Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/June 2024

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

The article was promoted by David Fuchs via FACBot (talk) 26 June 2024 [1].

I'm God

[edit]
Nominator(s): Skyshiftertalk 19:27, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In 2007, Clams Casino was a random guy, producing random instrumentals for people to rap over it. He didn't get much attention until he got in touch with Lil B in 2009 and produced his album 6 Kiss. One track that immediately got attention was "I'm God", with its ethereal production sampling Imogen Heap. Unexpectedly, Clams Casino and Lil B would be cited as the pioneers of the cloud rap subgenre, with "I'm God" being cited as "cloud rap's seminal track" and "the birth of cloud rap" in the following years. However, it took over a decade for it to be released officially, due to its sample usage. Over these years where Clams Casino tried to get the sample cleared, the song received a large cult following on the Internet. After eleven years, "I'm God" was officially released in 2020 with Imogen Heap properly credited. The article is pretty short, but I believe it meets all FA criteria. Thank you! Skyshiftertalk 19:27, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]
  • ""I'm God" is an instrumental track by American producer Clams Casino and British singer Imogen Heap" - if it's got vocals then it isn't an instrumental
    • Will respond below
  • "incorporates clips from Perdues dans New York"=> "incorporates clips from the French film Perdues dans New York"
    • Done
  • "Volpe said he didn't find "I'm God" unusual" => "Volpe said that he did not find "I'm God" unusual"
    • Done
  • "He sent the instrumental to different artists" - you just said it sampled Heap's vocals, therefore it wasn't an instrumental
    • Will respond below
  • ""I'm God" is an instrumental cloud rap song" - I know I keep mentioning this, but it can't be "an instrumental song". By definition a song has vocals and an instrumental doesn't
    • Will respond below
  • "when it still wasn't available" => "when it still was not available"
    • Done
  • "with Internet users stating the song's impact while they had depression" - this doesn't really work grammatically. Maybe replace "stating" with "describing"
    • Done
  • That's what I got -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:15, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ChrisTheDude: would you have any more comments regarding the article? Skyshiftertalk 22:54, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]
  • Can you explain why Red Bull and Vice are high-quality reliable sources for this article?
  • Spin reference should have via=Google Books
    • Done
  • The composition section and first paragraph of the reception and legacy section use quotations for almost every sentence; cut this down to meet MOS:QUOTE
    • Reduced some
  • Clams Casino Productions is listed in the infobox but not in the article text
    • Done
  • 4:37 is listed in the infobox but not in the article text
    • Done
  • I didn't do spotchecks

Examples of sources that seem useful but aren't cited:

Because of the overquotation and that there could easily be over a 20% increase in the article's sources, I am going to oppose for now per WP:FACR 1c as I don't think the article is currently "a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature". Best, Heartfox (talk) 02:34, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • Thank you for your comments! They are in progress. I did a quick skim through the sources and many of them wouldn't add substantial content to the article; many of them seem to mention "I'm God" in passing. However, I'll look at them more closely later and see which of them will add substantial content to the article. Skyshiftertalk 09:44, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have analyzed the sources presented and all of them refer to Lil B's version. This is not a problem per se; I've included this source, for example, which lists "I'm God" as a Lil B song, but because it is a list of the "Best Rap Beats", it focus on the production of the song, so it is suitable for inclusion. The sources you provided also say something about the production, though not anything substantial, honestly. The MusicRadar source says the production is "sultry, downtempo", and the Guardian said that it is "dreamy, diaphanous", only. Either way, I'll see how I can add them to the article, while at the same time fixing the quote issues. I'll also add a sentence or two to Reception talking about the influence of Lil B's version. Skyshiftertalk 19:39, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Heartfox: Some of the sources have been added and I tried to paraphrase what I could; there were some sentences that I think would divert too much of their original meaning if paraphrased. Let me know if you have any more suggestions! Skyshiftertalk 20:11, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Heartfox: would you have any more comments regarding the article? Skyshiftertalk 22:54, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for incorporating some of the sources. There are still a few issues with overquotation. In the second paragraph of the composition section, for example, there are more quotes than sentences. Heartfox (talk) 03:35, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Heartfox: I've reduced a few more quotes. Skyshiftertalk 17:07, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Heartfox: sorry for pinging again! Everything has been addressed; I'd like to ask if the changes are sufficient for you to support the article or, at least, strike the oppose. Skyshiftertalk 12:36, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for my absence, this passses the source review. Thank you for putting together this article on an obscure but important song. Heartfox (talk) 12:14, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Draken Bowser

[edit]

Huh, both are mostly unknown to me. Ok, ok, I've heard Hide and Seek and Derulo's Whatcha Say, but who hasn't? Comments below:

  • Lead: "real name Michael Volpe" - is this necessary considering it's immediately restated in the body? "being unofficially uploaded by fans" - This is a bit unclear compared to the the body, since the lead is quite short I think there's room for a slight expansion.
    • Stating that Clams Casino's name is Michael Volpe is needed in some way, because I refer to him as Volpe throughout the lead; changed to "reuploaded", unsure how to clarify it better.
  • Background and release: "He considers its vocal sample the main aspect he likes from the song." - This is close enough to the source that I'd prefer just quoting him. Preference: "but had encountered issues as many people were involved, since 'Just for Now' washad been released through a major label."
    • Rephrased; changed.

