Pittakis is not a wonderfully documented subject: barring a few book chapters, very few biographical works have been written about him. His early life in particular is obscure, thanks in part to his very ordinary origins, which put him into contrast (and sometimes conflict) with the well-to-do archaeologists that often surrounded him. The article has previously undergone a GAR by User:Mike Christie, who deserves much credit for the thoughtful comments and advice that have helped to bring the article to its current state. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 19:48, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

I thought at the GAN that this was a good candidate for FA. I will hold off till others have commented; please ping me if there's a threat of archiving this for lack of supports. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:56, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

• @Mike Christie: If you wouldn't mind giving the article another look, this might be a good time for you to come in? I've added quite a lot of material in response to the comments below, particularly regarding Otto's early reign and the Fallmerayer controversy: a fresh pair of eyes would be much appreciated. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 11:04, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

  Sure -- I should be able to take a look tonight or tomorrow. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:00, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Image review

• @Nikkimaria:: thank you for your review; I think all should be addressed now. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 08:42, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

• Suggest adding alt text
  • That was an unfortunate oversight; now fixed, I think, throughout. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 12:02, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

• File:Kyriakos_Pittakis.jpg: source link is dead; when and where was this first published? Ditto File:Alexandros_Rizos_Rangavis_1869.JPG
  • The Pittakis portrait is a pain in the neck; it's almost certainly his official portrait either as Ephor General or as the Secretary of the Archaeological Society, which dates it to about 1843. It's found just about everywhere Pittakis is mentioned: the oldest published source I've found so far is the Archaeological Society's centenary album from 1937, and nobody seems to claim the copyright on it in subsequent publications, whereas the Society sometimes do for other photographs from that album. My strong suspicion is that it appeared in a newspaper for one of his obituaries; I'll have a look later on and see if I can track it down. It might be that reuploading under Fair Use solves this problem; it's almost certainly PD but the challenge is going to be proving that. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 12:02, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
    • Looking again, I'm not so sure. I've trawled some newspaper archives; I can't find it thus far, and Greek papers from the early 1860s didn't generally carry images, so that's unlikely to be the source. Therefore, barring a remarkable stroke of luck, 1937 is probably going to end up as the earliest publication we have. Is a Fair Use reupload the only solution here? UndercoverClassicist (talk) 13:07, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
      • Does the centenary album itself have a copyright notice in it? Is there any indication of a credit for the image? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:59, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
        • None at all on either count: there isn't even the usual 'page 0' with legal information, copyright, authors and so on: it just goes straight into uncredited images (which they mostly seem to have pulled out of their filing cabinets) UndercoverClassicist (talk) 06:28, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
          • Reuploaded a Fair Use version. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 08:42, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
  • As for Rangavis, I think we'll end up in the same position: almost certainly PD, almost certainly not going to be demonstrable. I've replaced him with File:Ruïne van het Parthenon op de Akropolis in Athene Interieur du Parthénon à Athenès (titel op object), RP-F-F12419 cropped.jpg, which I've cropped from an image made CC0 by the Rijksmuseum. A thought: does PD-ART apply to photographs, and is there a possible case from that? UndercoverClassicist (talk) 19:48, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
    • Do you mean PD-Art on Commons or English Wikipedia? Helpfully they are completely different templates. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:59, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
      • I assume any answer here would need to fit both? UndercoverClassicist (talk) 06:28, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
        • The one here applies to US status, the one there does not.
        • Where are you seeing the CC0 claim at the Rijksmuseum? I can't find it... Nikkimaria (talk) 03:01, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
          • On their page for the original image (I've put this link into the page for the cropped one as well): here. Hit "Meer objectgegevens" and then click "Publiek domein". UndercoverClassicist (talk) 07:01, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
• File:Kostis_Desyllas_-_Portrait_of_Odysseus_Androutsos_-_1870.jpg: when and where was this first published?
  • Not sure about first publication/display; it's in the Benaki Museum in Athens and its date is generally given as c. 1870. I can't find any information from the museum about how long it's been there, unfortunately, or any information at all about Desyllas, its painter. Purely mathematically, he's highly likely to have died before 1923, which would make the work PD everywhere; otherwise, can we treat it as anonymous (since, as far as I can tell, nobody knows when he died, or who he was, so his name may as well be John Doe) and, as pre 1903, therefore PD? Not got a lot of good ideas here, I'm afraid. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 06:34, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
    • What's the earliest publication that can be confirmed? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:59, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
      • By 'publication', do we mean 'printed work' (rather than exhibition)? If so, certainly post 1928 with the resources I've got available; if not, probably still the case. Probably going to need to replace this one.
        • I've now axed him in favour of File:Der Pallikarenführer Odysseus - Schweiger Lerchenfeld Amand (freiherr Von) - 1887.jpg UndercoverClassicist (talk) 15:47, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
• File:The_Doric_columns_of_the_Propylaea_of_Athens_on_March_5,_2020.jpg needs a tag for the original work
  • It now has one. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 11:13, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

• File:James_Robertson,_The_Propylae_on_the_Acropolis,_1857,_NGA_155347.jpg: what is the status of this work in its country of origin? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:25, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

  Depends on date of publication, which isn't clear; Robertson died in 1888, so could well be PD, but it only entered the NGA in 2012. From the page, the copyright holder (the US National Gallery of Art) has released it under CC 1.0 (worldwide?), which implies that they at least think they hold/held copyright over it. Does that answer the question? UndercoverClassicist (talk) 11:12, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

  NGA seems to be saying they think it already is PD, rather than that they are able to release it. Per Commons it would seem that it expired in the UK based on death date? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:59, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

  I've added {{PD-old-auto |deathyear=1888 }} UndercoverClassicist (talk) 06:36, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

• When and where was File:Peytier_-_Mosque_in_the_Parthenon.jpg first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:01, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
  • I'm getting a little confused with artworks: what exactly do we need to show to demonstrate PD-Art as far as Wikipedia is concerned? I'm not sure I could put my hands on a book showing the Mona Lisa from before the 1920s, but I assume we're happy to say that it was 'published' once it was made and displayed in public (or some point along that line?).

Painted in Greece before 1864 (Peytier's death), held by the National Bank of Athens (which stored/displayed a lot of Greece's 'treasures' in the 19th century), certainly published in a book by them in Greece in 1971. There's a page here which collates the images from that book, though I don't see any credible copyright claim (the one for the website, particularly the date, clearly can't apply to these images) or licensing info. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 07:08, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: Swapped out for File:Lancelot Theodore Compte Turpin de Crissé - The Acropolis in Athens.jpg, which is dated 1804 and was definitely on public display in 1889. I think that's more straightforward, at least? UndercoverClassicist (talk) 15:36, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

It is slightly more complicated - see commons:Commons:Public_art_and_copyrights_in_the_US. Do you believe the display of this work was sufficient to qualify as publication given what's presented there? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:54, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

The website has "He leaves this collection to the town of Angers where it is open to the public since 1889 at Hotel Pincé as Musée Turpin de Crissé.". As I see in on Commons, that's publication if "Publication requires placing the statue in a public location where people can make copies. Example: showing the statue in Golden Gate Park.".

To me, a public museum, in public ownership, crosses that bar; I understand the 'not published' criterion of "Placing a statue in a controlled environment where people can not make copies does not result in publication. Example: showing the statue in gallery that does not allow copying." to either refer to a gallery that specifically doesn't allow copying (which I don't think was really a concept that existed in 1889), or (for example) for it to have been sequestered in some aristocrat's house to which the public don't really have access.

Does that sound about right? To go back to the Mona Lisa example, that's in a very similar position: it's only ever been in a palace or a museum, and you've usually had to pay to see it, but that's fine; a place can be public and still charge a fee (like a public swimming pool). UndercoverClassicist (talk) 06:38, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi Nikki, can I just confirm if we're GTG here? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 17:36, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Yep. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:00, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Ling

• 10 instances of Missing identifier (ISSN, JSTOR, etc.)[You can skip them if they are news articles...]
• 3 instances of Missing ISBN
• pagenum? Beresford 2016, p. n.53,  § Lingzhi (talk) 18:44, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Thank you for these. Beresford ref fixed, others in the works. It's not always straightforward to find ISBNs and ISSNS for older Greek works, but at least the books should (when I'm done) have either an ISBN, OCLC or OL (in descending order of whether one exists). UndercoverClassicist (talk) 06:36, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

    @Lingzhi: I think this is now all sorted. Not all of the book sources have ISBNs, at least as far as I can tell, but they should all have either ISBN, OCLC or OL. All journals should have ISSN. Fixed a few minor things in the references as well. Let me know if I've missed anything. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 08:36, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Support from Kusma

Planning to review this. —Kusma (talk) 22:03, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

• Thanks for this one, Kusma. All very wise and entirely sensible; I'll be able to look properly and make some edits later on. For now, I've made a quick comment on the initial. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 13:43, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

• Why "Kyriakos S. Pittakis"? Anything known about the "S"? None of the other Wikipedias have it (I am asking because a few years ago I managed to convince IPNI to fix an incorrect middle initial that was widely used in the literature).
  • Good thought: it's 100% real (we have scans from the first editions of his many articles in the Archaeological Journal, which he also edited, all signed K.S. Pittakis). No idea what it stood for, though. Normal Greek practice at the time would be for it to have been his father's name; I did try searching in Greek for some common options (such as Kyriakos Sergiou Pittakis), but got nothing. I wonder if User:Cplakidas might know or be able to dig up anything? UndercoverClassicist (talk) 13:43, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
    • @UndercoverClassicist: I searched quite a while, and also tried pretty much every possible combination, but nothing. Constantine ✍ 10:30, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

      Ah well - thanks for trying, anyway. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 10:43, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

• In Dyson p. 74 I see no evidence that Pittakis met Byron in 1809-10; I would rather guess they met during the war?
  • Byron only actually visited Athens once (well, twice, but as a stop on the way out and the way back of the same trip), in 1809-10 (for which I'll find a source). I don't think Dyson mentioned that: honestly, I strongly suspect that's because Dyson is wrong and the two never actually met; their friendship is mentioned in a lot of bad sources but not a lot of good ones (in a similar way to the suggestion that he was born in Psyrri). Trying to thread the needle, I've reported it as "is said to have" to keep things objective and verifiable.
    • My point is that Dyson just says "Pittakis had been a friend of Byron and fought in the War of Independence", and that does not really support your "Pittakis is said to have met and befriended Lord Byron during the latter's visits to Athens in 1809–1810." You either need to cite a bad source (with appropriate caveats) or remove the claim about Athens 1809–1810. —Kusma (talk) 14:53, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

      • That's quite right: it's been a while since I read Dyson. The only plausible chronology that puts the two in the same place is a meeting in 1809-1810, but again (even leaving aside WP:SYNTH), I'm not sure that looking for plausibility is the right way forward (not least because Pittakis would have been twelve). Suspect I'll end up removing the date, but will see what sources I can find first. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 15:08, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

        • Date axed. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 13:12, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
• Do you have the Greek title/bibliographical data of Pittakis' publication of the Chronicle of Anthimos? It was apparently also printed in a book by Philadelpheus, see p. 57. In any case: is there more of an interesting story here?
  • This is really interesting: I drew a complete blank on it during my research. Will look into that later. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 13:43, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
• One word to introduce the (oddly named from a modern point of view) Elgin marbles?
  • Fair point on both counts (I'd used the title of our article on them): now introduced more fully. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 20:41, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
• Archeological career: "Pittakis began to gather its archaeological artefacts" is "its" referring to "the Ottoman garrison" or to "Athens"?
  • Now "archaeological artefacts from around the city"
• " legal, philological and architectural training were difficult for them to come by except in northern Europe" this is weird. Does this imply there was no architectural training in Italy or Austria, or that Greeks could not go there but usually went to Denmark or Sweden??
  • I've rephrased it: the source is in German, and I'm not sure I had it totally right the first time. We now have "medicine being a common field of study for Greek intellectuals of the time, who often sought education in Germany, where legal, philological and architectural training were difficult for them to come by". The source is specifically explaining why so many of the Greeks around King Otto's court were trained as doctors: because they were educated in Germany, and the German universities weren't educating Greek lawyers, philologists and architects. It's not a perfect source here, because Pittakis wasn't anywhere close to Otto, but I think it does help shed some light on why a would-be archaeologist studied medicine, which was rather confusing to me for a while. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 20:41, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
• Might help to explain that Greece became a monarchy again in 1832?
  • Quite possibly: where were you thinking of putting this? The 'obvious' would be around "In 1832, he was appointed to the unpaid role of "custodian of the antiquities in Athens", but I think that would create the unsupported impression that his appointment was related to the change of government. Unlike his predecessor, and unlike Kavvadias, Pittakis doesn't seem to have had much to do with the king or court. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 21:15, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
    • I see your point, but I think we need to say something before mentioning the Bavarian Weissenberg. —Kusma (talk) 11:05, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
      • Yes, and I see yours: it's odd to have a king pop out of nowhere after we were talking about Kapodistrias. I'll have a think: this might need more than just shoving another sentence in. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 21:19, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
        • Quite a bit of work now done here; I'm happier with the general concept. Do you want to take another look? UndercoverClassicist (talk) 20:18, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
          • Yes, much better. Otto wasn't born in Bavaria though; I have made a suggestion to that effect. —Kusma (talk) 09:35, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
            • I saw that edit: thank you. The more you know...! UndercoverClassicist (talk) 16:52, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
• "Modern scholarship has suggested that these were part of the shrine known as the Prytaneion, containing the sacred fire of Hestia seen as the heart of the political community, whose original location is lost." Is it the location of the political community or of the Prytaneion that is lost?
  • Slightly rephrased; now unambiguous, but I'm not sure it's particularly good. Suggestions most welcome. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 20:41, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
    • Our article prytaneion makes it sound more like the seat of government than "the sacred fire of Hestia seen as the heart of the political community" does. Schmalz also describes it as a civic buiulding more than a temple. Perhaps just drop the sacred fire of Hestia so you can simplify? —Kusma (talk) 09:35, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
      • I'm afraid I must slightly dissent from that article: the name and original concept of the Prytaneion refer to the fire, and its political/community functions follow from that. John Camp has in this book a nice quotation : "The Prytaneion in Athens, as in every Greek city, was in a sense the heart of the city, for it housed a hearth dedicated to Hestia where an eternal flame was kept burning." It's also important that the reader understands the link between Pittakis's find of a dedication to Hestia and the possible location of that temple. I've expanded slightly: Modern scholarship has suggested that these were part of the temple and civic building known as the Prytaneion, containing the sacred fire of Hestia seen as the heart of the political community. The original location of this structure, which served various public and political functions during the classical period, is no longer known. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 16:52, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

More later! —Kusma (talk) 13:32, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

• Naval records: "on the invitation of King Otto, dominated Greek archaeology in the first years of the independent state" I throught the first years were the pre-monarchy years? (I should really read up on modern Greek history!)
  • You are quite right; now "in the early years of Otto's reign" (really, between 1832 and 1841, but that seems like an odd date range to include without contextualisation, and isn't strictly in the source cited.) UndercoverClassicist (talk) 12:46, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
• Archaeological Society: "He began in the Erechtheion" try to de-convolute this sentence a bit
  • Slightly reordered; a slight improvement, perhaps not there yet. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 12:46, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
• Mycenae before and after images would work better with the discussion of the Lion Gate than where they are now, but I guess image placement isn't easy to get right here.
  • Yes, it's difficult to get them near relevant material without crowding the page. I've opted to put them next to Iakovidis' judgements about Pittakis' work at Mycenae: as you say, perhaps not ideal, but I think probably the best compromise. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 12:46, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
• "Skarlatos Vyzantios [el], who had briefly preceded Pittakis as secretary between 1851 and 1852, was re-elected on 30 June [O.S. 17 June] 1851, though Pittakis was returned to office in the society's elections of 23 September [O.S. 11 September] 1852" was he elected twice in 1851? Perhaps simplify.
  • I'd made a few mistakes in the narrative here; now fixed, I think. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 12:46, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
• "committee to report on the state of the Erechtheion" did that committee do anything interetsing?
  • It did, well, report on the state of the Erechtheion, but I suppose that depends on your definition of "interesting". I'm not sure I've seen any record of what it reported, sadly. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 12:46, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure it is worth telling the reader in so much detail who was on the committee if we don't know anything much about what it did. —Kusma (talk) 20:40, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

      Part of the rationale is that Efstratiadis is a significant supporting character in the second half or so of Pittakis' life, and it's interesting that they worked together twice (on that committee and on the Psoma House). I can see an argument for reducing it to "a five-member committee, which included Pittakis and Efstratiadis", but then Glarakis as president is reasonably notable (and his presence means that basically all of the Society's senior figures are on this committee, which says something about its importance to the Society), and two of other three are at least notable enough to have Wikipedia articles.

      In general, I'm cautious about withholding information from the reader: that feels like making a judgement about what the reader "needs" to know, and people come to articles with all sorts of needs and agendas that we can't possibly anticipate. I'll certainly look around to see if I can find out what the committee reported, which might justify placing a little more weight upon it. Otherwise, part of the answer might be to shift some of the names to their own articles. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 21:26, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

      For topics well covered in the sources, we always have to make a judgement what to include and what not. But anyway, this is a very minor point. —Kusma (talk) 10:29, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

      • I think the point's a good one: I've just moved the names of the architects to a footnote. Feels better for DUEWEIGHT, given that the main body text now only talks about the two characters already heavily involved, and one who feels obviously notable (the president). UndercoverClassicist (talk) 10:36, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

More later. —Kusma (talk) 11:36, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

• " to complete Ross's attempted demolition of the Parthenon mosque, which had been partially destroyed during the War of Independence" so Ross tried but failed? Or did Pittakis just continue Ross's work? You could also tell us when it was from (17th century?)
  • Expanded and clarified: perhaps a little overdone now? UndercoverClassicist (talk) 13:12, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
• "During his time as Ephor General, Pittakis excavated on the island of Anafi, recording monuments and collecting inscriptions.[123] He also advocated for the demolition of the Frankish Tower" the stuff about Anafi seems to be the only thing not in Athens in the entire section? And do you really not know when in these 20 years he did this?
  • The source quote is He visited and recorded monuments and conducted excavations also in the province, such as Anaphe.It's cited to a Greek work; that in itself simply says "The archaeological interest in Anafi has a long history, almost from the foundation of the new Greek state, since L. Ross, but also K. Pittakis and A. Ragavis dealt with its antiquities." Not a lot to go on! Incidentally, not working outside Athens (except of course at Mycenae, and periodically on other islands) was pretty par for the course for Greek archaeologists of his day; Efstratiadis is noted as being a bit unusual for taking an interest in stuff going on outside the city, and the first big excavations outside Athens in Greece are probably Schliemann's in the 1870s. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 21:41, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
    • I see. The Anaphe snippet seemed to be a bit out of place, but I can't suggest a better place either. —Kusma (talk) 10:29, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
• Legacy: Who are Paparzadakas and Petrakos and when did they write? Why does the praise come with names, but the criticism is in passive voice without named actors?
  • This is a really good point; I'll take a look and work out the best way to resolve. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 21:41, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
    • OK: both Papazarkadas and Petrakos are introduced further up as fairly major historians for Pittakis's work (Petrakos in particular is really the authority on all matters to do with the Archaeological Society). Both of the judgements attributed to them are highly subjective: Papazarkadas explicitly couches his as his own personal guesstimate (and it's arguably unfalsifiable anyway), and Petrakos's is a fairly straightforward matter of opinion: it's a significant opinion from a significant source, but I don't think we can couch it in Wikipedia's voice. However, all of the sources for the negative comments are not only reporting their own judgements, but saying that others have made the same judgements, so it would be wrong to imply that these views only belong to the authors themselves. I came into this one really wanting to "fix" it, but I think the current form is the best way to keep NPOV and clarity as to the strength of the views expressed. Given the above, what do you think? UndercoverClassicist (talk) 13:12, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
• Is "Nationalism" really subordinate to "Legacy"? I think it could be promoted to its own section, or integrated better into "Legacy" (it isn't mentioned in the starting bit of the Legacy section)
  • In my head, it's almost subordinate to "criticism", since most of it is about how his beliefs negatively shaped his archaeological practice, and how people called him out on that and continue to do so. I suppose one option would be to promote "criticism" to L2 and have L3 "Archaeological methods" and "Nationalism" beneath it? UndercoverClassicist (talk) 21:41, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
    • Might work? There is a lot of criticism and perhaps less lasting positive legacy covered in the article. —Kusma (talk) 10:29, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
      • I've played around with this a bit: currently, I've promoted "Nationalism" to L2 and moved it above "Legacy", which still includes "criticism" as an L3. I'm going to have to expand "Nationalism" re. Fallmerayer anyway, which will also slightly shift its balance towards narrative versus analysis. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 13:12, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

        Now rather substantially changed: what do you think? UndercoverClassicist (talk) 20:05, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

        Improved! —Kusma (talk) 09:35, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

• "breaking inscriptions before sending them to him, so as to increase the payment Pittakis would receive for finding them" was he paid by number of inscriptions? Perhaps worth a footnote.
  • That's my reading of the source, but it doesn't explicitly any more than is in the article. I'll see if I can find a more general source about how Boeck paid his contributors, which might allow that footnote. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 21:41, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

  I've had a good look and rephrased a little: I think it's clearer now? UndercoverClassicist (talk) 20:04, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

• Footnote k Αρχαιολογική Εφημερίς would look nicer without italics
  • I agree, but I'm not sure on the scholarly form here: User:Cplakidas, do you have a view as to italicising/non-italicising Greek-alphabet titles of works? UndercoverClassicist (talk) 21:41, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
    • I think MOS:NOITALIC also applies to Greek, but I could be wrong. —Kusma (talk) 10:29, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
      • Yes: I see a title of a short non-English work [in a non-Latin script] simply receives quotation marks. Another bit of the MOS I'd never come across! Changed.

I think my first pass is done. Thank you for another piece of amazing research! —Kusma (talk) 20:40, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

• Just a few more remarks above, not much left. —Kusma (talk) 09:35, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

  The remaining issues have been addressed to my satisfaction, supporting. —Kusma (talk) 16:59, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

  Thank you: I appreciate your comments and advice. No luck on the Chronicle of Anthimos yet, but I'll keep looking. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 17:11, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Comments Support from Tim riley

Nothing from me about the content, which seems to my inexpert eye to be admirable. A few minor points about the prose:

• "he was likely from a humble background" – if, as it seems, the article is in BrE, this is an unidiomatic construction: the normal BrE form here is "probably", rather than "likely" (why, I know not but there it is.)
  • Amended. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 12:16, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
• I found your practice of giving the Greek terms in brackets after their English versions rather distracting and unnecessary. I have in mind such constructions as:

• School of the Commons of Athens (Greek: Σχολή του Κοινού των Αθηνών)
• Philomousos Hetaireia (Greek: Φιλόμουσος Εταιρεία, lit. 'Society of Lovers of the Muses',
• Filiki Eteria (Greek: Φιλικὴ Ἑταιρεία, lit. 'Friendly Society')
• Megali Idea (Greek: Μεγάλη Ιδέα, lit. Great Idea)
• 'custodian of the antiquities in Athens' (Greek: ἐπιστάτης τῶν ἐν Ἀθήναις ἀρχαιοτήτων)
• 'sub-ephor' (Greek: ὑποέφορος)
• Excavation and Discovery of Antiquities (Εταιρεία περί ανασκαφής και ανακαλύψεως αρχαιοτήτων)
• Archaeological Society of Athens (Εν Αθήναις Αρχαιολογική Εταιρεία)

Taking an existing FA at random I looked at Vincent van Gogh, where the titles of his paintings are given in English with, generally, no mention of the French (or Dutch) titles. Thus, Wheatfield with Crows is given without any mention of Champ de blé aux corbeaux or Korenveld met kraaien. If you think any of your readers need to know, e.g., that the Greek for Archaeological Journal is Αρχαιολογική Εφημερίς, it would, in my view, be preferable to put the Greek term in a footnote, so that anyone wishing to see the original can do so but other readers are not confronted with chunks of Greek script).

Hi Tim - thanks for reviewing. Taking this one first, the basic rationale is that some of these terms aren't common in English, and sometimes they're my own translation: Εταιρεία περί ανασκαφής και ανακαλύψεως αρχαιοτήτων and Σχολή του Κοινού των Αθηνών are examples, because none of the (comparatively few and comparatively information-poor) English-language sources on Pittakis mention them. Any reader interested in following up (or even verifying the existence of, in some cases) these concepts would need to do so from the Greek, not the English. In other cases, the English is not the generally-used version: so English-speaking academics generally talk about the AE, the Arch. Eph. or the Archaiologiki Efimeris rather than the Archaeological Journal: however, I think following that convention here would be a mistake from an accessibility point of view. As such, I think it's important for WP:VERIFIABILITY to have the 'real' name (which is Greek) in the article somewhere for at least most of them. Footnotes may be the way forward: what do you think? UndercoverClassicist (talk) 10:05, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Footnoting the Greek terms seems to me a good idea. Tim riley talk 11:41, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Now done throughout. I've removed the Greek where the translated or transliterated term is in common English use, and retained in footnotes where not. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 12:35, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

• "sister of Pittakis' wife" – this is what the current edition of Fowler says about possessives:

Names ending in -s. Use 's for the possessive case in names and surnames whenever possible; in other words, whenever you would tend to pronounce the possessive form of the name with an extra iz sound, e.g. Charles's brother, St James's Square, Thomas's niece, Zacharias's car.

On that basis the possessive of Pittakis would be Pittakis's, surely?

I generally use the classicising apostrophe for Greek names; in another article, I've changed that under (mild) protest, so I'll do the same here. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 10:05, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Now done. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 12:16, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

• "the 'return' of Classical Greek lands" – double quotes needed.
  • These are really "scare quotes" (because the notion that it was a return was a deeply contested and ideologically-based proposition): I'm not sure what MOS:" would have us do here. It's not a direct quotation. Does that change anything? UndercoverClassicist (talk) 10:05, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
    • I'd still go for double quotes. (I dislike them, and away from Wikipedia I use singles as my default, but doubles are plainly the norm in diesen heil'gen Hallen.) But if you want to stick with singles here I shall not press the point. Tim riley talk 11:41, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
      • Done here; I'll have a look to see if this applies elsewhere (though see comment on sub-ephor below). UndercoverClassicist (talk) 12:35, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
• "He studied languages, Latin and medicine" – this reads as though Latin is not a language.
  • Amended 'modern languages': I don't think that's too much of a stretch (from memory, the original source had 'languages'). UndercoverClassicist (talk) 12:16, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

• Not in the least a stretch: spot-on, I'd say. Tim riley talk 13:29, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

• "appointed 'sub-ephor'" – double quotes wanted
  • Or italics, per {{WP:WORDSASWORDS]]? As in other places, not sure exactly where MOS:SINGLE fits in here. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 12:16, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
• "forcing Ross' resignation" – as with Pittakis's, above, the possessive form you need here is "Ross's".
  • Done throughout as above. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 12:16, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
• "would have been reorganised such that Pittakis held responsibility" – a strange construction: "reorganised so that" would feel less awkward.
  • To me, so that implies that this was the purpose of the reorganisation, while such that only implies that it was among its consequences. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 10:06, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
    • The use of "such" in a construction of this kind is unfamiliar to me, and I should have said it wasn't normal English had I not found in the OED one example from the 18th century and three from the 19th (none from the 20th or 21st) in which "such that" is in attributive use after a noun. One could, I suppose, extend that to include use after a verb, and if you wish to use "such" here I do not press my objection. I think it looks clunky, but it's your prose, after all, and not mine. Tim riley talk 11:41, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
      • I've reworked: "would have been reorganised, giving Pittakis responsibility for its excavation work while the philologist Ioannis Benthylos assumed charge of its academic works and the artist Athanasios Iatridis oversaw its technical work" UndercoverClassicist (talk) 12:35, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

• An elegant reworking. Tim riley talk 13:29, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

• "which remains one of the society's main publications" – WP:DATED: could do with "in 2023" or suchlike.
  • Done (with a supporting ref.) UndercoverClassicist (talk) 12:35, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
• "The society's financial situation in this period was precarious, thanks in part to the purchase of the Psoma House" – it seems odd to give thanks for being in a precarious situation; perhaps "partly because of..."?
  • Amended to "partly owing to" ("owing" feels a particularly appropriate word here). UndercoverClassicist (talk) 12:35, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

• Indeed! I enjoyed that! Tim riley talk 13:29, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

• "From 1850, Pittakis undertook significant work in and around the Propylaia" – Plain Words says of "significant": This is a good and useful word, but it has a special flavour of its own and it should not be thoughtlessly used as a mere variant of important, considerable, appreciable, or quite large ... it ought to be used only where there is a ready answer to the reader's unspoken question 'Significant, is it? And what does it signify?'
  • Very fair point. Now "large-scale restoration work". UndercoverClassicist (talk) 12:35, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
• "the artillery fired under the Venetian doge" – sounds a touch uncomfortable for the doge. Possibly "fired by the Venetian doge's forces" or something on those lines?
  • Again, very fair point. Now "the artillery fired by Venetian forces commanded by Doge Francesco Morosini". UndercoverClassicist (talk) 12:35, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Those are my few quibbles; I hope they are helpful. – Tim riley talk 08:46, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Happy to support. My comments, above, are on the prose, but so far as I am any judge, as one who knows nothing of the topic, I find the text convincing and a v. good read, balanced, and well and widely sourced; the illustrations are admirable and the use of quote boxes is exemplary. A pleasure to read and review. Tim riley talk 13:29, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Comments Support from Cplakidas

Reserving a spot here, review to come in the next few days. Constantine ✍ 06:27, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Lede

• as the first Greek Ephor General of Antiquities this is meant as the first ethnic Greek who held the post, but would likely be read as 'the first Ephor General of Antiquities of Greece'
  • I've been a bit cautious about terms like "ethnic Greek"; when you use that in a lot of context (e.g. "ethnic Briton", "ethnic American"), it can sound a bit racialist. I've amended to the first Greek to serve as Ephor General... for now: a lot of sources say/suppose that Ross considered himself a Greek, but it was unfortunately made pretty clear that the Greeks disagreed. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 19:28, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
• played an influential role in the early years of the Greek Archaeological Service and the Archaeological Society of Athens the former is already explained, but the latter needs to be introduced, and what exactly Pittakis' role was.
  • Slightly explained what the Archaeological Society was. Not sure about fully including P's role in the lede: there's quite a lot, from badgering Bellios to found it, to serving as secretary, to writing the Arch Eph, to nearly bankrupting it. Putting in all of that seems excessive, but I can't think of a good subset that doesn't feel reductive. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 19:28, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
    • I think something like 'and was a founding member of the Archaeological Society' would be enough.
      • Done. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 15:33, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
• Shouldn't it be mentioned that he was a self-taught archaeologist?
  • Agreed and added (with the caveat largely, to accommodate Fauvel).

Early life

• from Ottoman forces, who then occupied Greece this reads a bit like the occupation was temporary, a la the German occupation of France; Greece was part of the Ottoman Empire since the 15th century.
  • I'd be grateful for your steer here: I'm cautious that the status and legitimacy of Ottoman rule/occupation is a potentially contentious topic. For now, I've removed the second clause and footnoted Athens had been under Ottoman rule since its conquest in 1456.
    • I don't think we need to accommodate extreme nationalist views. Greece was part of the Ottoman Empire for a long time, and most Greeks that lived in those days adapted themselves to that most of the time, contrary to what people today would like to think. 'concealing moveable antiquities from the Ottoman authorities' with the footnote you added would be fine, although perhaps add a link in the footnote to History of Athens#Ottoman Athens.
      • I think this is now sorted. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 13:12, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
• throughout the early months of 1821, the Greek War of Independence began in March 1821. the repetition of the year is redundant.
  • It is: now removed.
• If we use the transliteration Philomousos Hetaireia above, then I'd suggest using Philiki Hetaireia here, or the reverse, in which case it should be Filomousos Eteria?
  • You may be right; my sense/assumption was that the (classicising) Philomousos society would have used classicising spellings and probably pronunciation, while the more demotic Filiki society wouldn't. There's also an element of WP:COMMONNAME, in that those seem to be the most common terms for each. But consistency is also a virtue: what do you think? UndercoverClassicist (talk) 19:28, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
    • My tendency, being closely related to several philologists, is always to go with the classicizing transliteration ;). Certainly the spelling 'Philiki Etaireia' is pretty common even today, I dare say even the most common one in the most relevant English-language scholarly works ([55]).
      • Philiki Etaireia keeps the classicising ph but not the classicising h, which seems off (I know the h was never really pronounced, but it's generally written in transliterations from the period, and that's no less true for Attic Greek, where it's universally written): particularly if we're then going to use Philomousos Hetaireia. I've gone with Philiki Hetaireia at least for the moment, which seems like a good compromise between the competing incentives. Happy to keep discussing. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 13:12, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
        • It's fine. Consistency in ransliteration is nice, but should not be a straitjacket.
• on the islands of Aegina and Salamis perhaps add that they were off the shore of Attica?
  • Added. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 19:28, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
• during the siege of the Acropolis, the Ottoman occupiers for clarity, add that this was during the first siege.
  • Added. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 19:28, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
• taken from the temple by Lord Elgin in the early nineteenth century add that this was when Athens was still under Ottoman rule
  • Added and expanded a little. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 19:28, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Archaeological career

• Greece's first independent head of state in 1827 perhaps 'independent Greece's first head of state in 1827'? I don't know quite what to understand under 'independent head of state' otherwise.
  • Agreed; done. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 19:28, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
• employed by the archaeological service by the newly established national archaeological service? It should also be explained why a Greek state institution would not hire Greeks for the post, i.e. why this is remarkable at all. The Bavarians are also mentioned later, and some context would be necessary.
  • Added in a footnote; there might be a better way to do that. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 19:28, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
    • I would suggest moving the addition to the main text, especially as it introduces Otto.
      • It no longer does; given the quite substantial changes made here, I think this point is now either sorted or moot? UndercoverClassicist (talk) 16:04, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
        • Indeed. Stricken.
• sworn in on 25 July [O.S. 6 August] I guess the dates are the other way round?
  • Yup; fixed. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 19:28, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Must take a break, will continue with the "Naval Records Affair" of 1836 section and the remainder later.