That's it! I'm trying to make sense of one of my c/e notes, if I manage to find out what I intended I'll get back to you. Regards. Draken Bowser (talk) 16:58, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Draken Bowser: done! Skyshiftertalk 18:51, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Draken Bowser: would you have any more comments regarding the article? Skyshiftertalk 22:54, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing I'm wondering is whether we might put something even bolder as the first sentence under "Reception and legacy". Something like: "'I'm God' is considered highly influential in the cloud rap genre." But, that's just food for thought. Draken Bowser (talk) 14:18, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note

[edit]

This has been open for three weeks and has yet to pick up a support. Unless it attracts considerable movement towards a consensus to promote over the next three or four days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:15, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Media review

[edit]

Not so fast! :)

  • Three works of media are utilized in this article; two of them are non-free, while the third is licensed for Creative Commons. Both works of non-free media have sufficient fair-use rationales, being brief, small, and/or low-resolution enough not to impact the commercial viability of those works while still fulfilling worthwhile purposes in the article.
  • All three works of media contribute encyclopedic value to the article.
  • The two images used in the article both have sufficient alt text.
  • Sourcing checks out for all three works of media.

Media review passes; support on media alone. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 00:55, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from NegativeMP1

[edit]

I reviewed this article when it was at GAN a month ago. My opinion is indifferent from then, for I found few issues at the time, and I definitely don't see any issues at present. λ NegativeMP1 17:48, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Joeyquism

[edit]

Because this still needs reviews and I love this song, I figured I'd take a stab at a review. Marking territory here for now, should be back in a bit. joeyquism (talk) 11:25, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I'm going to have to put down an oppose for now. The prose is undeniably of GA-quality, but I feel that it misses the level of a FA. Below are some things I've noted; feel free to refuse suggestions with justification.

  • I'm noticing that above, others have noted the wording of Clams Casino, real name Michael Volpe. I feel that you could eliminate this by introducing him in the first sentence as "American producer Michael Volpe, known professionally as Clams Casino, and British singer Imogen Heap." You could also use this wording in the first sentence of the background section. Let me know your thoughts on this.
  • Volpe then sent the track to American rapper Lil B, who rapped over it. The final result appeared on Lil B's debut album, 6 Kiss (2009). - Can likely be combined/edited to be something like "Volpe sent the track to American rapper Lil B; the instrumental is featured on a song of the same name on Lil B's debut album, 6 Kiss (2009)." Feel free to experiment with the wording, but I believe one good sentence would suffice.
  • The sample is Volpe's favorite aspect of the song. - Tone sort of conflicts with the following sentence (Volpe said he did not find "I'm God" unusual or important and was indifferent to it at first.) Maybe try playing around with the placement of this sentence in the paragraph it appears in, or including this information in a different sentence. I might just be acting pedantic here.
  • Lil B then recorded his vocals over it. The final result appeared on Lil B's debut solo studio album, 6 Kiss, released on December 22, 2009. This was his first ever collaboration. - Combine these sentences - something like "Lil B then recorded his vocals over it, and the final result appeared on his debut solo studio album, 6 Kiss, released on December 22, 2009, marking his first-ever collaboration" would suffice. I'm noticing a lot of shorter sentences that make the reading experience choppier. Will expand upon this later.
  • Originally, Volpe didn't consider the need to clear the "Just for Now" sample because he wasn't focused on the business aspects and didn't anticipate earning money from his work - The term "business aspects" is a bit vague. I feel that you can omit that part.
  • Volpe said that Heap was interested as long as she was credited; Volpe said she enjoyed "I'm God". - Change the second "Volpe" to "he".
  • On April 24, 2020, the song received an official release as part of Volpe's Instrumental Relics mixtape after he got the rights to sample "Just for Now". Heap is credited alongside him. - Combine these; something like "On April 24, 2020, the song was officially released as part of Volpe's Instrumental Relics mixtape following his acquisition of the rights to sample 'Just for Now', with Heap receiving credit alongside him."
  • Simpson described the drums as "sludgy". - This is the first mention of Simpson in the article, should be "Paul Simpson of AllMusic".
    I went ahead and also fixed the following mention of Simpson in the sentence "Simpson said that the vocals, which bring a deep, cavernous feel, were rearranged with a meticulousness akin to Philip Glass", though I should note that this reads a bit strangely too. I think something like "Simpson said that the vocals brought a deep, cavernous feel, and noted that they were rearranged with a meticulousness akin to Philip Glass" would flow better. joeyquism (talk) 13:37, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Donne Skyshiftertalk 11:19, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "I'm God" received a cult following on the Internet, being one of the first known productions by Volpe. - I wouldn't say the track's status as one of Volpe's earliest known works is the primary factor contributing to its cult following. Perhaps this information is not entirely pertinent to the paragraph's focus either? Let me know what you think; I may just be missing some context here.
    • My intention was not to say that one thing influenced the other; that's just my bad prose acting up again. Reordered, though I don't know if that fixes the issue? I'd still want to say that this was "one of the first known productions by Volpe" somewhere however. Skyshiftertalk 13:28, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is better, but I think that "one of the first known productions by Volpe" should go somewhere in the background section; maybe as part of the sentence "I'm God" was produced around April 2009"? Apologies for not having this insight earlier - I did this review first thing in the morning, even before I'd had a chance to make my coffee lol. joeyquism (talk) 13:40, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think this sentence is more related to reception than background. Skyshiftertalk 11:19, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Red Bull's Cunningham called it one of the most expansive hits from the era of hip-hop's blogosphere - Wikilink "blogosphere"
  • An unofficial music video for "I'm God" which uses clips from the French film Perdues dans New York (1989), uploaded before the song's official release, had 25 million views by May 2020. - Uses too many clauses; a winding sentence. Maybe remove the commas or rephrase?
    Looking better! Though, I'd also mention the fact that it was uploaded to YouTube. joeyquism (talk) 13:45, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, don't wikilink it - I noticed that it's already wikilinked in the paragraph above. joeyquism (talk) 13:46, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Done Skyshiftertalk 11:19, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The video became synonymous with the track. Its comment section contains users mourning the death of people close to them. - I feel as if the information in the first sentence can be included in the preceding sentence; similarly, I think you can move the information in the second sentence to the following sentence.
  • According to Balram, the song received a cult following partly due to two suicide stories being related to it - Uses passive voice; something like "in part because of its association with two suicide stories" would probably be better.
  • David Higgs, who referred to it in 4chan posts - I recognize that this was a suicide note after reading the source, but I think that this can be made clearer by saying "who referred to the song in an apparent suicide note posted to 4chan".