• Thanks for this, Constantine: a lot of good points raised, and I'm grateful for your insight. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 19:28, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Constantine ✍ 18:16, 17 May 2023 (UTC) Carrying on for the rest of the article:

Archaeological career

• If the Naval Records are a notable topic that might merit an article, perhaps WP:REDLINK them.
  • Done: I think they'll pass GNG, though whether anyone will actually write the article might be more debateable. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 17:05, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
    • That is fine, WP:NOHURRY et cetera...
• is Society for the Excavation and Discovery of Antiquities meant to be the suggested name of the society, or rather descriptive? In that case I would decapitalize it.
  • It's the suggested name (or at least reported as such in the source). UndercoverClassicist (talk) 12:58, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
• its phase as a Christian church add a date here (approximate in centuries would suffice).
  • Done, with ref. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 17:05, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
• possibly encouraged by Rangavis any indication why Rangavis would do this? He is mentioned as a rival earlier on, but so far this rivalry has not been spelled out.
  • One source identified the Naval Records Affair as the major breaking point between the two: I'll dig around and see if there's enough to explicitly join those dots here. They seem to have had a complicated relationship. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 13:16, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
    • Great, awaiting with interest :).
      • I've added a bit to the Naval Records section as to how the affair caused a break between Pittakis and Rangavis (Papazarkadas rather nicely describes their relationship as having "managed to co-exist" at the best of times, but I'm not sure I can find a good opportunity to squeeze that in): I think that answers to the word "rival" (admittedly not Papazarkadas': I'm sure it was in one of the sources, though). The source cited for the section on Kolettis' report doesn't attribute any specific motive to Rangavis, so I think this is probably as much as we can say at the moment: the reader should now have enough to draw their own conclusions. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 13:12, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
• the construction of a museum, which would eventually be begun in 1865 I assume this is the Old Acropolis Museum? Then we should link it.
  • Already linked further up (edit: in a footnote: not sure what the form is regarding repeated links here?), but I've clarified that it's the same museum in the text.
    • My personal preference is to count only links in the main text, but I assume this suffices as well.
      • I've linked it; we treat bibliographic footnotes as their own world when it comes to repeated links (so might link e.g. a journal multiple times across multiple footnotes), so I think the same logic applies here. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 15:33, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
• commanded by Doge Francesco Morosini nitpick, but Morosini was not yet Doge in 1687.
  • Removed the title; there may be an argument for "future Doge", but Morosini's probably notable enough simply as a commander. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 13:16, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
• In 1860, he edited last person mentioned is Morosini.
  • Now "Pittakis edited...". UndercoverClassicist (talk) 13:16, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Legacy

• "Light upon the Stones" are we sure about the translation? Does it come from the source itself?
  • It's my own; please correct if wrong! Couldn't find an English version. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 12:58, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
    • I would have (possibly naively) translated it directly from the modern Greek as 'Upon a White Stone', but I assume the ancient connotations were different ('Bright Stone')? Not enough of a philologist to be of help here.
      • I've changed to "Upon a White Stone": that translation would fit if it were intended to be Ancient Greek (λευκός can be either), and it's not too much of a stretch to say that it's alluding to marble: a white stone. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 13:12, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
• I would suggest moving the Fallmerayer affair before In 1852, Pittakis published... to provide context why the 'continuity of descent' needed to be proven. The Fallmerayer affair could also be expanded upon: to whit, that that Fallmerayer's thesis generated a lot of backlash and consumed a lot of the energy of Greek archaeologists and historians to disprove, and that it is (AFAIK) largely discredited today by serious scholars (and not just because of Pittakis' manuscript). I have to admit however that I am still puzzled about Pittakis' role and motivations here: did he deliberately forge a chronicle to discredit Fallmerayer? I have heard of counter-arguments on this, to whit that Fallmerayer was a respected scholar at the time, and that the young Pittakis may simply have tried to impress him, but neither explanation rings true.
  • The accounts that I'm reporting do accuse Pittakis of forgery; I must admit to feeling a little underinformed on the wider controversy beyond Pittakis. Will do a bit more research and see what can be done here. Definitely agreed that we should avoid any suggestion that Fallmerayer was disbelieved only because he used a dodgy manuscript. Have you got any particular sources in mind? UndercoverClassicist (talk) 12:58, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
    • Well, the Fallmerayer affair permeates modern Greek historiography, which was almost founded (by Paparrigopoulos) as a refutation of Fallmerayer's thesis, or at least a reorienting of Greek nationalism away from racial underpinnings to cultural ones, so any work on modern Greek historiography is likely to cover this. On the specific issue of Fallmerayer's suggestions, I don't have something specific in mind, but while the toponyms and archaeological record affirm a large-scale Slavic settlement, they also show that at least the coastal urban centres largely remained in Byzantine hands, and the reimposition of Byzantine rule in the 9th century was also followed by resettlement of 'Greek' populations there.
    • I found something that may be of help, Fine gives a good summary of the arguments, especially for the Peloponnese.
    • Oh, and Florin Curta's Edinburgh History of the Greeks, c. 500 to 1050 covers this in some detail. Curta is an expert on early Slavic and Balkan history, an the Edinburgh series is highly recommended.
      • Thanks for those sources: they were very useful. We now have a whole subsection on Fallmerayer: I've done my best to put the affair into context, without taking the focus too far off Pittakis himself. Grateful for your thoughts: the sources seem to be dominated by the reaction to F's ideas within Greece, and I'm not sure if I've done enough to make clear that Fallmerayer was a pretty big deal to Pittakis, but Pittakis was hardly the only reason his ideas had and have relatively little traction. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 20:18, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
        • Thanks for addressing this, I think the section is more than comprehensive now.
• left the saw itself stuck inside the column until its removal in 2003 no comment here, but I had to laugh at this...
  • It's one of my favourite bits of the story. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 12:58, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
• A general question: Pittakis is rightly criticized for a lot of things, but was there an actual archaeological discipline at the time? AFAICT all archaeologists were sort of self-taught amateurs, and some of the criticism, unless it comes from contemporaries, feels a bit like criticizing an 18th-century physician for not knowing about bacterial infections...
  • Good question: Ross, in particular, criticised his methods mercilessly, as did Rangavis (after taking part in some of the most ridiculous...). You're right that archaeology wasn't anything like as systematic as it is now, but the basic principle of keeping accurate records was taken seriously, particularly given that most of these people were epigraphers, for whom a slightly obsessive attitude to detail is part of the job. Pittakis was also quite heavily criticised in the foreign press for his protectiveness of antiquities, and for his (alleged, it should probably be said) lack of integrity: Boeck played a substantial role in the latter. It's not quite the same as the surgeon example: even for his day, Pittakis did things rather recklessly, and that was certainly noticed at the time. It's worth noting that a lot of the figures in this story did have formal training at least in aspects of archaeology: Ross, for instance, but also the younger generation, such as Efstratiadis and Koumanoudis. Another interesting comparison is Panagiotis Stamatakis, Schliemann's assistant-cum-babysitter at Mycenae in the 1870s: he didn't have any formal training either, but was noted for being incredibly conscientious, careful and systematic, particularly by comparison with Schliemann. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 12:58, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
    • Thanks, that clears it up for me.

That's it for a first pass. An amazing article, I was both informed and entertained, your writing style is very engaging. I will do another read-through after a few days to pick up anything I may have missed. Constantine ✍ 11:23, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

@UndercoverClassicist: I have had another look-through now, made a few very minor tweaks. I am very satisfied with the state of the article and your recent additions. A truly excellent piece of work, it was a pleasure reviewing it. Constantine ✍ 10:18, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you again: all well taken (I won't make a fuss over drachmas this time!), and I much appreciate your time and improvements. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 10:32, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Comments from Mike Christie

A couple of minor points:

• "In 1843, Pittakis was appointed to Ross's former post as Ephor General of Antiquities, which he held until his death in 1863": this is imprecise because "which" should refer to the subject of the previous clause. You could fix it with "a post which he held", but that repeats "post". Perhaps expanding slightly to remind the reader that the post had been unfilled would work: "In 1843, Pittakis was appointed Ephor General of Antiquities, a post which had been unfilled since Ross's resignation in 1836, and which Pittakis held until his death in 1863."?
  • Done with some changes (I've taken out the "held until his death": the dates are already in the subheading, and it's probably best not to "look ahead" in a chronological overview unless really necessary. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 06:27, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
• "He also continued to excavate on the Acropolis, completing in 1843–1844 with Rangavis the restoration of the Temple of Athena Nike, and uncovering two portions of the Parthenon frieze in 1845." It looks as though "completing" is wanting a direct object?
  • It's got one: the restoration of the Temple of Athena Nike. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 06:27, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

    So it does; not sure why I couldn't see that last night. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:40, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

• The section "Ephor General of Antiquities" uses "also" a bit more than necessary; I think a couple of the three in the paragraph starting "During his time" could be cut.
  • Agreed: I've gone through and taken out a couple throughout the article. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 06:27, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
• The sentence starting "Pittakis's accounts of the Turks' indifferent or destructive attitude" is very long; I think breaking it where the colon currently is placed could work, and following it with "The argument has been called" to start the next sentence.
  • Reworked a little, largely on those grounds. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 06:27, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
• In "Legacy" we have "Pittakis's epigraphical work has been criticised for its lack of scholarly rigour" and then in "Criticism" we get "His epigraphic publications have been criticised for their lack of scholarly rigour". I can see why it's mentioned in both places, but perhaps make the second comment refer to the first as established, so as not to appear to repeat?
  • I've slightly reworked the second instance. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 06:27, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:05, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for these, Mike: much appreciated. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 06:27, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Support. The writing is top-notch; I look forward to reading more of your articles. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:40, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support. Excellent article. The only flaw I could spot was the use of "romanized" instead of "romanised" (in note S), but this is the fault of the template, not the text. - SchroCat (talk) 16:41, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Source review

Looking at reliability first.

• What makes LIFO a reliable source (Chaniotis 2021)? It seems to be a freesheet, which doesn't automatically make it unreliable, but our article on it says it includes blogs as part of its content, and I can't tell if this article is one such.
  • The article's given as a "column" by the website: its author is a pretty well-respected academic (he's a professor of history at Princeton), and the source is carrying pretty light evidential weight (it only needs to prove that Pittakis Street exists and is named after Pittakis). According to our article, LIFO hasn't been a free-for-all for bloggers since 2010, but rather exerted editorial control over those as well ("In 2010, the site was upgraded and only selected bloggers could publish their material."): our article was published in 2021, and I'm not sure it qualifies as a blog anyway. Overall, I think it passes the bar for an RS, especially given the un-extraordinary nature of the claim it's supporting. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 06:08, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

    The fact that Chaniotis is a professor of history is enough, I think. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 08:14, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

More to come, probably tomorrow. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:58, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Continuing:

• Petrakos (2013) and Petrakos (2004) should have the "(in Greek)" annotation in the source list.
  • Fixed. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 11:26, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
• What's the basis for the sort order of the sources, after the name of the author? The Petrakos citations, for example, are not in chronological order or alphabetical order by title, if I remember my Greek alphabet correctly. Similarly for the two Archaeologicial Society of Athens sources.
  • I had mistakenly thought that it was usual to cite sources in descending chronological order (perhaps I just had an eccentric teacher?). Should now all be by author, then by year in ascending order. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 11:26, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

    I didn't think of that, but it would have been OK if you wanted to keep it that way -- FAC only requires consistency. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:04, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

That's everything for reliability and formatting. Will check links next. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 08:14, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

• The archived version of Gabrielsen (2014) isn't working for me. I get the title, and clicking on that gets the abstract, but there seems no way to get to the article text from the archive.org page.
  • I don't think the previewer works in archive.org, but I do get the "download" button which gives me the full pdf, so I think it's still worth having. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 11:26, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
• I have the same problem with Veloudis (1970).
  • Same as Gabrielsen for me: not ideal, but better than nothing, and seems to be an inherent problem of archiving that site (both are from the same website). UndercoverClassicist (talk) 11:26, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 08:33, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Pass. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:04, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for doing this, Mike - appreciate your time especially on a double shift! UndercoverClassicist (talk) 13:25, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:30, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 3 July 2023 [56].

---

Half sovereign

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk), Platonist Rainbow (talk) 21:22, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

This article is about... the less prominent sister of the famous sovereign coin. I'm naming as conom Platonist Rainbow who did considerable work on the article but who hasn't edited since 2020. Wehwalt (talk) 21:22, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Support by Unlimitedlead

Coming soon. Unlimitedlead (talk) 21:52, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

• Duplicate links: William Wyon; Queen Victoria

OK

• I think it is worth adding reign templates for all monarchs mentioned. I see it has been slightly done with "Henry VII (reigned 1485–1509)"; it would be nice for all monarchs to have such information using this template: "Henry VII (r. 1485–1509)"

For the most part, done. Victoria's reign is expressed in prose and I've left it that way.

• Add ALT text to all images.

OK.

• "English Civil War" actually links to English Civil War; I believe you mean the Wars of the Roses.

Fixed.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:53, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

• I would link England instead of England, and France instead of France.

Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:36, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

• "...Henry's third coinage...": What is meant by "third coinage"? Do you mean something like a third coinage reform?

Clarified.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:36, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

• Put Henricus Rex in a Latin language template?

It hardly seems worth it for one word and one pseudo-Latin name--Wehwalt (talk) 22:53, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

• "...beginning in 1603. and features a...": punctuation error here.
• Why are File:England, Henry VIII, 1509-1547 - Half Sovereign (obverse) - 1969.174.a - Cleveland Museum of Art.jpg and File:England, Henry VIII, 1509-1547 - Half Sovereign (reverse) - 1969.174.b - Cleveland Museum of Art.jpg not on the same level?

Fixed.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:53, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

• I think "Henry VIII half sovereign" would be better as "half sovereign of Henry VIII" or "half sovereign issued during the reign of Henry VIII".

Numismatic practice is to put the name of the monarch first, perhaps slightly modified in the case of Victoria to Victorian.

• "During the Napoleonic wars, large amounts of gold had left Britain...": Why the "had"? And why did they leave? If it was to fund the war, I would just say so.

It isn't that simple, there were multiple financial and monetary problems, (and yes, Wellington's army in Spain did have to get paid, but that was only one issue). I'd rather just leave it at that.

• Link Parliament of the United Kingdom to Parliament?

OK.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:36, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

• "The 1817 half sovereign": under which monarch?

OK--Wehwalt (talk) 20:36, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

• Introduce Benedetto Pistrucci.

OK.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:36, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

• Link House of Hanover to Hanoverian?
• Kingdom of is probably better.
• You have linked Kevin Clancy the football referee instead of Kevin Clancy (Royal Mint) the numismatist. Also, introduce Clancy.

Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:53, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

• Why is Clancy's excerpt not in quotation marks?

My experience is you don't do that for block quotes.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:53, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

• "Sydney Mint half sovereign, 1856": it depicts which monarch?

OK.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:36, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

• "...the first half sovereigns of Victoria's reign...": You can just say "her" instead of "Victoria".

OK.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:36, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

• bullion coin is not linked in the lead.

OK.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:36, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

That is all from me. Unlimitedlead (talk) 22:25, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. I think I've gotten everything.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:36, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Lovely. I will support this nomination, then. Good work. Unlimitedlead (talk) 20:56, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Support from Tim riley

Three tiny quibbles while I'm here, but nothing to affect my support:

• "The reason few gold coins were issued in 1819 was because of a proposal..." – when I was a schoolboy it was drilled into me that one doesn't write "the reason is because...", but "the reason is that...". If I were writing this sentence (which of course I'm not) I'd trim it to "Few gold coins were issued in 1819 because of a proposal..."
• "1825 coins with an engraving by Wyon, based on a work by Sir Francis Chantrey" – the latter was yet to be knighted at the time. I'd leave out the "Sir" here.
• "Queen Victoria came to the throne in 1837 and ruled until 1901" – "reigned", perhaps, rather than "ruled".

That's my lot. The article meets all the FA criteria in my view and I'm happy to support its elevation to FA. – Tim riley talk 11:52, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Got those. Many thanks for the review and support.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:30, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Support from Courcelles

• My numismatic quibble was that the Royal Mint is not the only modern issuer of half-sovereigns, Perth has also issued a few lately, as have some Crown Dependencies, but unlike Perth those are not likely to be of note.

I think I'll rely on WP:PRITOP. While there are other half sovereigns, this is undoubtedly the primary topic. The others may be notable for a parenthetical-titled article, or maybe not. Most likely candidate would be, as you suggest Half sovereign (Australian coin).--Wehwalt (talk) 15:20, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

I was actually suggesting it was worth a sentence that Perth has issued modern collector halves, not a separate article. (Similar to how you mention the modern I-mint marked ones.) Courcelles (talk) 15:22, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Added, though the India ones are different because they are legal tender in the UK. I will clarify that a bit.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:39, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

• Should "Coronation year" have "Coronation" capitalized? I see one where it isn't and two where it is.

Fixed.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:41, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

• I'm finding the paragraph about the Sydney issues being different from 1855 to 1871 rather clunky. This could likely be rewritten. Also, I'm away from home right now so I can't look it up myseld... did Sydney strike any half-sovereigns in 1867-1870? I know I've seen a full Sovereign of 1867. (And, finally, were the dies used in the laurel design from 1855-1866 also made in London? The way it reads now is a bit ambiguous in that point.)

I've rewritten. No half sovereigns were struck with those dates. The only date skipped in the full sovereign series was 1869 at Sydney.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:16, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

• Are readers expected to know what a Chancellor of the Exchequer is? Brits will, of course, but worldwide readers?

Linked.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:39, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

• When did Pretoria first make halfves? I know they were all George V, but was it only the three years?

Clarified that it was only those years.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:39, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

• I'm almost certain Ottawa (C mint mark) only made full Sovs, making them the only branch mint never to make halves, now that I mint marked halves exist in modern day. Not sure this is worth a mention or not.

I've added more about the Canada situation, but I can't find anything along the lines of what you suggest in sources and it feels a little synthy to put together pages to show that it is true so I'll pass on it.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:39, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

I see your point, I like the way you've done it, mentioning Ottawa made full Sovs but never halves. Courcelles (talk) 16:47, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

• Overall, great article! Courcelles (talk) 15:00, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, I think I've gotten everything.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:16, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Support great work. Courcelles (talk) 17:26, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Many thanks. Wehwalt (talk) 14:00, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Image review - pass

As usual, Commons make a simple task complicated.

• File:OBVERSE GEORGE V, 1915 Sydney. Uncirculated.jpg, File:REVERSE GEORGE V, 1915 Sydney. Uncirculated.jpg PD subject. "The photograph is from the family business and may be used with appropriate attribution". Maybe this is covered by OTRS ticket #2020120310002502? Or #2015012110018886? I am not an admin, so I don't have the access to check. Back to you Wehwalt. If it is, add the ticket to the image!

  I am neither a Commons admin nor an OTRS volunteer so I can't check it. Finding the other half sovereigns that would suit the infobox to have somewhat dodgy copyrights I can't put right, I've taken photographs of a 1907 half sovereign and put them in the infobox. Since it isn't the most photogenic coin, I've also applied for OTRS permission on images of a 1983 half sovereign from Heritage Auctions, since we have a permission registered with OTRS to use their stuff. I will put them in once it comes through, but the 1907 will work for purposes of this FAC.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:54, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

• File:England, Henry VIII, 1509-1547 - Half Sovereign (obverse) - 1969.174.a - Cleveland Museum of Art.jpg, File:England, Henry VIII, 1509-1547 - Half Sovereign (reverse) - 1969.174.b - Cleveland Museum of Art.jpg PD subject. Donated by the Cleveland Museum of Art. Okay.
• File:OBVERSE GEORGE III, new coinage, half sovereign, 1817 (S3786). Nearly uncirculated.jpg, File:OBVERSE WILLIAM IV, half sovereign, 1835. Nearly uncirculated - uncirculated and rare in this condition.jpg, File:OBVERSE QUEEN VICTORIA, first type, 1856, with filletted head of Victoria left by James Wyon. Good extremely fine or nearly uncirculated and rare in this condition.jpg, File:REVERSE QUEEN VICTORIA, first type, 1856, with filletted head of Victoria left by James Wyon. Good extremely fine or nearly uncirculated and rare in this condition.jpg, File:1887 half sovereign obverse.jpg, File:1887 half sovereign reverse.jpg PD subject. OTRS. Okay
• File:HM-treasury-note-10-shillings-bradbury-B.jpg I don't think this has the correct tag. The Bank of England is not a government department, so {{PD-UKGov}} cannot be used. Lord Bradbury died in 1950, so his signature is in the PD in the UK since 2020, but too late to be URAA in the US.

  It wasn't the Bank of England but HM Treasury. I've made alterations to the image page.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:39, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

• File:Pistrucci sovereign sketch.jpeg I don't think this has the correct tag. WMF ignores copyright on a "faithful photographic reproduction of a two-dimensional, public domain work of art" so I think that {{PD-Art}} would be appropriate.

  Changed.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:39, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:06, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

• I think I've gotten everything. Thanks for the image review.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:54, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

  All good. Passed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:22, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

SC

• There's some inconsistency in the use of the serial comma (the third the harp of Ireland, and the fleurs-de-lis versus Scotland, Ireland and France): your call as to which to use, but it should be consistent throughout.
• You should also be consistent in the use of brackets or commas in section titles: 1. English coin (1544–1604); 2. British coin (1817 to present). 3. British coin (1817 to present); 4. 1820–1837; 5. Victoria, 1837–1901; 6. 1902–1953; 7. Collector and bullion coin (since 1980)

Origin

• There's a slight jar to "During the Napoleonic wars" (plural) and "After the war" (singular). You could either go with "After the wars" or "After the Battle of Waterloo (1815) ..."
• "Almost every speaker": I presume the speakers in the debate, but that's not too clear
• "the famous design": I'd try to avoid "famous" – it's one of 'those' words that is often a bit dubious.
• Two uses of "However" (one here, one in the lead), both at the beginning of sentences: it's another of 'those' words, and certainly isn't needed in the Origin section.

1820–1837

• Link "dies" to Coin die?
• I'm slightly confused by the statement that "Half sovereigns were not issued as a currency piece during the reign of William IV", but then there are some details of some issues, and an image of a 1835 release (not mentioned in the text). You may need to clarify this for those of us who are hard of understanding

That's my lot. An interesting piece that I thoroughly enjoyed reading. - SchroCat (talk) 19:27, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the reviews and kind words. I think I've done everything. Wehwalt (talk) 17:52, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

• Support. All good from me. Cheers -SchroCat (talk) 20:52, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Comments from HAL

• "He introduced the sovereign gold coin in 1489, which he valued at twenty shillings." -- I might reorganzie the sentence so that it is "In 1489.... sovereign gold coin, which he valued at twenty shillings."

Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:24, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

• "The original half sovereign was first introduced" -- I might remove "original" or "first". One is enough to distinguish it from those that followed.

Rephrased generally along those lines.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:24, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

• The Oxford comma is used with ", and the fleurs-de-lis of France in the fourth quarter" but not with "ten shillings, twenty shillings, two pounds and five pounds". There may be other instances of inconsistency.

No, that was the sole instance pointed out by a reviewer above. I defended it then but since multiple reviewers feel this is an issue, I've rephrased the sentence.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:24, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

• "none dated 1819, a year in which few sovereigns were struck" -- Do the sources mention if these coins were dated 1818 or 1820?

Are you talking about half sovereigns or sovereigns? The 1819-dated sovereign exists. The 1819-dated half sovereign does not. Certainly, we're in an era where die production is expensive enough that old dies would be continued in use and used up in the new year, but this isn't one of those situations, like the continued production of 1967-dated predecimal coinage past that year, where the clock was intentionally stopped.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:21, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

• "came to the throne" This is British vernacular, I'm assuming.

I hope so. I'm not British. But reviewers I know to be British haven't said anything.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:21, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

• Is the second set of images of the Victorian half sovereigns the design with the crown deemed undersized? If so, I might mention that in the caption.

Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:24, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

• "proof, but from 2000, were" -- I might put a comma before "from" but that could simply be a personal stylistic choice.

I think that would be too many commas right there and the reader doesn't need it.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:24, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

That's all. Well written. ~ HAL333 15:30, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. All done, or at least responded to, with the 1819 matter questioned.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:24, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

It's no issue. Happy to support. ~ HAL333 14:21, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Drive-by comments

• I don't see alt text for the infobox images. Am I missing something?

Since the design is described as a caption, I don't think alt text would be necessary and there is in fact no provision that I can see for it in template:infobox coin.

• "Preceded by: Ryal". I thought a ryal was a 15 shilling coin? Gog the Mild (talk) 18:26, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

I cut the ryal succession box.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:36, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Source review

Sources are all reliable. Links all work.

• You have "London, England" as the publisher location for Bull (2023); I would make it just "London" as you've done with the other sources with that location.
• Suggest using "2nd" rather than "second" for Clancy (2017), for consistency with Lobel, Spink, and Cross.
• For Churchill (1906) you have "ii" for the volume, but the source PDF shows "II".

-- That's everything I can see. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:40, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. Those things are done. Wehwalt (talk) 13:50, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Pass. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:19, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the review and support. Wehwalt (talk) 18:11, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:46, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

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) 2 July 2023 [57].

---

Thank You (Meghan Trainor album)

Nominator(s): NØ 06:05, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

This article is about Meghan Trainor's sophomore album, Thank You. It produced hits like "No" and "Me Too", which you may have heard on the radio or TikTok. There's an interesting backstory, as Trainor rewrote most of the album after her label rejected doo-wop material in the style of her previous one. The result was, well, "a bit of a hotchpotch" as one critic put it. Many reviewers thought Trainor lost her artistic identity, and sales were lower as well. Thank you in advance to everyone who will take the time to give their feedback here.--NØ 06:05, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Media review—pass

• File:Meghan Trainor - Thank You (Official Album Cover).png has appropriate FUR and license
• File:Better (Meghan Trainor song - sample).ogg is 10% of the original song, length is permitted per WP:SAMPLE
• File:Meghan Pride.png appropriately licensed in Commons. Not a requirement but perhaps the caption could be elaborated.

That should complete media review. Pseud 14 (talk) 14:27, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

• Thank you and I have expanded the caption.--NØ 22:24, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

CommentsSupport from Chris

• "which respectively peaked at numbers three and 13 on the US Billboard Hot 100" - for consistency I would write both those as digits
• "Reviewers were divided about Thank You, a few thought" => "Reviewers were divided about Thank You; a few thought"
• "Trainor's artists and repertoire" - this makes it sound like these are people who work for her, rather than the label. Maybe "Trainor's artists and repertoire contact".....?
• "she confirmed collaborations with R. City and her mother" => "she confirmed collaborations with her mother and R. City" so it doesn't sound so much like the "her" refers to R. City
• "and the target version" - assuming this refers to the store, Target needs a capital T
• "and Ibiza reggae song" - is "Ibiza reggae" really a thing.....?
• "the Billboard 200 issued for June 4, 2016" => "the Billboard 200 dated June 4, 2016"
• That's it, I think -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:57, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

• Addressed!--NØ 22:24, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:10, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Aoba47

• Apologies in advance for being super nitpick-y. For this part, (with several public appearances and televised performances), I would remove "several". It does not serve a purpose and is more of a filler word in this context.
• I would remove this part, (failed to showcase her talent), from the lead. When I jump down to the "Critical reception" section, this part is tied to the (not showcase Trainor's artistic identity), which is already represented in the lead with this part, (believed it lacked artistic identity). I would replace it with a brief part on the critiques on the album's "themes of female empowerment", which is not represented in the lead at all.
• This is purely a suggestion so feel free to say no, but do you think it would be beneficial to include an image of Ricky Reed (since one is available) to the "Recording and production" section as he appears to have a major role in the development of the album. Also, is there any reason why he is not marked as a executive producer in the infobox?

• Thank you so much for the image suggestion. Template:Infobox album discourages mentioning the exec role in the infobox and encourages mentioning it in the body later.

• Thank you for the clarification and for the link. That makes sense to me. It always looks rather unnecessarily bulky and odd to have links and parentheticals in the infobox for this kind of information. The last time I worked on an album article was back for this FAC in 2021, and I hate thinking about how much time has passed since then lol. Aoba47 (talk) 14:35, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

• Ah, I remember glancing at your work on Hey Y'all. I remember that was phenomenal and got me interested in that album even though Country music's not usually my thing, lol.--NØ 19:00, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

• Apologies again for being super nitpick-y, but for this part, (Trainor also co-wrote songs with its frontman), I would remove "also" as like with "several", it is mostly a filler word in this context.
• The citations are not always in numeric order. Is this intentional?

• The order corresponds to the order of sourced information in each individual sentence.

• Fair enough. Thank you for the clarification. Aoba47 (talk) 14:35, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

• Is there any background information on the album being an Apple Music exclusive for a week? It just seems like an odd choice so I am curious if there was any discussion about it or a press release or something.

• USA Today covered it as a "Mother's Day present" but it's not quoting a primary source so I was doubtful about including it.

• I completely agree that it would not be great to use that as it could just be source saying something on its own. Aoba47 (talk) 14:35, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

• Again, I am being super nitpick-y, but I would move the citation that is currently after this part, (The first two), to right after the song titles. I think cutting off this sentence in this way hinders readability and just looks off.
• I would add a part about how people thought her performance and fall on The Tonight Show was a PR stunt so this was also raised with the "Me Too" music video.

• I've covered this in a note, if that's okay. This performance was positively reviewed by a majority of sources so it might have been undue weight to highlight one critic's opinion in the prose.

• Apologies for that. For whatever reason, I misremembered and I thought more critics had held this opinion. A note works for me, but I could understand if this is removed later if other reviewers think it is giving this individual undue weight even as a note. Aoba47 (talk) 14:35, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

• No worries. I have removed it for the time being.

• "Woman Up" was featured on "Reality Stars: The Musical", an episode from season nine of RuPaul's Drag Race. Is that notable enough to mention in this article? I did find two solid sources for it. This Billboard article claims the song gained more attention from this appearance. This Out source is solid; the article is still active, but for whatever reason, it will not load for me correctly so I used an archived link here.

• Added.

• Thank you. I appreciate that you added Mother's Day as well. Aoba47 (talk) 14:35, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

• I believe you had brought up the Mother's Day thing on the article's talk page a few years ago. Thanks for that as well!

I hope this review is helpful. Just so you know, I will be primarily focusing on the prose, and I will leave the sources up to the source reviewer. Once everything has been addressed, I will read through article a few more times just to make sure I do my due diligence as a reviewer. Best of luck with this FAC! Congrats on all the work you've been doing lately. I am sure Meghan Trainor would love all the work you do on her articles on here. Aoba47 (talk) 02:50, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the helpful review and the kind words, Aoba47! I anticipate your re-read and any follow-up comments.--NØ 06:38, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for addressing everything. I plan on reading through the article again either on Thursday or Friday just so I can take some time away and come in hopefully fresh. Have a great rest of your week! Aoba47 (talk) 14:35, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

• I would start a new paragraph with this part, (Upon hearing it, L.A. Reid, the chairman of Epic Records,), replacing it with "Just a Friend to You" as I believe that is what is being referenced. The addition of the image elongates this paragraph so I would use this natural break in topic to avoid having larger wall of text. This is more of a suggestion so feel free to disagree, but I still thought it was worth raising. Again, apologies for this more nitpick-y comment.