@Skyshifter: Apologies for the long block of text and the opposition vote, especially after so many weeks of this discussion laying dormant. I understand that you put a lot of hard work into creating this article, which I must clarify that I do appreciate greatly - I really love both this song and its sample, and I'm very grateful that you've given the topic so much attention and care. I'm definitely willing to go over it again once these are fixed, and I am open to discussion with you regarding any of the points that I made above. Also, feel free to call out any pedantry that you may have seen from me here. Thank you again for your dedication to this article, and I hope to hear back from you soon. joeyquism (talk) 12:53, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Joeyquism: thank you for your review! All applied. I'm quite bad at prose as a non-native speaker, but I'll try my best to improve. Skyshiftertalk 13:28, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Skyshifter: Looking a lot better, thank you for the quick edits! As for prose, you're doing a wonderful job regardless of fluency; the points you make come across clearly, and your writing style is engaging. That being said, I have just a few more comments:
  • Originally, Volpe didn't... - I would avoid using contractions like "didn't" and "wasn't". There isn't really much of a rule against this on here that I'm aware of seeing as their usage is undoubtedly proper English, but in an academic context I feel they seem less formal and more colloquial.
  • As the years went by, Volpe tried to have the sample cleared for an official release, but encountered issues as many people were involved, since "Just for Now" had been released through a major label. - "As the years went by" should be substituted for something less fanciful; try "In the following years". Also, I'm not sure if "as many people were involved" is necessary; perhaps cut to "but encountered issues as "Just for Now" had been released through a major label"
  • Done
  • In 2019, Heap's team opened up to an official release. - "Heap's team indicated they were open to..."
  • Done
  • Schube of Complex said that the track had been pseudoviral for multiple years by 2016. - I'm not sure what "pseudoviral" means in this case. I would implement the quote instead: "pseudo-viral for a number of years".
  • Done
I won't scrutinize any further; the rest of the article is some great work, and at this point I'm just voicing my overly analytical opinions. Thank you again! joeyquism (talk) 14:14, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Joeyquism: all responded! Skyshiftertalk 11:19, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks a lot better! Thank you for your hard work on this article, and I hope you have a great week ahead! Support joeyquism (talk) 14:23, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild

[edit]

Recusing to review. So far I have only looked at the lead.