That should be it. Great work with this article as always. Once my above comment is addressed, I will be more than happy to support this FAC based on the prose. Best of luck with the FAC. I am curious on what your next FAC will be. Aoba47 (talk) 18:44, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks a ton for the review, Aoba47! I have addressed the final point. Hope you are having a great week so far!--NØ 19:00, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for addressing everything and I am glad that I could help. I support this FAC for promotion based on the prose. Aoba47 (talk) 19:06, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Support by Unlimitedlead

Will review based on prose soon. Unlimitedlead (talk) 20:49, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

• "Meghan Trainor signed a contract with Epic Records and released her debut single, "All About That Bass", in June 2014": Did Trainor join Epic Records and release a single in the same months? If not, I would suggest rephrasing to something like "Meghan Trainor signed a contract with Epic Records in [month] 2014 and released her debut single, "All About That Bass", in June of that same year".
• "In December 2015, she revealed that the album would be completed soon": Where did she reveal this? An interview? Social media?
• "The standard edition of Thank You includes 12 tracks;[35] the deluxe edition contains three additional original songs, and the Target version has 17 tracks": Is this 17 including the 12 tracks + the 3 deluxe songs + 2 Target-exclusive songs, or is it the original 12 + 5 Target-exclusive tracks? It is not clear here.

I see this issue is resolved later on, but it was confusing upon a first read. I would still fix it.

• "...whose instrumentation of percussion, guitar, and a "loping beat" gives it a "Caribbean feel" according to PopMatters...": I think "gives" should be singular here.
• "...due to unapproved digital alteration of her waist size...": I am glad I reviewed "Me Too" so I know what is going on- I would clarify that the alteration was alleged; again, we don't know if it is true or not, and Wikipedia (as a neutral encyclopedia) cannot take sides.
• "In the US, the former album debuted at number three...": What do you mean by former? Is there a latter album?
• "Personnel adapted from the album's liner notes.[30]": Then where is the citation for Recording locations?

I listened to "No" for the first time while reviewing this article, and it was lovely. A nice read, but I did feel slightly uncomfortable with the large amount of quotes employed; nonetheless, wonderful work yet again. Unlimitedlead (talk) 23:45, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the insightful comments, Unlimitedlead. The exact month Trainor signed her contract is not known. I've now seriously cut down on the amount of quotes. Glad to hear that you enjoyed the article! Hope it looks even better after the changes.--NØ 00:54, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Great. I will support this nomination. Unlimitedlead (talk) 01:22, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

(Support) Sammi Brie

Prose review. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 23:37, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

• "Trainor was embroiled in controversies surrounding the lyrics of "All About That Bass", and the portrayal of gender roles in the music video for her song "Dear Future Husband" (2015)." Drop the comma (User:Sammi Brie/Commas in sentences)
• "two-albums worth" maybe "two albums' worth"?
• " "I wanted this album to be dedicated to everyone who helped me get here — from my family, to my fans, to radio people, to magazines. Everyone". " You are quoting a full sentence, so period inside quotes.
• "...and Elvis Presley, and ones she missed" Remove this comma
• "and Knoxville News Sentinel's" add "the" before "Knoxville News Sentinel"
• " "Dance Like Yo Daddy" includes squawking saxophone sounds and audacious background vocals, and is about eschewing one's wariness and dancing." Remove comma
• "female-empowerment" why is this hyphenated
• "Ashley Roberts' " I'd consider "Roberts's" per MOS:'S or reword

Thanks for making time to review this, Sammi Brie! All done. Good to see I didn't mess up too much this time.--NØ 01:37, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Supporting. I believe all that will be needed here is a source review. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 01:45, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Source review (pass)

• The sources used in the article are reliable and high-quality, particularly for a music-based article. The citations are well-structured throughout. I have done a spot-check, and everything from the sources matches the citations and supports the information in the article. I just have some minor comments below:
• For Citation 14, it should be "Body-Positive" since it is presented in title case. I have the same comment for "Non-Photoshopped" in Citation 47.
• Would it be helpful to link AllAccess in Citation 70? It is a redirect to the Mediabase article so I could see avoiding it for that reason, but I still wanted to ask anyway.
• Citation 119 should have a translation for the title. If possible, a translation for Citations 117, 120, and 121 would also be ideal.
• Citations 26, 58, and 120 are dead on my end at least.

Once these very minor points are addressed, I will be more than happy to pass this source review. Hopefully, this will be what the FAC needs to cross the finish line and get promoted. Aoba47 (talk) 11:25, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

• @Aoba47: I have addressed the points raised. I hope you are having a great weekend.--NØ 12:50, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

• Thank you for addressing everything. This passes my source review. I hope you have a good rest of your weekend too. Aoba47 (talk) 14:35, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:46, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

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) 2 July 2023 [58].

---

Order of Brothelyngham

Nominator(s): SN54129 18:52, 22 March 2023‎ (UTC)

A bunch of men pretending to be actors? Check.

A bunch of men actually indulging in "games, madness [and] obscene debauchery"? Check.

Men beaten, goods stolen, a town terrorised? Check.

A hapless bishop writing letters but achieving little else? Check.

Welcome to 14th-century England—again! Another curious gem displaying the past through an alternative lens, this reached GA-level some years ago and then got forgotten about, which is a shame. Having undergone an expansion, polish and update in scholarship, I thought it was worth presenting here. Thanks in advance, all. SN54129 18:52, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Image review

• For the Exeter map, I'd actually suggest the alt text is better suited to be the caption than the current caption

Right, swapped em out.

• File:Miniature_Fête_des_Fous.jpg: what's the original source of this? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:53, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

14th-century guy, dead famous in the illustrated manuscripts world (although probably not to anyone else!), so have added some provenance to the commons page.

SN54129 14:37, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

CommentsSupport from Chris

• "The Order of Brothelyngham was a group of men, who" - don't think that comma is needed

Agree.

• "The group appears [singular] to have named themselves [plural]" - any way to avoid this apparent conflict?

Can never remember whether this is an AmBritEng thing ior just my crappy brain, but singularized the latter.

• "The Church had waged a campaign against theatrical ludi" - could we explain what "ludi" are/were?

Made a short intra-dashes explanation and a slightly fuller background in a new footnote.

• "the medievalist Lawrence M. Clopper, suggests" - no reason for that comma either

Done.

• "such practices by the laity, in this case, expressed by the Brothelynham Order" - there's a G missing here

Fixed.

• "This group comprised, as were English monasteries during the period, solely of men" => "This group was comprised, as were English monasteries during the period, solely of men"

Done, although I wonder Tim riley hasn't raised an eyebrow at that yet!

• "in lieu of the sacrifices emphasized" - UK subject so UK spelling should be used

I know—i'm there! But my bloody auto-refill-whatever, thinks it's in South bloody Dakota or somewhere! I try and catch it where I can, but.

• "that group should be stigmatized by Christians" - same again, also I believe the word "the" is missing before "group" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:10, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Agree again.

• Thanks, ChrisTheDude, very much for looking in,; all your points, for now, both appreciated and addressed-even the most embarrassing! Cheers, SN54129 16:42, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Hi Chris, have you had a chance to revisit? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:46, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
    • Apologies, I forgot all about this one. I'll give it another sweep later today..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:56, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:02, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Comments from Smalljim

Thanks for this great piece of research. A few suggestions:

• Would the second sentence "...which by now was commonly perceived as corrupt." be better as "...which by then was..."?

• Probably-done.

• I think I'm right in that the entry in Bishop Grandisson's Register is the only contemporary (or near contemporary) source - that important fact should be mentioned prominently.

• I think I can dig out a source which backs this this specifiv=c claim)-I'd certainly like too, and it shouldn't be too difficult.

• Why "Grandison" rather than the far more commonly used "Grandisson" (even in our own article John Grandisson)? I note it's how ODNB spells it, but it's unclear why Audrey Erskine went against the trend.

• It was a 50/50; I was going to wait and see who had complained the loudest by the close of play!

• To aim a possible spanner in the heart of your work (sorry!), I'm not sure if all of your sources rely on Hingeston-Randolph's 19th-century transcription and Chope's translation of 1921, but there is another source: Records of Early English Drama – Devon, Ed. John M. Wasson. University of Toronto Press (1986), that provides more recent versions of both. The book is downloadable as a pdf from the Internet Archive here, but there's no preview (not here anyway). It appears to be a fine piece of scholarship which, on pp. 9–10, contains a newer transcription of the Latin in the Grandisson Register, and there is a new translation by Abigail Young (per p. [vii]) on pp. 323–4. Both differ in a number of points from Hingeston-Randolph's and Chope's work. For instance H-R's quin pocius erroris, translated by Chope as "or rather the Error" becomes quin pocius orroris, translated as "– nay, rather, the horror –". I think we should always prefer later translations over older ones, unless they are clearly inferior. There are a number of places where use of this more modern translation may be preferable, e.g. in the quote box aside "Historiography".

• No, it's an excellent source, and I'll certainly mine the secondary aspects of it deeply! There just aren't enough of them, unfortunately. The new translation, I will make the primary use of in quotes and put Chope etc, in a footnote etc., again, for the reader to GoCompare if they so wish.

• Boy Bishop probably shouldn't be capitalised.

• Done.

• Under "Activities in Exeter" - "Name", last sentence, Mortimer doesn't say that Sempringham was the only abbey in the country to house both monks and nuns under the same roof. Mortimer doesn't seem to be too reliable here either: he says Sempringham was Premonstratensian, but it was clearly in the Gilbertine Order at the time.

• To square the circle, I've omitted his Order error and replaced part of the claim with a similar source. I think he's reliable for small claims such as these.

• Under "Riotousness", first sentence of second para, Wasson has quendam, not quemdam.

• My eyes. Done.

• Under "Later events", H-R and Wasson both show the ludum noxium register entry as being in 1352, not '53.

• Added a secondary source confirming what you say.

• In the bibliography, Frodsham, Henisch and Salisbury are out of alphabetical order.

• Rejigged.

• The bibliography entry for Grandisson. J. suggests that he was writing in 1897 - that needs amending, and Hingeston-Randolph is available online at https://archive.org/details/05089497.1331.emory.edu/page/1055/mode/2up (inter alia).

• This is an old problem to which I haven't found a satisfactory result. The obvious example is Shakespeare of course: imagine having a cite to {{sfn|Shakespeare|2023}}! So the way around it is to let |ref={{whatever}}.That way, we can quote the recent(ish) translation than the original primary source. It's a pain, but IO rely on others' template knowledge in matters of these!

• Hmm. I'm certainly not an expert, but I don't see this as a problem: look at the FA Hamlet#Editions of Hamlet for instance - there are a number of editions of the play listed there and none of them shows Shakespeare as the author. Couldn't you just omit |last1=Grandisson |first1=J. from the cite book template?  —Smalljim  21:18, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

I hope some of this is helpful. I rarely comment at FACs, but this grabbed my attention!  —Smalljim  16:37, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

• Hi Smalljim Thanks for this-if you check my latest edits I've addressed all your points, except of course, the New Source. I've started on that but will get stuck in further tomorrow. I'm creating a table of that historiography quote box so the reader can compare between Chope etc and Wasson, which should be interesting. As I said above, I'll make Wasson and his 1986 commentary the primary source, shunting H-R etc, into the background, somewhat.
  Thanks for looking in, these are all great points! SN54129 19:45, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

• Happy I can help a little. I've commented further under the last bullet point above, and may have a few more after another read through (if you can bear that!). In your next editing session you'll spot the wonderful invented word 'Grandissonam' that's crept in :)))  —Smalljim  21:18, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

• Thanks for the help, Smalljim, and the technical know-how for |ref=editor- rather than author-so easy I can't believe it! Instead of all that messing about with templates etc. Anyway, I've done that throughout, so we know just have H-R in 1897, bibliographically. The other main thing-the newer source is also appreciated. I've used it on all major quotes, comparing them to Chopes' trans, letting the reader find out for themselves that Grandisson was even more of a hardnut than he has probably been given credit for! By the way, you're right about emphasising the limited and so biased, nature of the source, so I merged most of the discussion into its own source-hopefully that clarifies things for further along. Thanks for Grandissonam; that must be the accusative of To Grandisson...? ;)
• Also, let me know if you do have further thoughts, of course. SN54129 17:32, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Comments Support from Tim riley

First few after a quick canter through looking for typos etc. More on actual content later. You might like to revisit:

• "They also practiced extortion" – unless they were American I suggest they practised it.
• "gladitorial shows" – "gladiatorial"?
• "a termination which in devon everyone would understand" – capitalise?

More anon. Tim riley talk 18:24, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

• Thanks for catching these, Tim! SN54129 15:24, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

First lot of general comments

• "Bearing their 'Abbot' aloft" – double quotes, please (MoS).

• Done.

• "Martha Bayless has calculate that" – past tense seems wanted

• Done.

• "only 10%" – the MoS suggests "per cent" rather than "%" in prose.

• Done.

• "of poplar theatrical satires were not attacking the Church" – "popular"?

• Done.

• in re the above two points, "only ten per cent were not"" – seems an odd way of saying "ninety per cent were"

• Indeed! Reversed.

• "The Order of Brothelyngham is … They were treated" – confusion of singular and plural

• Done.

• "dressed in the robes of a Bishop" – capital letter necessary?

• Done.

• "was a European phenomenon" – meaning Continental Europe?

• So "was a continental phenomenon..."?

• Fine with me. But note that the OED capitalises Continental when used in this context. Tim riley talk 14:00, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

• "while wearing masque" – I can find nothing in the OED to suggest that "masque" is a costume. Perhaps "wearing masque costume" or some such?

• Good catch. Done.

• "and hiding one's identity" – "one's"?

• Their.

• "their tormentors receive rewards" – past tense wanted here?

• Done.

• "was commissioned by his Bishop" – not sure the job title needs a capital letter here or elsewhere when used generically

• Of course!

• "letters of the Bishop to his staff, the Order's avowed opponent" – his staff was the avowed opponent?

• Corrected, courtesy of em-dashes  :).

• "comments that that methodology, however, "limited the historical value of his scheme" – we could advantageously lose the "however"

• Done.

• "often due to translation or interpretative differences" – In AmE "due to" is accepted as a compound preposition on a par with "owing to", but in BrE it is not universally so regarded. "Owing to" or, better, "because of" is safer.

• Thanks, done.

More to come. Tim riley talk 22:10, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Concluding

• "This group was comprised" – the group comprised (i.e. consisted of) and was not comprised of.

• Done. Schoolboy error. Never fall for it.Err...
  Be aware there's a chap here who runs a script changing instances of comprising to -ised of, because they prefer it that way.

• Evidently not a speaker of the King's English or a reader of Fowler. If I have time I'll seek out his/her solecisms in other articles and correct them. Tim riley talk 14:00, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

• "per Wasson" – per? Prefer good English to bad Latin.

• According to?

• Me. And the chap whose name I forget who insisted that the Tube should have signs saying Way Out rather than Exit.

• Oh, on rereading I see what you meant. Yes "according to" looks fine to me. Tim riley talk 14:16, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

• Thanks! SN54129 14:50, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

• "preversion" – what?

• Ah, that bloke in Dr Strangelove? (Meant 'perversions', but social ills describes it better.)

• "as medievalist John Tydeman argues … scholar J. Kestell Young describes it" – two clunky false titles.

• The's done.

• "The leader of the Order" – you need to make up your mind whether or not to capitalise "the order". At the moment you sometimes do and sometimes don't.

• Well spotted!

• "approbrium" – should this be "opprobrium"?

• Done.

• "they suspected the religeuse" – a word unknown to the Oxford English Dictionary. Perhaps you mean "religieuse", though that applies only to nuns and other pious females. (Not quite true: it also applies to a pastry consisting of a small profiterole placed on top of a larger profiterole and decorated with cream and icing, but I doubt if that is relevant here.)

• Sounds gorgeous! The profiteroles on top each other, not the nuns on top of each other  ;)

• The nun on top would presumably be the mother superior. Tim riley talk 14:35, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

• Ho ho ho ! SN54129 13:57, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Those are my few queries. On a purely stylistic point I found your use of the construction "So-and-so and such and such, says Fred Smith" rather than the more usual "Fred Smith says So-and-so and such and such" rather tiresome on repetition, but others may disagree with me. Tim riley talk 09:15, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

• Have gone through and adjust a couple of quotes; see what you think.

• Thanks again, Tim, I appreciate the detailed review! Cheers, SN54129 13:06, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

I'll have a further rereading and come back here to sign off my comments. Tim riley talk 14:00, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Righto Tim, in your own time; I forgot to explain about 'preversions', amusingly, but have done so now  ;) SN54129 14:50, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Happy to support. Meets the FA criteria in my view. A most interesting read – I had no idea there were such goings-on. Should be a box-office hit on the front page. – Tim riley talk 13:52, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your input and support Tim, it's appreciated. Yes, look out next year for the... Brothelyngham Tapes, or some such  :) SN54129 13:57, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Further comments from Smalljim

Thanks for dealing with my first batch so promptly and efficiently. I've had another read through this evening, and come up with some more red ink, I'm afraid :(

• In the lead: the caption to the lead image states that Grandisson launched his attack from here. OK, the cathedral was the seat of his power, but he wrote from Chudleigh, as the adjacent sentence confirms. And perhaps "verbal attack" might be clearer.

Clarified that it was his officials who were at the cathedral.

• 1st para "courtesy of a grand theatrical stage" - no! Even Chope (1921) doubted this.

Or a throne of course. Clarified.

• Who first used the term "Brothelynghamites"?

I've removed it now, but as far as I can tell, in reliable secondary independent sources, it was Daniel Frankforter.

• In "Background": 'They were also known as an "abbeys of misrule"' Omit 'an'?

Done.

• 2nd para "debacchationes obscoenas". In both H-R and Wasson it's debacaciones obscenas.

Done.

• Young quote - no need for the two identical references

Done.

• In "Source material": this still sounds as if more than one of the Bishop's letters mentions the Order - I believe that it is only mentioned in the letter of 11 July 1348.

Clarified.

• I don't get "Furthermore, he would only record events that in his eyes breached canon law." That restriction may be worth mentioning, but what is it furthermore to?

Tweaked, th\t there was more than one available offence open to prosecution.

• H-R didn't restrict himself to indexing the registers in calendar form, as you state. Although North, writing in the ODNB, says "He restricted himself largely to indexing the contents of the registers" - that's clearly not what he did with Grandisson - he provided (sparsely) annotated transcriptions.

Clarified.

• Chope published his translation in 1921 in D&C N&Q, not in Transactions of the Devon Assoc (it's correct in the bibliography).

Done. Good spot!

• In "Activities in Exeter": "understood the word to have meant...", might perhaps be better as "to include the element...", and omit "just" before "a bawdy house" (the point is that the word 'brothel' has dramatically changed its meaning since that time.

Done, absolutely agree.

• You're missing an "n" from "Gradisson's Registrum", and why suddenly use the Latin word for Register?

Changed.

• You have that H-R suggested that Grandisson himself invented the name for the group, followed by 'In his indignation that people so worthless "guiltily laughs at Holy Religion", as he put it[29]'. Yes H-R's footnote does make that suggestion, but he doesn't use your quote (guiltily laughs...) - that is in Chope's translation (not comment), though it's garbled: Chope has "...guiltily laughs Holy Religion to scorn...". Whatever - it needs tidying!

Reworked. Hopefully ungarbled and tidied  :)

• You state that Sempringham ... was known humorously as Simplingham, cited to Chope. Chope doesn't say humorously.

Removed; not sure where that came from (even Mortimer doesn't use it...)

• In "Riotousness": you have several times provided two (or more) different translations (Chope and Wasson). I don't think that giving multiple translations that only vary slightly actually helps the reader's understanding of the topic. Maybe such examples should be restricted to the Historiography section? As I said earlier, I think we should prefer a later translation unless it's clearly inferior. Also, the translations in the REED volume, edited by Wasson, were provided by Abigail Young (see comment in my first batch above) - is it important to note that? I don't know.

Removed superfluous translations. Used later translations now and throughout. Acknowledged and sourced Young as translator in the Sources section.

• The phrase "...with strong Sabbatarian tendencies.[25]" should be attributed so it doesn't appear that it's what Erskine says (she doesn't).

Done.

• In the next paragraph we have Latin (Quendam lunaticum...) and four translations. Surely not necessary here.

Quite. Redux.

• In the last para you refer to "a contemporary record" - what is it? It seems to be cited to H-R, 1897 p. 1684. but there's no such page in this book.

It was an odd way of phrasing "...his letter". Tweaked.

• "They were certainly disobedient, and either of which would be sufficient to ensure the Bishop's ire.[44]" I don't understand this sentence.

Clarified.

• "He subsequently excommunicated the Order". Can you confirm this? Is there another contemporary record?

Dunno, but the relevant, reliable independent secondary source is Julian M. Luxford.

• In "Historiography": The Chope translation appears twice, and the one in Wasson is missing many spaces between words.

Yes a shame, but got rid of the quote box and spaced some of the letters out. Bizarre! SN54129 16:56, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

• "...celebrate the investiture of their abbot with horns". May be better as "by sounding horns" or similar, in case there's confusion over something to do with Viking helmets :)

Done.

• In "Notes: 4. Chope only provides one or two examples.

Tweaked.

• The word "lieu" has a superfluous "e" on the end ...

Done.

• ... as does Hingeston in Note 8.

Ditto.

• In "Bibliography": Davis is out of alpha order.

Done.

Sorry!  —Smalljim  23:39, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

No worries, Smalljim, it's what you're here for  :) see what you think as to the changes I've made in response; I think I've addressed nearly everything you raised. Cheers! SN54129 16:56, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks again, SN54129. I do have a further query about the excommunication. Your text: 'They appear not to have heeded the Bishop's edicts, for he subsequently excommunicated the Order, calling the men "a threat to religion, the King and the Church"' is cited to Luxford 2005, p. 146. I managed to find Luxford's book on Google Books and I think it's telling me that the word 'Brothelyngham' is only mentioned once, on page 143. Fortunately that page was available to me, and Luxford writes there, about the Order: "In fulminating an excommunication against them, Grandisson called them 'a threat to religion, the king and the church'...", citing that to H-R pp. 1055-6 and Chope, pp 62-4 (which is the original letter in Latin and in translation). There's obviously a discrepancy here: there's no mention of a subsequent excommunication in the original letter, but maybe Luxford knows of a later contemporary document and refers to it on p. 146 (which I can't see). Can you clarify, please?  —Smalljim  14:22, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Ah, relying on google books—page one error! Christ, I've found that sometimes it turns out to be a different book! Talk about fool me once... *facepalm*

No, Smalljim, there's nothing on the following page of Luxford wrt Brothelyngham (note he starts a new chapter section before the end of the page). However, I think I know what he's getting at, and if I were allowed to fill the thing full of my own WP:OR, I'd say so. I suspect that the men involved in the 1352 riots, who tended towards similar activities, were probably the same individuals he encountered here. If that's the case, then, of course, they were subsequently excommunicated in G's condemnatory letter of 1352. But such time passes between the events, and Luxford draws no direct parallel, that it is stretching it to say they were probably the same men who we know were later excomm'd. So I've tweaked to clarify this. SN54129 16:03, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Interesting suggestion! They might have all been dead, though - I've just found, in Radford (1935), p. 363, the very interesting fact that the Brothelyngham incident occurred just a couple of months before the Black Death reached Devon (and one month after it reached England's shores). Might be worth mentioning as part of the historical framework. In H-R (p. 1069) there's a letter from Grandisson dated 19 Oct 1348 that's apparently about its arrival, but my 'O' level Latin isn't up to reading it (it mentions "pestilencias" several times, and as expected there's quite a lot of "peccata"s too)... Maybe that's why he preferred to stay in Chudleigh! I guess there'll be a translation floating around somewhere.  —Smalljim  17:04, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Found a translation, Smalljim: Rosemary Horrox, v. respectable, original in H-R. Can't draw any overt conclusions (or go into too much more detail; per FAC requirement #4), but it's interesting that he actually encourages processions etc as a way of deterring the plague...it's almost certain that the Brothelyngham people were a direct response to this plea, but of course, I doubt we'll ever find a source that directly links them. I focussed on the unspoken connection re: processions rather than the exhortations about sin and penance. SN54129 18:36, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

I thought you might be able to find one! I think that's a good addition. I'm still finding problems, however...

• It's Terribilis

• Done.

• In "Source material", Robbins (1901) p. 506 doesn't verify the full date. Actually I think this source is superfluous as the content is verified by e.g. Wasson.

• Robbins verifies the letter name; added Chope ref for date.

• In "Historiography" the sentence beginning "Luxford has described the effect..." is cited to Heale, and I can't find the quote about "abbatial greed" in either.

• Replaced Luxford for Heale; see p.260.

• In the references, the relevant Luxford page is 143 not 146, according to Google Books

• Typo adjusted.

• I can't make the refs to Heale 2016, p. 143 and p. 260 match up with what Google Books tells me is in the book (but that might be me).

• Heale p.260, Luxford p.143?

I'm going to take a break, and encourage others to have a look. But based on what I've seen I think it might be worth doing a general check on source-content integrity: the evidence does hint that there may be problems with the sources that I haven't checked.  —Smalljim  21:51, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for these catches Smalljim. Luckily, rumours of source/text integrity issues have been much exaggerated. Enjoy your break. SN54129 12:45, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

• Hi Smalljim, 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) 13:49, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Source details

Source/text integrity check: This version reviewed, 90% of a Secondary sources checked and confirmed; no Primary sources

Ref # Article says Source says Ref supports? 1a theatrical ludi—or popular games the ludi, the Games, which were days, or series of days, of entertainments and competitions... They included dramatic Performances Y 2 originated as part of the Roman Empire's cult of the state ludi circenses... association with the provincial cult of the emperor in the western empire Y ? Can you email me a scan of this page? I've got the 2002 edition rather than 2004, but the page numbering must be different 3 by the Late Middle Ages were denounced by the Church as loci for the ungodly and easily tempted Innocent’s denunciation of ludi theatrales provided a paradigm for reform in the later Middle Ages ? Y 4a/b ever since Pope Innocent III's condemnation of "ludi theatricales" in 1207, in which he described them as encouraging ludibria, insania, debacctiationes obscoenas In 1207, Innocent III forbids the "ludi theatrales"...which he describes as "LUDIBRIA, INSANIA, DEBACCTiationes obscoenas..." etc Y 5 has calculated that 90 per cent of popular theatrical satires attacked the Church somehow Only about a tenth of the parodies surviving have no connection with the Bible or the Church. ? (Does "parody" equate to an attacking satire?) I replaced 'satire' with 'parody'? 6 The Order of Brothelyngham is considered by historians to have been a pseudo-religious Order created in Exeter in 1348 for the purpose of satirising the clergy The O of B, a mock religious order begotten in Exeter in 1348 with the aim of ridiculing regular clergy Y 16 Feast days such as these were specifically intended to mock the church—in the case of the Feast of Fools, over a period of four days—both by its practices and rituals and its hierarchy, and by doing so, celebrate the disfranchised The Feast of Fools which originally consisted of four separate celebrations... traditionally allowed the inversion of ecclesiastical hierarchies—the lower clergy members were permitted to mock church services, to sing, to dance, to celebrate the special holy status of the meek, the humble, and the generally disenfranchised Y Can you send a scan of this one too? It's mostly OK, just the "period of four days" that I want to check 17a/b/c Hingeston-Randolph, who first edited Grandisson's registers... They were an early expression of what became known later, in France, as Sociétés Joyeuses... Hingeston-Randolph also understood the Brothelynghamites to be more in the manner of a dissenting sect of the Church Grandisson's learned editor thinks that this secta was a sect of medieval dissenters, but the description clearly points to a sociéte joyeuse Y, although "learned" is POV, as is "clearly" Apologies, "learned" etc, is from the source, not our article! ~Sigh~ Sometimes I worry about myself! 18 Sociétés Joyeuses, says Katja Gvozdeva, were theatrical companies often devoted to foolplay and slapstick, visual comedy staged during carnivalesque amusements... the term, which can be simply translated as 'fool play' Y 19 They were also known as "abbeys of Misrule" An Abbey of Misrule or a sociéte joyeuse Y (although misrule shouldn't be capitalised) Done 20 particularly, comments the historian Katja Gvozdeva, with their emphasis on popular "carnivalesque rituals" A symbolic attribute of the male sociéte joyeuse in the framework of the carnivalesque rituals Y 22 He considered their Holy Innocents' Day plays to be scandalous Bp JG requires the Exeter Cath vicars choral not to perform scandalous plays on Holy Innocents Day Y 23c/d playing "'somergames' within sacred precincts"... capturing and tormenting those playing the roles of Christ, Peter and Andrew, following which their tormentors received rewards In addition, he and others objected to wrestling, singing and dancing and ‘somergames’ within sacred precinct... [Peter Xst & Andrew] The event is a ‘game’, and the context seems to centre on the rewarding of the tormentors and demons with food and drink for being the best tormentors. Y 23a/c or dressed as monks... it is impossible now to know whether the movement started in great numbers or attracted a crowd as it progressed over the days Brothelyngham, as they called themselves, dressed up as monks... and gathering a crowd Y Can you send me the source for this one? Sent. You sent me Floyer - I'm after Henisch! Sorry SchroCat-sent via usual channels-note it's only a couple of pages from WP:RX. (BTW, SN54129, I noticed a rogue square bracket in the midst of 'licensed anarchy"[24] during which] the Church') - SchroCat (talk) 15:59, 4 April 2023 (UTC) Thanks for catching that! SN54129 11:03, 5 April 2023 (UTC) 25 [split into two refs] 26b/d he would only record events that in his eyes breached canon law, so not necessarily the whole of the Order's activities might be recorded / The scholar Abigail Young suggests that their processions must have involved a large number of people, given the amount of activity they were accused of comes from de Grandisson's registers, where he naturally only noted what violated canon law in one way or another. / the abbot's followers were detaining passers-by and demanding money, but certainly involved a lot of people, both on horseback and on foot, in a procession or parade Y Can you send me this one too? Sent. 27 The Black Death entered the British Isles in the town of Weymouth, a seaport in the co. of Dorset [p126, then p.127 for timing ] the Black Death had recently arrived in England, probably through Weymouth, Dorset Y 28 In response, in a letter called Terribilis, King Edward III instructed prayers to be said in churches around the country. His letter is dated 28 September 1348 Edward III had asked... the Archbishop of Canterbury, to arrange prayers against the plague throughout the province of Canterbury... In this letter of 28 September 1348 to transmit the order to the other bishops of the southern province. The letter is generally known, from its opening word, as Terribilis. Y (although better to go with "in a letter known as Terribilis") Changed, thanks. 30a/b Grandisson promulgated the royal instruction via the Dean of Exeter, attaching his own thoughts on what was necessary / "exhorting them with salutary admonitions... mass devoutly" John Grandisson, Bishop of Exeter, forwarded them to the Dean of Exeter with the following note of the local action to be taken / direct quote Y 31b Christine North, comments that that methodology "limited the historical value of his scheme" He restricted himself largely to indexing the contents of the registers, a method which limited the historical value of his scheme Y 32 The letter was called Litera pro Iniqua Fraternitate de Brothelyngham, The first is "Litera pro iniqua fraternitate de Brothelyngham," issued by the bishop Y 35 one reviewer described the Bishop's "extensive extracts" as being of "enormous significance" or some of the extensive extracts from the Register of Bishop John de Grandisson. However, these scarcely detract from the usefulness of the volume and add considerably to its general reading interest. There are, of course, also many substantial items of enormous significance including several sections of John de Grandisson's writings Y, although better to identify the individual in a clearer way than "one reviewer" Named. 37 brothel, meaning "good for nothing but 'brothel' means good-for-nothing Y 38b "demonstrates particularly well the ambiguous relationship between the play, ritual and theatre", noting the theatrical nature of the Order's activities: the members celebrate the investiture of their abbot by sounding horns, it takes place takes place on trestles (in theatro) and his character is clearly intended to be a burlesque démontre particulièrement bien le rapport ambigu entre le jeu, le rite et le théâtre qui sera l’objet de la présente analyse / au son de cors et de clochettes /Bien que son sacre ait lieu sur les tréteaux (in Theatro), l’abbé burlesque semble être investi d’un pouvoir bien réel. Oui Murky buckets! SN54129 11:03, 5 April 2023 (UTC) 39a/c or brothel, meaning... or "foul" / Grandisson condemned their play as being composed "incontumely and [with] approbrium" brothel, again, was a common name for any foul fellow / the bishop finds himself compelled against a play composed "in contumely and approbrium" Y 40 As used in the 13-century text, "...brothely [wretchedly] broght to Babyloyn" “brothely [wretchedly] broȝt to Babyloyn” (1256), or left behind to farm and tend vineyards. By linking the two and demonstrating their similarities, the poet offers a warning to contemporary priests whom he sees in similar danger of provoking God’s wrath through their spiritual filth Y 41a/b/c meaning 'good for nothing' not a bawdy house / [direct quote] / removed rather than a bawdy house / to modern historians and commentators, "such sport is as much folklore as drama" / but the members of the Order seem to have considered themselves actors rather than villains Y 44a/b/c/d Hingeston-Randolph also understood the Brothelynghamites / On repeated, regular occasions throughout 1348 the gang disturbed the peace of the city with assaults and riots / when they met them / A similar outbreak of anti-clerical fake monasticism in the area, this group of pseudo-monks—describing themselves as an "Order of hermits"—occupied Townstal. The men "claimed power by a special papal privilege to hear confession and offer the sacraments" without Grandisson's permission, or, indeed, any theological training whatsoever (removed portion) The "Brothelynghamites" [cited to Hingeston-Randolph] / In July, 1348, the peace of the city of Exeter itself was disrupted by a group of men who called themselves members of the order of Brothelyngham... the town theater, whence they ventured from time to time / those whom they cornered / received news of another pseudo-monastic sect which had established itself as an "order of hermits" in the parish of Tounstalle and claimed power by a special papal privilege to hear confession and offer the sacraments without episcopal permission Y 45a/b The scholar Ian Mortimer agrees that Sempringham was an obvious target for popular satire / "sniggering in some secular quarters [was] inevitable" Removed / "sniggering in some secular quarters is inevitable" Y 46 Sempringham contained both monks and nuns under the same roof some monastic houses for both monks and nuns, for example, Sempringham, Lincolnshire Y 47 Hemisch surmises that it was the Church's very success against its own clergy and their games that led to the adoption of such practices by the laity, as was the case with the Brothelyngham Order. Even where the church won the battle and prevented her clergy from taking part, the feast was adopted by the laity...formed an Order of Brothelyngham Y 48 a/b/c/d/e This group comprised, as were English monasteries during the period, solely of men / The Brothelyngham men, dressed as monks, paraded their abbot around the streets of Exeter on something akin to a litter, and, with their abbot enthroned above them, they proceeded to beat up and rob such citizens as they encountered / the historian Martin Heale has described the extent of ill-feeling felt by the general population towards the perceived "abbatial greed and luxurious living" / There are also signs that literary critiques of abbatial greed and luxurious living bore some correspondence with wider lay attitudes in late medieval England / A comparison with supposed real life greedy abbots, says Heale, "is hard to mistake". a group of men who rode through the city under the name ‘the Order of Brothelyngham’ / rode through the city under the name ‘the Order of Brothelyngham’. This mock religious order ‘put a certain lunatic and madman in charge... going by the name of abbot’, and dressed in a monastic habit. The false ‘abbot’ was then led through the streets of Exeter, while his attendants apprehended clerics and laymen and ‘held them against their will ... until they had extorted from them certain sums of money’ / The insinuation of this satire about grasping abbots is hard to mistake Y 49a/b Chudleigh-his main headquarters outside of his Cathedral / The historian Audrey Erskine has questioned whether his violent responses to such cults and gangs might reflect something choleric in his character His principal residence was on his manor of Chudleigh / he opposed the development of more dubious cults. The registers also illustrate the vehement, sometimes violent, expressions of his seemingly choleric disposition Y 51 The Bishop instructed his men to condemn the Order the following Sunday by means of proclamations in the Cathedral and all other churches and chapels of the city. They were to emphasise that those who disobeyed, and failed to publicly withdraw from the fraternity, would not only be excommunicated but met with physical force, as the Bishop could—and stated his intention to—call upon the assistance of the city militia [Summarising Grandisson's letter] Y 53 His particular focus on the drama as a source of social ill has long been known to historians; as the medievalist John Tydeman argues, Grandisson's "injunctions to his clergy have long constituted a familiar element in histories of medieval drama" Yet as far as diocesan records go, outside of entries in the registers of medieval bishops, most notably those of the redoubtable John de Grandisson, whose injunctions to his clergy have long constituted a familiar element in histories of medieval drama Y 54 a/b he seems to have had a particular antipathy to the creation of much new in his diocese, ranging from popular religion to the building of chapels / Grandisson again wrote to his officials, this time in Totnes and other churches, condemning what he called a group of "disciples of Antichrist" response to the situation at Dartmouth is in keeping with his noted antipathy to both the creation of new chapels and the settling of friars in his diocese, as well as the expression of popular religion / Grandisson issued instructions to the dean of Totnes and the rectors of Dittisham and Stoke Fleming that certain "disciples of Antichrist", posing as brethren of the Order of Hermits in Townstal, had committed many abuses Y - although I'll be back to the wording of this in my prose review *Trembles*  :) SN54129 11:03, 5 April 2023 (UTC) 55 the scholar J. Kestell Floyer describes it as "a withering blast of sarcasm and indignation" The Bishop treats them to a withering blast of sarcasm and indignation Y 62 [Direct quote - portion removed] Bayless agrees that "medieval parody rarely offers any sophisticated analysis of its target: even at its most critical its aim is not to direct reform but to humiliate the victim", with violence often a first, rather than a last, resort Y 63 ludi "lūdus, ī" Y (although the source has a rogue dollar sign - "Latin-English$ Pocket") And for this too. 66 Re. Powick Priory This priory, in a suburb of Exeter... Y 67 Re. St Nicholas's one of Exters most distinctive neighbourhoods Y 68 Posloe Priory Now in the eastern suburbs of Exeter Y 77 Luxford, meanwhile, has argued that for the modern historian, the significance of the Order is what their own expressed beliefs reveal of their own—and likely more general—views of the priesthood: that, for example, "monks and nuns blindly followed leaders, were idolatrous, avaricious, even luxurious (thus 'Brothelyngham')" The beliefs about monasticism that their behaviour exhibited are revealing—monks and nuns blindly followed leaders, were idolatrous, avaricious, even luxurious (thus 'Brothelyngham). Partial: the source doesn't make clear the position is one for the modern historian - it just says "The beliefs about monasticism", rather than clarifying whose beliefs. The rest is fine Removed his suggestion that "modern historians have argued..."? 78 One of the only known English examples of popular theatrics under the guise of religion, argues the Chaucerian Glending Olsen, it went through a multitude of forms, beginning as a version of the French Abbeys of Misrule and ending up as a fundraising exercises he discusses and edits. for the sermon joyeux... The authors establish some linkage between parody sermons and ritual festivity. One example of popular play with religious forms in England is the Order of Brothelingham. Known only through Bishop John de Grandisson's complaint in 1348, it seems to be a rare English analogue to the abbeys of misrule in France. It featured a mock-abbot in monastic costume and some sort of ceremony with followers worshipping ("adorantes") him to the sound of a trumpet, then turned into a moneyraising venture. Y