  • In the lead you don't say when it was originally produced, nor when it was sent to Lil B, which causes confusion. That first paragraph has just two date in it. The first is "It was officially released on April 24, 2020". So a reader will reasonably assume that it originated around that date. Then "the instrumental is featured on a song of the same name on Lil B's debut album, 6 Kiss (2009)." As this is 11 years earlier one is left thinking that the instrumental originated on 6 Kiss and was copied on to "I'm God". I assume this is not what happened. It which case the lead needs tweaking to make this clear. Adding the two dates I mention at the start may do the trick.
  • "Volpe released "I'm God" unofficially in 2011 and again in 2012 as part of the Instrumentals 2 mixtape." What is an 'unofficial release'; what was it about the release of Instrumentals 2 that made it 'unofficial'?
  • "it received an official release in 2020". And, how does it differ from an "official release"?
  • "being unofficially reuploaded by fans". Guess which word is not clear? In addition, why would it need to be "reuploaded"?
    • It is unofficial because it was reuploaded by fans, not by Clams Casino himself. This honestly seems fine from the context? Clarified that it was reuploaded to social media. Skyshiftertalk 20:28, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The paragraphs break in an odd, to me, place. Between "... compilation" and "A cloud rap ..." seems more natural.
  • The lead is supposed to make sense when read on its own. Currently it doesn't, IMHO. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:41, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Plan on resolving these by the end of the month. Skyshiftertalk 04:22, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Gog the Mild: All responded! Skyshiftertalk 09:06, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from PerfectSoundWhatever

[edit]

Hey, I'm trying to get more involved with FA, so here's some comments after a readthrough. This is one of my favourite songs as well.

Lead

  • Would prefer "song" to "track" in lead sentence. A "song" is a musical composition, while a "track" is a specific rendition of it, so it feels more precise to use song here.
  • "through Clams Casino Productions" This is not a label label, correct? Should say self-released in my opinion per WP:BLUE. Also, why only mention the streaming label? It was physically released via Second City Prints (per [4], [5])
    • Yes, "Clams Casino Productions LLC" is a label. It is not the same as a self-release; that was in 2011 when he just uploaded "I'm God" to file-sharing services. I am unsure if the physical release is relevant enough to be mentioned in the lead. Skyshiftertalk 20:28, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you explain why Clams Casino Productions LLC is a label in the usual sense? What has been released under it, under than "I'm God". I often see "label" names formatted similar to this when its really just a self-release. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 02:35, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "unofficially in 2011 and again in 2012" per Gog the Mild, I dislike how this reads. Required context is not provided.
  • "it received an official release in 2020" -> "it was officially released in 2020"
  • "'I'm God' is considered a highly influential cloud rap instrumental" -> something like "'I'm God' went on to be influential to the cloud rap genre"
  • Overall, I find the lead's prose to be rather clunky and lacks the flow I would expect from a FA. It's hard to suggest specific changes when it feels like many sentences need a complete restructuring. A round through GOCE would help.

Background and release

Composition

Reception and legacy

Overall

I have to Oppose based on prose-related issues: the prose is currently not "engaging and of a professional standard", especially the lead and background sections. This is not an exhaustive list of issues, as I was only providing comments for prose issues I felt were the most pressing. Hopefully these comments were useful, and good luck! — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 22:43, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Plan on resolving these by the end of the month. Skyshiftertalk 04:22, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Skyshifter, this nomination has been open for more than two months. If it's going to take weeks to potentially address the prose concerns, then it should be archived and the content worked on off-nom. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 11:39, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'll try to resolve these issues today or tomorrow. Skyshiftertalk 13:24, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@PerfectSoundWhatever: All responded! Skyshiftertalk 09:06, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The prose looks a lot better, and my jargon/grammar issues are mostly resolved. I'll support for now. I still feel strongly about the overcite issue but it isn't enough to oppose over.

I have a further 2 suggestions you may want to take.

  • Since cloud rap is such a niche genre, I think the article would benefit from a brief explanation of cloud rap in the background section. For example, explain key characteristics, formation, and history. Like 2-3 sentences.
    • It's hard to do that, as "I'm God" basically originated cloud rap. Either way, I don't think explaining the genre is needed; it is linked in case a reader is interested, and the song's composition is already explained in two paragraphs. Skyshiftertalk 18:00, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • RYM is imperfect but probably represents the best music genre categorization on the web. There are many pre-09 cloud rap releases on its page, for example You'll Cowards Don't Even Smoke Crack (2008). I know a lot of people consider cLOUDDEAD (2001) cloud rap too, and I sort of agree from what I remember of it. What I'm saying is that I disagree with the clear-cut "I'm God invented cloud rap". I don't see why contextualizing the genre's origins wouldn't be useful to the article. It just feels like a non-sequitur when reading, when the influence to cloud rap is discussed in "legacy", but the topic is never introduced in "background". — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 20:58, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm with @PerfectSoundWhatever in not understanding why it would be hard to include a little backround about what cloud rap is. As somebody who knows almost nothing about the subject area, I've found much of this article hard to follow, with a high density of jargon and assumed knowledge. Every time you add some background information, you make it more approachable to people like me, who don't have that assumed knowledge.
        Surprisingly, WP:FACR doesn't (that I can find) say anything about being "understandable to an appropriately broad audience", but that is in WP:GACR, and I assume that anything required by GA is also required by FA. RoySmith (talk) 21:14, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        PS TIL RYM. RoySmith (talk) 23:21, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is "based music"? The article should have a brief contextualization of this. "Based music" is not even mentioned at the redirect target

Thanks — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 02:55, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review! Skyshiftertalk 18:00, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by RoySmith

[edit]