• Done. All of it, I think - if I've missed any, please let me know and I'll go over that one too. Around forty refs checked with only one very minor quibble. I'm going to AGF if there are any others that I haven't seen from the article. - SchroCat (talk) 18:03, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

• Thanks very much for all that, SchroCat, much appreciated, and I think I've attended to all your adjacent comments, although my choice of the massive table was perhaps not the best for clarity! Cheers, SN54129 11:03, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

More comments from Smalljim

Only a short break! Thanks for the work on the references in that huge table. I've been looking through it and have spotted a few issues that it hasn't picked up on:

• In "Source material" you write that H-R was "commissioned" by his bishop, whereas North (ODNB) states that he began work "at the bishop's suggestion". In none of H-R's three Grandisson volumes does he mention a commission, so I suggest the wording should be changed.

• Welcome back. Gone with 'suggestion' per yours.

• You cite "They were published two years later" [than 1885] to North. North doesn't say that, and the three volumes were published in 1894, 1897 and 1899.

• No that was me misreading '85 for 95', unluckily. However North doesn't provide those three dates either, so 'several years' should suffice.

• Again citing North, you note that H-R restricted himself to "indexing their contents ... although the letter itself was fully transcribed". This gives the wrong impression. Some of H-Rs work on other bishops' registers was indeed restricted to calendaring, but he fully transcribed all of Grandisson's extant registers. What he did with other registers isn't relevant here and I suggest that whole sentence should be removed.

• The problem here is that we have a reliable secondary source that so says something, but doesn't say, for example, "he fully transcribed all of Grandisson's extant registers", merely that he indexed them in totalis., and she doesn't make exception. On second thoughts, Chope can be read to imply the letter was transcribed completely.

• Also, in renumbering the Luxford page from 146 to 143, you have apparently missed four citations because there are now references for both pages (refs 6 and 7 as I write).

• Good ole Luxford!

• Hi again Smalljim, are you satisfied with SN's responses to your source review comments? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:51, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

A few others I've noticed in the lead:

• In the first sentence, shouldn't it be in the mid 14th century?

• Indeed.

• In the first para, Brothelyngham is missing its "n".

• A calamitous failuser of ctrl+f...

• In the caption "...officials wherefrom he ordered..." could be better worded.

  Yes, it was slightly convoluted... tweaked.

Best  —Smalljim  21:36, 2 April 2023 (UTC) (Sorry, I edited some <br>s etc in the table because I use the syntax highlighter gadget, and everything was pink. I forgot to take the edits out after - hope that's OK.  —Smalljim )

Thanks for today's timely prompts, Gog. I have no problem at all with SN's speedy and good-natured responses to the many points I have raised. However I do still have a problem: I keep finding more issues with the text. I've been taking copies of the whole article and scribbling on them with a red pen. Although I admit that on this fifth review, some of the red ink is getting paler, I'm still finding enough inaccuracies to prevent me from supporting. Here are a few (this version):

• Refs 70, 71 and 74 should all be to ref 42. There is no note 2 on p 1055 as claimed by ref 71 and the other two refer to note 1.

Strictly I needn't reference footnotes at all, per WP:V! But I agree that consistency is best. Sorted.

• In the short "Later events" section, (a) the date in the 4th sentence should be 1352 (9 August), not 1353.

Quite!

(b) There's no evidence (unless it's in ref 41) that the performance was actually "called Ludum Noxium" - in Wasson that's a Latin phrase (in lower case) translated as "an objectionable diversion".

Removed two words to avoid obfuscation, keeping the ref to Brewer.

And (c) in the last sentence you have that the group was excommunicated almost immediately: "which we in this writing impose upon them" (cited to Wasson), but read around that and what Wasson actually says is "...under pain of greater excommunication which we in this writing impose upon them and any one of them thenceforward if they do not effectively obey these warnings and prohibitions henceforward." (my italics)

I beg to disagree as an over-contextualisation. What you have added does indeed state that anyone (recidivists, et al.) will suffer excommunication if they rejoin the group in the future, but one cannot avoid the operative phrase "which we in this writing". This clearly indicates the present, i.e. that he is doing it as he writes. However, I have added a few words noting the implications for the future also.

Two experienced editors arguing over the interpretation of a primary source? Surely not! It's a minor and peripheral point and unless you can find an RS that clarifies what the bishop meant, I think the last sentence of "Later events" should just be removed.  —Smalljim  09:53, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Stone me. First you want it changed, now removed completely! Particularly ironic since the first half of your review was spent arguing about primary sources! Stone me! But I agree that what happens in 1352 can be glossed, so in the interest of continued collegiality have moved the reference to excommunication and deleted that last sentence. But if you were giving out financial advice, who'd need a recession?! :p SN54129 12:28, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

• The first sentence of "Historiography" states that H-R first published G's registers in 1897 - no, he published the first volume in 1894.

Well; maybe. But it took him 13 years to get to this, the relevant volume, so have recast the emphasis onto this one (after all, when the other volumes were published does not seem particularly pertinent to the reader?)

There's plenty more red ink on my latest copy, but I really don't have the time at present to devote to explaining it clearly, and there are still chunks of text that I haven't examined yet and sources that I haven't seen - I had intended that this should be a short process for both of us!

Please take into account my regretful decision opinion that this article in its current state is not suitable for promotion to FA.  —Smalljim  22:13, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for that Small. Could you help me out by letting me know which FAC criterion or criteria it fails. And, if possible, some brief details of why? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:00, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Sure. I'm sorry for the upset: it was a hard decision to make and a tough opinion to express. To avoid any misunderstanding I've amended the word "decision" to "opinion" above.

Regarding the FA criteria, it would have to be the second clause of 1(c). Had I not come along to look closely at the sources I wonder whether the article would have been promoted with many of its inaccuracies intact - each one minor in itself, but together certainly not amounting to our "very best work". The accurate representation of what reliable sources say is surely the single most important aspect of Wikipedia. Best,  —Smalljim  21:38, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

And I thank you, Smalljim as the ability to turn an occasional typo into the greatest hoax since Hitler Diaries is a joy to watch. Joke, naturally. No hard feelings. These five points addressed with pleasure, although I seem to have ballsed up your formatting in answering you above; apologies. Albeit references to red pens are mildly patronising, I feel. Cheers! All the best, SN54129 19:15, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Sorry about my red pen, but it's really how I work, either on paper or on screen with the aid of a Wacom tablet. Would purple ink be better? :)  —Smalljim  09:53, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Further investigation has thrown up another error. It's under "Riotousness", in the 4th para. Ever since SN54129 posted the first version of the article in July 2019 one sentence has stated:

To the Church, though, they were a criminal gang who–expanding their operations from the city–invaded local towns and villages, where, says Chambers, they "beset in a great company the streets and places",[7] many of them on horse.[11]

Where is the evidence for this expansion and these invasions outside Exeter? I can't find any. It's certainly not in Grandisson's letter or its translations (the only primary source that describes the events), nor can I see that any scholars have even suggested it. And significantly the quote from Chambers (reference 7, see Internet Archive), is missing three important words from the end, viz. "beset in a great company the streets and places of the city" (my italics).

Wow.  —Smalljim  20:01, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks SN for dealing with this. I would have appreciated it if you'd given me some credit for spotting your long-standing error instead of silently embedding the fix in this extensive edit attributed to Lingzhi's comments, but I do understand why you chose not to. The important thing is that the article is slightly more accurate now :)  —Smalljim  18:53, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

@Smalljim: I note, around 13 May, an Ip/anon was edit warring on your behalf at one point—what gives?! In any case, please cast your gimlet eye over Bonville–Courtenay feud; you'll remember it from back in the day, but the troublemaker has been long removed from theatre since then. SN54129 19:59, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that it might be beneficial if I checked over your extensive edits to that article as well?  —Smalljim  22:30, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

"Extensive edits", you mean like how I rewrote the thing to stop an edit war?! SN54129 13:00, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

This is off-topic, but you must be referring to William Bonville, 1st Baron Bonville, not Bonville–Courtenay feud. Your WP:3O and later rewrite were helpful in breaking the deadlock there – see Talk:William Bonville, 1st Baron Bonville/Archive 1, etc. Note also that the intransigent editor was not the one you referred to in your deleted post of 16 April on this page. You really must take more care to ensure that your content matches the sources!  —Smalljim  23:41, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes but wasn't NFart or whatever a sock of Architect123, like the other guy Lobsta SN54129 13:22, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Even more comments from Smalljim

• I've made a few edits to the article today: I hope they are uncontroversial. However, I've ended with the addition of a failed verification template to the "Socio-religious" sub-section.  —Smalljim  22:30, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

  Once again I have to descend into the Mire. I make you a free present of your changes. But WHAT THE ACTUAL? Failed Ver? It's at the top of the page! Don't they teach French down there? Ou est-ce que vous discutez toujours de la confiture sur la crème?! SN54129 13:00, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

And it appears that I have to pull you out again. Here's your sentence and what I assume is the relevant extract from Chambers:

Such "fool societies",[7] while relatively common in France, were rare in England, argues the scholar E. K. Chambers,[7] and that of Brothelyngham is one of the few known to modern historians.[8][note 2]

"Wireker was an Englishman, and the 'Order' founded in the Speculum by Brunellus, the Ass, was clearly suggested by the sociétés joyeuses. Traces of such sociétés in England are, however, rare." (Chambers, p. 383)

Throughout the article you have, as required, scrupulously followed WP:V by adding a citation immediately after a quotation. Here, then, a reader would expect to see the words "fool societies" in the source. They aren't there. It's not a matter of whether I can read French, but a matter of compliance with MOS:PMC.