I've just started reading this and I'm finding it tough going. Some specifics:

  • The main body of the article starts with Michael Volpe, known professionally as Clams Casino, became serious about music production in late 2007, when he started publishing his songs online. You haven't even told us who Volpe is, or what he does, so there's no context to help understand this statement.
  • Volpe was using MySpace to contact artists and rappers, sending free beats to them. I have no idea what a "beat" is. I do know what MySpace is, but many readers may not, so this needs to be explained.
  • The track samples "Just for Now" (2005) What does "samples" mean?
  • Volpe did not consider the need to clear the "Just for Now" sample What does "clear" mean?
  • 7" vinyl Use {{convert}} for the size, and link vinyl to Phonograph record
  • In Composition, we finally come to "I'm God" is an instrumental cloud rap song which should be the first sentence of the article. I know what "rap" is, but I have no idea what "cloud rap" is, so that should be explained.
  • the first person to have a positive reaction to the song was Lil B I don't see how the cited source supports the "first person to have ..." assertion.

Overall, there's a lot of jargon. I suspect that for somebody who is well-versed in the genre and its associated argot, this might be a fun read. But as somebody who's neither of those, I'm finding it difficult to get through. For me, "its prose is engaging" is certainly not a true statement.

Looking at the sourcing, I'm concerned that the vast majority of this is cited to just three sources; references 1, 3, and 4 in Special:Permalink/1230128680. It's not just that so much of this is based on this limited selection of sources, but all three of those are dated May 2020, immediately after the song was released on April 24, 2020. WP:FACR requires a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature. I'm not seeing that you've met that by relying so heavily on just these three articles that were written immediately after the release.

And since we're looking at sources, what makes Red Bull, Vice, and/or Complex "high quality reliable sources" as required by WP:FACR? Vice has been discussed on WP:RSN, but no consensus, except possibly "It's too many different things to make any blanket statement". I can't find anything on any of their web sites that talks about their editorial process. Complex looks like a blog to me; https://www.complex.com/author/will-schube says "Joined June 2019 | 31 posts". RoySmith (talk) 01:53, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While it may not look like "a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature" at first glance, it is. These three sources are the most complete and extensive about the subject. They were published right after the official release because it took a decade until that happened. However, multiple other sources from 2011 through 2023 have also been used to give support to other information. Regarding quality, I've explained above in #Source review regarding Vice and Red Bull; regarding Complex, which is marked as reliable on WP:A/S, Will Schube has written for websites such as Billboard, Pitchfork, Spin, and more. These authors have written for multiple reliable publications. For this article, I believe they are high-quality. Skyshiftertalk 08:26, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@RoySmith: All responded! Skyshiftertalk 09:06, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've taken the liberty of moving the Imogen Heap photo next to where she is discussed in the text. RoySmith (talk) 12:50, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Complex was added in Special:Permalink/564293337 with the edit comment being bold: I have not put these sources for discussion on talk, but I don't think they will be challenged. If anyone disagrees, please remove that source and discuss on talk. There is no indication that such a discussion ever took place. I think we need a more substantial evaluation to consider it a high-quality source. RoySmith (talk) 13:14, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It should be considered that Will Schube has written for multiple reliable publications, including Billboard, Pitchfork, Spin, GQ, The Fader, and the Recording Academy website. I believe this specific article is fine to use in this article. Skyshiftertalk 13:50, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I acknowledge that there have been useful improvements made in response to my comments, but I still have concerns about how much this article depends on three particular sources, all published in direct response to the album's release. I also acknowledge that popular music is well outside my normal wheelhouse, so maybe this is just considered normal and acceptable for this genre. Hence, I'm not going to officially venture either an oppose or a support. RoySmith (talk) 14:35, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Understandable. Thanks for your review! Skyshiftertalk 18:00, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 26 June 2024 [6].

Ann Cook (cookery book writer)

[edit]
Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 10:32, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ann Cook is an interesting footnote to culinary history. A professional cook who certainly knew her stuff, she only wrote her work Professed Cookery because she was short of cash – and so that she could blacken the name Hannah Glasse, the sister of the local squire who drove Ann and her husband into bankruptcy. Despite the vitriol in parts of her book, it also contains some fantastic writing about cookery with recipes that work well in the modern kitchen. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:32, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MSincccc

[edit]

Its a fine article as it stands and I had left a few suggestions at the peer review. But I would like to leave a few more. Marker for now. Regards MSincccc (talk) 10:54, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • The Cooks managed the Queen's Head inn on behalf of the landlord, Thomas Pye.
  • The second edition of Professed Cookery was published in 1755, which included a 'Plan of House-keeping' in its contents.
  • In 1739–1740, during the Lent circuit of the assizes, Sir Lancelot Allgood, who held the positions of high sheriff and Member of Parliament, sent a message to the Black Bull that the visiting judge and his party required six bottles of good French wine, and that John Cook should order them in.

The version uses "required" which is more formal than "wanted," fitting the tone for an FA-class article.

  • A second edition of Professed Cookery was published in 1755, which added a 'Plan of House-keeping' to the contents.

I will be happy to extend my support to the nomination once the above suggestions are addressed. Nothing more to complain about. Regards MSincccc (talk) 11:52, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your suggestions. I think the extant text is stronger in these places than the suggested alternatives, but thank you. - SchroCat (talk) 13:28, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SchroCat But I have done a cross-check using multiple other sources. In British English and for Wikipedia, the suggested forms prevailed over the present ones. I will not complain with the rest of the prose. But the above alternatives are finer. Do you still wish to retain the present version of the suggested alternatives? If yes, you are free to do so as its entirely at your discretion. However, please do leave a response for your choice. That would help me to not make similar suggestions in future. Looking forward to hearing from you. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 13:40, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you've been checking, but the alternatives here are not an improvement on the current text. For example, "required" is not a better word than "wanted" - neither superior in meaning or formality; it is a different word with a different meaning (the OED is always a good port of call in such situations and this confirms what I am saying). - SchroCat (talk) 13:55, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SchroCat Well no need to clog about a word then. The article is a well-written one and deserves to be an FA like Glasse's. Support. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 14:08, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by JennyOz

[edit]

G'day SchroCat, I was in middle of the PR but just had to go cook some eggs and when I came back it was gone! So here instead are my first comments...

Short description

  • I haven't read much about these but my limited understanding is to use a brief description without repeating info in article title, (acts like a dab in case there are more than one similarly titled), so remove name etc? I'd suggest something like '18th-century recipe and housekeeping author'

Dodds

  • Dodds is introduced and linked x3. In Life section "the historian Madeleine Hope Dodds considers", in Essay section at "described by the historian Madeleine Hope Dodds as a", and in Historiography and legacy section at "came into the hands of the antiquary Madeleine Hope Dodds, she"

Life

  • who held positions high sheriff and Member of Parliament - positions of?
  • resulting a feud between the two - in a feud?
  • where they ran the Queen's Head inn - cap I? or not proper name?
    Not a proper name. From what the sources say, it was just the Queens Head. - SchroCat (talk) 13:32, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • its title page stated that Cook was a lodger at the house of the cabinet maker Mr Moor, in Fuller's Rents, Holborn, London - add price six shillings?

Professed Cookery

  • A later edition, published in 1936, comprises extracts of the 1760 printing and was edited by one Regula Burnet - do we know publisher?

Essay conversions eg

  • one imperial quart (1,100 ml; - better as litres? output l gives "one imperial quart (1.1 L) of cream" ahh but loses the US fl oz?
  • one-half pound (0.23 kg) of butter - better as grams? output g gives "one-half pound (230 g)

Recipes

  • "Professed Cookery" contains recipes for fricassees - swap quotes to italics
  • preserved foods, including pickles, jams, wines and sweets[61] and sausages - pickles and jams? (ie reads as if wines and sweets are part of preserved foods?)
  • An eleven page index was included - hyphen eleven-page

Household management

  • A Plan of House-keeping - above x2 has cap K ie A Plan of House-Keeping
  • the management and care of poultry - needs live poultry?

Historiography and legacy

  • Gadus morhua, - add italics

Defaultsort

  • Anne - remove e

Category

  • Category:Writers from Newcastle upon Tyne - (it's where she was for first editions)

Template:English cuisine

  • need to add her to template

That's it for now though I wasn't as thorough as usual FA list:) so may have more questions later. Regards, JennyOz (talk) 12:43, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers JennyOz. All these covered; if you've got any more, I'd be delighted to hear them. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 15:23, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Kusma