However... Is it possible that you intended to cite Busby (ref 8, at the end of the sentence) here instead of Chambers? I note that Chambers doesn't verify that the societies were relatively common in France either, but Busby does, sort of, and mentions "Fool Societies" several times. If so, then change that and you're back on dry land (for a while). Thanks for accepting my other changes.  —Smalljim  00:12, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

And thanks for fixing this too.  —Smalljim  12:39, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

• I've tidied up the second part of the section "Later events". There was confusion over the participants – probably compounded by Chambers' mis-translation of "allutarii" as "cloth-dressers" (in The Medieval Stage vol II 1903, p.190), as recognised by Coulton (and see also Wasson's Latin glossary, p.535). Wasson, in his endnotes on pp 439-440, is helpful here about the timing of G's letter too. Incidentally I don't think you've made use of Wasson's notes about Brothelyngham on p.439 – he makes some interesting comments (what's a "hocking game"?).  —Smalljim  13:06, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
• I meant to ask, in view of Lingzhi's comments below about the use of language, whether it is really worthwhile quoting Coulton's "contumely and opprobrium", or whether making use of simpler words would be better.  —Smalljim  13:15, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

  Indeed, Smalljim and I make you a present of this Smorgasbord or Brothelyngham! Do you deny the richness of Latin, AKA if we had to learn it why should any other sod get away with it?! Personally, I think it's catnip for sics and spelling wars, resulting in a new addition to WP:LAME! So yeah, would get rid, but sometimes a direct quote is handy, esp for Latin, which can often be transcribed with various emphases. In any case, apologies re. delays in commenting here, not this time silently making changes, but rather, making changes quickly but then meaning to comment here at same as finishing a small project which took longer than expected, vís a vís, was it Crystal Gayle who sang, 'Don't it make your redlinks Blue'? SN54129 13:36, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Re: episcopal register, I noted your thanks just four days ago. You certainly work fast! I was looking into this too and had got as far as collecting eight sources, but hadn't written a word yet – I suppose I'll just check yours instead :)) Oddly, I don't think any of my sources are the same as yours: I'll list them on the new article's talk.  —Smalljim  14:10, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

I assure you, I had no desire to steal your thunder if you were preparing to write it—I am afraid I interpreted you to be just making passing comment, whimsical, on why we *should* have an article, rather than expressing the intention of doing so yourself. I wrote it in the spirit of the collegiality that has otherwise marked our relations during these proceedings, i.e. you wanted an article, and you got it. However, this not being a Burger Kings, you don't necessarily get it your way :p but, seriously, it's only a short article that turned into a list, so undoubtedly there are unused and underused sources. WP:NOTFINISHED is the order of the day! SN54129 18:30, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

No problem at all. I'm glad you've written it. The world would have been waiting for weeks or months if it was left to me.  —Smalljim  21:19, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

And those two new sources you added, yeah, I reckon we can mine them pretty thoroughly for good material. SN54129 16:36, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi Serial Number 54129, is this mining still ongoing, or has it concluded, one way or another? Ta. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:12, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Gog the Mild, the 'mining' there refers to a completely different article, that came out of discussion here at Smalljim's suggestion a few weeks ago now. Cheers! SN54129 10:33, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

D'oh! That will teach me to read all of the comments and not just cherry pick. I was trying to put that off, but I think that the time has come. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:24, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

SC

Putting down a marker. - SchroCat (talk) 22:13, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Having spent a number of years living in Devon, I'm always delighted to see an Exeter-centred article appearing at FAC, particularly the non-symmetrical frontage of its cathedral.

Overall

• There is some overcapitalisation of "order" when you are not referring to the Order of Brothelyngham. These include, but are not limited to: "fake religious Order" (lead); "a pseudo-religious Order" and "the social Order" (Socio-religious); and "Grandisson issued an Order" (Later events). These uses of "order" are not shorthand for the "Brothelyngham Order" and should be lower case

Lead

• "city of Exeter": maybe " city of Exeter, Devon?
• "the faux religious dressed "...?????
• "The Bishop clearly": lower case B, per CAPS

I'm going to stop here and work through some of the queries on the sources (no point in doing the prose review if this fails the source review), but hope to be able to return afterwards. - SchroCat (talk) 17:12, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

I've addressed these points (I think!) SchroCat; thanks for them, and thanks for looking over the sourcing. That's ball-breaking, I know, so don't feel it's incumbent on you to do them all! Cheers, SN54129 11:49, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Only a few more from me:

Name

• "he scholar Ian Mortimer": "he scholar"? is that like "He Man"?

• :) well caught!

Riotousness

• "Hemisch surmises": Henisch?

• Done.

• "On 11 July that year Grandisson, writing from Chudleigh[33]—his main headquarters outside of his Cathedral[48]—instructed his chief agents in Exeter—the dean, the archdeacon,[7] and the rector[49] of Exeter Cathedral—to investigate the Order and its members,[7] whom Grandisson referred to as "evil persons".[43]" This sentence tries to do a bit too much, I think, with the two dashed-off clauses. Additionally, "the dean, the archdeacon,[7] and the rector": I'm not sure you use the serial comma elsewhere (although I haven't checked fully, so my error if you do)

• Yes, I couldn't see any other serial commas with, but my eyes are a bit manky and there are, of course, hundreds of the buggers!
  I divided that one massive sentence into three smaller ones, and cut out some repetition. Much better?

• "the creation of much new in his diocese": I think this is too open to misinterpretation. He probably didn't complain about a new house being built, or new crops planted in a field, but to religious change instead.

• Absolutely true. How about "He also seems to have had an antipathy to religious innovation in the diocese, opposing, for example, popular religion to the building of new chapels." By the way, I got an edit-conflict there-thanks for reverting the numbnuts.

• "his letter of the 11th": probably best to go with "letter of 11 July"

• Done.

Historiography

• "nay, rather,the horror": space needed before "the"

• Done.

That's the lot, I think. An interesting piece. - SchroCat (talk) 11:03, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

• Thanks SchroCat, for the review and also for taking on the spot checks as you did. Hopefully, I've dealt with your attendant points also. Cheers! SN54129 11:59, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
• Support All good from me. I'm happy with the changes and with the state of the sources, given the extended review I've done. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:07, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Coordinator comment

• Smalljim did well to reveal a number of problems with the sourcing, and the article is the better for having those issues resolved. Ideally this sort of thing should be sorted prior to FAC nomination, but I for one am in no position to cast stones. SchroCat's exhaustive and detailed check of a large sample of the sources suggests that the issue has been resolved as part of this FAC. As such, I am minded to promote. However, as coordinators should only promote when there is a consensus to do so, and given that Smalljim is entirely reasonably opposing, I wish to check that the "supports" indicated prior to Smalljim and SchroCat completing their look at the sourcing still stand. So, ChrisTheDude and Tim riley, do you wish to withdraw your indications of support? Apologies for dragging you back to this nomination, and thank you for your time. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:58, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

If consensus is to promote despite my (admittedly vague) warnings of further unresolved problems that I have identified but don't have the time to deal with properly at present, I'll continue to improve the article as time permits after promotion. However, the five points I identified in my post of 16 April (diff), should, I think, be resolved first at least. It appears that my "very best work" bar must be set higher than that of other editors :)  —Smalljim  22:21, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Clocked this and then forgot to reply: apols for delay. I am really not expert enough in the subject to comment either way on the sourcing. It looked, and looks, all right to my layman's eye, and SchroCat's review offers reassurance. I am not inclined to withdraw my support, but will quite understand if the upshot is to make any necessary changes before promoting – whether on the current FAC or on a second attempt. Tim riley talk 13:31, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

As a coordinator, I would like to see at a minimum Smalljim's five concerns addressed before I would promote. Hog Farm _Talk 03:05, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I did the same as Tim - registered this, thought "I'll look at that properly later" and then forgot. My apologies. I feel the same as Tim, but will quite understand if the co-ords feel that issues need addressing before any possible promotion -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:56, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Revisiting this after a break I am in agreement with Hog Farm. Serial Number 54129, any thoughts? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:19, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Yo Gog good break I hope. For the record, I addressed Sj's five points on 24 April, which he addressed the following day to which I made my addressment. It's a bonus that him and I get on so well, that's all I say. I should've stuck with something easy, like the Duke of Norfolk. Or Lancaster, maybe. SN54129 16:36, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

@Smalljim: - are you comfortable with the changes made to address your concerns? Hog Farm _Talk 17:15, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

If you're asking whether I'm now content to support, then no - my opinion of 16 April stands. As I noted, those last five concerns were just a sample.  —Smalljim  12:25, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

An opinion which you described as based on "admittedly vague" warnings yourself, to be fair to others' hardwork :) SN54129 17:33, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

I've found some time for a quick look at a few references. Baker D. (1968) The Later Middle Ages 1216–1485, pp. 204–5 is cited several times in the text. The text of the first instance (3rd para of "Riotousness") reads 'the linguist Derek Baker translated this as "a certain crazy lunatic".[56]'. Baker's book is available for short term loan from the Internet Archive, and the two cited pages are merely a copy of G. G. Coulton's translation from the Latin of a section of Grandisson's Register, as published in Coulton, G. G. (2004) [1918], Social Life In Britain (repr. ed.). So the translation is Coulton's, not Baker's, and Baker provides no commentary of his own here. The second reference to Baker is in the same paragraph, supposedly verifying "The horn was intended to unfavourably contrast with holy bells.[56]" - again this is just Coulton's translation which reads "Then at the sound of a horn, which they have chosen instead of a bell, they led him...". There's no mention of an unfavourable contrast.

Incidentally the OCLC, 9316696, for Marshall doesn't look right, pointing to a Symposium of the Anatomical Society of Great Britain and Ireland.

I'm sorry, but just this little extra investigation reinforces my opinion that this is not FA material.  —Smalljim  11:33, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

• We have to use and cite the secondary source when required, as you should know. Further above in the morass of minutiae you have "highlighted", you complain that I didn't use the latest translation. Now you are complaining because I am using a later source. All this means is that one academic approves of and supports the translation of a previous one. Now, since we rely on secondary sources, we should highlight any tensions between them; but there is no need to do so when a secondary source is citing—and more to the point, agreeing with—a primary one. Otherwise, you would have us double-check the sourcing of every academic text we use. In which case one should probably work for the OUP et alia. In any case, it's good that a later RS confirms an earlier one, and you should rejoice.
  As for Marshall, it's the Syracuse Symposium, nothing to do anatomy. Cheers! SN54129 12:37, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for correcting the OCLC for Marshall (incidentally is she really M. H. M. Marshall? She's credited as Mary H. Marshall in her paper.) I'm pleased that you silently corrected the mistake with the second Baker reference too. However, I don't see why you have not corrected the simple error where you attribute Coulton's translation to Baker. Is this not clear?  —Smalljim  11:39, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

This is no place for jokes
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Suggest withdrawal SN54129 - with your flair for writing (which I really envy) and my nit-picking abilities we should be able, given time, to work this up into the best FA ever. What do you say: will you withdraw this FAC for further work?  —Smalljim  11:41, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

A fragile olive branch carelessly snapped off! So where do we go from here: shall I keep listing problems? With over 50 already reported I don't think so, despite all the red ink still on my printouts.

Coordinators, I'm sorry for the hassle that this is no doubt causing, but I'd appreciate some indication of where this might be going.  —Smalljim  15:16, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

• You mean one or two actual problems among the typos and WP:ILIKEIT you've bludgeoned the discussion with over the last few weeks, combined with repeated patronising passive aggression, I'm surprised that you expected otherwise, frankly. SN54129 15:44, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

No I mean the dozen or more significant corrections and improvements that you have made to the article as a result of my comments. On top of the other 40-odd minor changes, which are of a similar nature to those raised by other reviewers - gotta keep those serial commas under control... And no, your response to my offer was not unexpected (apart from the manner of expressing it, which was novel!), but I assume you see why it was necessary to make that offer. Can I take it that you won't look at the one or two outstanding issues above, or any more that I might raise? Cleaning up the article is all that concerns me here, and that would be far easier without the FAC conventions getting in the way.  —Smalljim  19:59, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Ling (Support, see below)

• Placeholder... first glance, might want to simplify language a bit. But not a huge problem. [Are you gonna put Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence in "See Also"? :-)]
• The whole discussion of "theater" was dropped into a footnote ("Chope points out that..."), which seems odd to me. I'd suggest either putting the point into body text, or deleting it entirely...?
• Two sentences by same source seem to make same point: "Grandisson noted that, although the gang called this a ludus,[note 7]—"under colour and veil of a game, or rather a farce", he says[61]—in his view, "it was sheer rapine" and "comments Grandisson, "though they seem to do this under colour and cloak of play, or rather of buffoonery, yet this is beyond doubt no other than theft and rapine, since the money is taken from the unwilling". Maybe one of these two could be deleted. Perhaps the first, I think. Or combine it with the second. In fact, two paragraphs seem to make the same point: the one beginning "Grandisson noted..." and the one beginning "They were debauched...". And then a second point, about the bishop's response, begins with "They were certainly disobedient...". Or perhaps that point actually begins with the following sentence, "It is unknown whether they heeded..." In that case, "They were certainly disobedient..." is the last sentence of a paragraph about their behavior and the mention of the bishop would be a transition to the next topic, the bishop's reaction/response... My point here is that the dividing line between these two paragraphs seems to have been somewhat imprecisely selected, and there is a bit of repetition... Actually... there is some repetition/overlap with the paragraph before those two, the one that begins "The Brothelyngham men, dressed as monks". Maybe rethink the organization of all this text. I'm going to say something that may sound stupid, but there have been moments in my life (my dissertation was one, I confess) where I printed out stretches of text, double-spaced, then took scissors and cut each sentence into its own strip of paper. Then I organized the sentences into piles according to topic. It was helpful to me, at least.
• Name-dropping "the Lightbringer" would be cryptic to many non-Westerners, even despite the wikilink. perhaps a few more explanatory words, including "devil"... I live in a Chinese-speaking area, and many of my students seem to be familiar with the word "Satan" (transliterated as 撒但, Sā dàn). § Lingzhi (talk|check refs) 09:06, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
• " the religious community of commonly indulging in against their Rule." What? Whose Rule? What Rule? The rule of a ruler, or the rules of a religious order, or...? Please explain a bit.
• "One of the only known English examples.." Confusing/confounding topics here? Surely the Order of Brothelyngham did not go on to be a fundraising exercise. § Lingzhi (talk|check refs) 09:13, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
• Speaking of simplifying language, I have a PhD in English/Applied linguistics, and I have never seen the Latin word "vice" used before as in the side-by-side translations. My hat's off (sincerely, not sarcastically) to your education, but perhaps that could be changed somehow. § Lingzhi (talk|check refs) 09:17, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
• Going back to the lede, "The group appears to have named itself after a non-existent place, Brothelyngham. Such a name would have suggested chaos, wretchedness or some similar context to contemporaries." I wonder if "Brothelyngham" should be in quotation marks here. Perhaps one or two words about "brothel" as in footnote 9. Moreover, that footnote "a termination which in Devon everyone would understand" doesn't mean that anyone in Taiwan would understand it. You're writing for an international audience. Just plainly state what "-ham" means and ditch the bit about Devon... actually, you might benefit from re-reading this article with an eye toward finding references cryptic to a foreign audience. § Lingzhi (talk|check refs) 09:27, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
• In the lede, would "priests and nuns not living according to their vows.. " be better as "according to their religious vows", or as the more specific "according to their vows of clerical celibacy"? § Lingzhi (talk|check refs) 12:07, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
• "a lively tradition of popular entertainment ... is missing closing quotation marks. I would just stick them in myself, but I'm not 100% sure where that quote ends. § Lingzhi (talk|check refs) 12:34, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
• "such sport is as much folklore as drama" I'm not exactly sure what that is supposed to contrast or communicate.
• In the lede again, "They may well have been satirising the church, which by then...". When you write "by then", are you contrasting this period with an earlier one, in which the church was not perceived as corrupt? The easy way out might be to just delete "by then". § Lingzhi (talk|check refs) 12:51, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
• Support I have read the article twice now, top-to-bottom, with a lot of looking back-and-forth... I feel very comfortable with the depth and breadth of coverage, because everything we know about this topic comes from merely one or two mentions in one primary source, and yet we have a veritable smorgasbord of RS secondary sources. This topic is nether controversial nor subject to pop-culture edit warring, etc. SN is a well-known and respected editor, and other reviewers apparently are raking/have raked this article over the coals (above). Forex, I see something about "five points" etc. I have no such points. I only hope to tweak the prose a little for clarity. If a coord is antsy to close, consider me as a Support. If not, I will try to tweak a little more. Tks. § Lingzhi (talk|check refs) 14:04, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
  • I came, I saw, I tweaked. +S  § Lingzhi (talk|check refs) 15:29, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Coordinator comment

This seems to have quietened down so I will have a look through with a view to closing, one way or another. There is an oppose and withdraw, on a clearly stated rationale around source to text integrity or lack thereof. There are four supports, one of which included an extensive check of the use of the secondary sources cited. All four supports have been entered or reaffirmed since the concerns started to be raised, most stating that they are happy to rely on this review of sources in respect of source to text integrity. There seem to be no explicit issues outstanding, although the suggestion to withdraw and check for any is a reasonable one.

This is a difficult one to call, but I don't think there will be more to assist me to come on the point at issue. On balance I believe that the four supports, relying on a 90% check of the secondary sources, qualifies as a consensus to promote, even using the high bar which FAC commonly employs. And even in the face of a reasoned oppose on the same issue.

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:13, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.