[edit]
  • Lead: "an edited edition, with selected recipes, was published in 1936" First, "an edited edition" is not a great expression. "A revised edition"? "A selective edition"? Also, this breaks up the chronology. The 1936 edition could come at the end of the lead together with some of the legacy.
    I’ve renamed it. That part is not chronological, but thematic and deals with the publication history. - SchroCat (talk) 04:59, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Life: is it of any interest why/how we know the various things that are considered probable or possible?
    As it relates to where and when she was born, yes, I think it’s not just of interest, but important. - SchroCat (talk) 04:55, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, then could you add who said she was from County Durham / that her husband might have been Catholic and why they think that? —Kusma (talk) 20:27, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a couple of the main sources that have it and no-one has published any dissenting views on the point. I'm not sure going into the why they think that would be illuminating. - SchroCat (talk) 09:50, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am mostly curious whether there is any basis for speculating that the husband was Catholic. —Kusma (talk) 11:39, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's mostly small threads connected together. The details are clearest in Archaeologia Aeliana if you want to check, but there is nothing encyclopaedic in the pathway to the conclusion. - SchroCat (talk) 09:35, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I looked at the source, and agree it could be distracting to say too much about the husband here. However, there is also direct speculation that Ann Cook herself was Catholic: "There are several passages in Mrs. Cook’s book which suggest that she was a Roman Catholic (as for example that she usually calls the curate of a parish the priest, and though she knows that a licence was required for a sudden marriage, she makes the priest procure it instead of the bridegroom)", so I think it would be better to extend the speculation to both. —Kusma (talk) 13:52, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough. Added. - SchroCat (talk) 14:14, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sources: The "archived" links for the OED are useless distractions; nothing useful has been archived.
    I'm not sure what they are distracting readers from (or even how they are distracting), but they are useful. - SchroCat (talk) 04:55, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    At the archived links, I get "Thank you for visiting Oxford English Dictionary. To continue reading, please sign in below or purchase a subscription. After purchasing, please sign in below to access the content." I do not see that as useful. —Kusma (talk) 20:27, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've forced a resave on most to give the information, but the archive is being stubborn on a couple, so I'll keep trying to trick it into saving the version we need. - SchroCat (talk) 09:50, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, all done. - SchroCat (talk) 05:32, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Much better :) —Kusma (talk) 13:52, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More to come! —Kusma (talk) 21:22, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your comments. - SchroCat (talk) 04:59, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is again a lot of "edited ... edited" in the "Professed Cookery" section, which could benefit from some elegant variation.
    I see only two uses of "edited", one of which I've reworked. If I've missed something, please let me know. - SchroCat (talk) 09:50, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not something for you to do right now, but Professed Cookery should be an article, even if it was apparently a lot less widely read than The Art of Cookery Made Plain and Easy.
  • There is a bit much focus on criticism of Glasse compared to what we learn about the actual recipes in Cook's book; in particular, is there any critical reception of these recipes? What do the food historians find most interesting?
    There isn't anything more that hasn't been covered, which is a great shame, really. - SchroCat (talk) 09:50, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Then the "valued by historians of [..] food [..] history" might be a slight overstatement? —Kusma (talk) 11:39, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not according to the sources. I think (and this is just my OR) that part of the value is in the criticism of Glasse. - SchroCat (talk) 12:02, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, quite well written so it is difficult to find much to complain about :) An interesting life story that became a cookbook rivalry. —Kusma (talk) 20:27, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

Since it seems others are taking up the prose, I'll look at the sources! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 15:59, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I prefer to put efns before references, since there's info in the efns that makes more sense to be directly adjacent to the sentence
    • I prefer after (refs support the sentence; refs at the end of the efn support the efn). They are adjacent enough to the sentence not to be a problem to anyone. - SchroCat (talk) 18:00, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough then, you have good rationale ~~~ MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 21:10, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of the sources "publishing location" parameters have both the city and state (e.g. Champaign, Illinois), whereas others just have the city (e.g. New York); is there a particular reason? I prefer consistency in either having both city and state or just city
  • Proper nouns in source titles should be italicized- I'm looking at the British Library web source "The Art of Cookery – Title page", where The Art of Cookery should be italicized

All other formatting looks good. Spotcheck now, choosing randomly but trying to vary between books and web sources (AGF for offline/paywalled sources):

  • Buck 1979: how does the cited page show that historians "value it" for social history? If it's just showing that a historian cited it, I worry about OR violations
  • Cook 1760: there's so many that I only checked some, but all looked good

More to come MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 15:59, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for this - much appreciated. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 18:00, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rest of the spotcheck:

  • Mennell 1996: good
  • Trager 1996: good with the other refs next to it
  • Dodds 1938: good
  • British Library webpage: good
  • Hoare 2014: good

Source review passes- excellent work! Also, I have an FAC open and would appreciate any comments you have if you get some time- thank you! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 21:30, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

750h

[edit]

Hi SC i'll leave some comments. 750h+ 07:34, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Since the third and fourth lead paragraphs discuss around the same thing you might consider merging them (given the length of the article).
    Fair enough (although they are slightly different in the subject), but done. - SchroCat (talk) 13:51, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1739–1740, during the Lent circuit of the assizes," ==> "Between 1739 and 1740, during the Lent circuit of the assizes," (I find the uses of an en-dash a bit unusual)
    It's not between the two years: the Lent assizes took place during Lent on one of the two years. - SchroCat (talk) 13:51, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "What the Cooks did not know was that Pye was a cousin of Allgood; in 1746" ==> "The Cooks did not know that Pye was a cousin of Allgood; in 1746" (conciseness)
    Yep; much better. - SchroCat (talk) 13:51, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In the 1936 edition, edited by Regula Burnet, Cook's personal history was limited solely to Professed Cookery and no further details were known." I'm a bit confused by this sentence. Which book is it talking about when it says "In the 1936 edition"?
    Reworked a little: How does that look? - SchroCat (talk)

That's all i got. nice work! 750h+ 08:58, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, 750. I'm much obliged. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:51, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nice work. willing to support 750h+ 15:25, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Tim riley

[edit]

I peer reviewed the article on its way here and my (few) quibbles were attended to. Nothing to add after rereading for this review. The article seems to me to meet all the FA criteria and I am happy to support its elevation to that status. Tim riley talk 15:48, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UC

[edit]
  • a best-selling cookery book, The Art of Cookery Made Plain and Easy in 1747.: comma after Easy.
  • a revised edition, with selected recipes, was published in 1936: what does selected recipes mean in this context? Doesn't someone select the recipes for all cookbooks?
  • Any chance of straightening the lead image?
  • Sir Lancelot Allgood, who held positions of high sheriff and Member of Parliament sent a message: comma after Parliament
  • Capitalisation: we have Black Bull Inn but Queen's Head inn
  • much of their remaining goods: most of, surely, as goods is plural? You couldn't say "much of their remaining possessions".
  • any terms of easy settlement: easy terms of settlement sounds more natural to me, but is there a technical sense being employed here?
    Reworked in a slightly different way. - SchroCat (talk) 09:30, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • John was taken to a debtors' prison within a month of their arrival in the new town. Nothing further is known of John Cook: simply of him?
  • it appears that in order to earn money, Cook wrote The New System of Cookery: we know that she wrote it, so this is better as "it appears that Cook wrote TNSoC in order..."
  • When the work was republished in 1754 it was under the title Professed Cookery.: less verbose as "the work was republished in 1754 under the title Professed Cookery"?
  • in the Groat-market: ... in the what?
    That was it's name. It was the wheat market - "groat" is a Northumbrian word for wheat. - SchroCat (talk) 09:30, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • the cookery book, The Art of Cookery Made Plain and Easy in 1747: comma after Easy, and advise a cookery book, as there are lots of them.
    I think the definite is okay here, as we're talking about a specific book. - SchroCat (talk) 09:30, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    With the commas, it reads as limiting to me: "we visited the school and met the teacher Mr Smith" (one of many) is different to "we visited the school and met the teacher, Mr Smith" (the only one). I'd always rephrase the first one to "met a teacher, Mr. Smith", which keeps the same meaning but reads as neater to me -- that, however, is personal taste. UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:33, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, removed the comma. - SchroCat (talk) 09:42, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • of the 972 recipes in the first edition, 342 had been copied or adapted from other works without attribution: do we need an at least here? After all, we can only count the ones we can catch.
  • as such she ridicules the idea of a lady being in a position to teach cookery to a professional: I think it's worth clarifying here that lady means "aristocrat" rather than "woman".
  • Glasse's recipe for French Barley Pudding: no capitals, surely, as it's a generic dish name?
  • many of her own recipes are unnecessarily extravagant and wasteful.: this is a statement of opinion ("unnecessarily", "wasteful"): can we couch it as such, something like "are considered..."?
  • the oysters will baste to pieces, and beyond Art to keep them on the spit".: I'd add [it is] before beyond Art, as the sentence isn't quite grammatical as it stands, but I can understand you may be hesitant to mess with the quotation.
    I hate messing around with quotes too much, but okay - added. - SchroCat (talk) 09:30, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The OED dictionaries end up with lots of nested brackets, and I think probably goes into excessive detail for an article on the cookbook, not (e.g.) the rock codling. Suggest paraphrasing and abbreviating the definitions in body text (e.g. rock codling (a type of fish)): you can always give the full definition in a footnote if you think it's really important.
Many thanks UndercoverClassicist: all sorted, except 1. The straightening of the image, which I'll do shortly; and 2. where I've pushed back above. Many thanks as always. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:30, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Very happy to support -- though NB one query still outstanding above, which shouldn't get in the way of promotion. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:40, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
missed that, and apologies. Happy to discuss further if you want. Thanks, as always, for the comments and suggestions. They are always welcome. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:07, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from PMC

[edit]

Putting myself down here, I doubt I'll have much as it looks like it's been throughly reviewed by others, but it looks like an interesting read. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 11:07, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • In the lead, I might say when the feud started, just so the reader has an idea of how long Allgood pursued it
  • "in Dodds's words "a rebel, a rogue and a villain"." I think this needs a comma after "words"
    It's okay without in BrEng - SchroCat (talk) 07:04, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "it appears that Cook wrote The New System of Cookery in order to earn money, which was on sale by February 1753." the "in order to earn money" here throws the flow of the sentence off (it reads to me like it's saying the earning money was on sale). Any way to move it to a different spot? Maybe to the next sentence?
  • Why gloss over New System in the lead? It's a bit confusing as the lead gives 1754 as the publishing year (and says there were 3 editions) but this seems to contradict that
  • "The book also contained a poem...and essay..." was this included in the 1st edition? Waiting to Mention it after the 2nd edition makes it read like it was a later addition
  • I agree with Kusma that Professed Cookery might be better as its own article; there's quite a bit here (free second FA, if you think about it :P)
    OK, I'll try and get round to drawing up a new article once I'm done with what I'm working on now. - SchroCat (talk) 07:04, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have "best" 3 times in 2 successive sentences, starting with "This includes the best ways to manage servants..."

That's it! A well-written article. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:07, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, PMC. All done, except for a couple where I've left comments. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:04, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers, happy to support. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:05, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment

[edit]
  • "There are no records of the dates or locations of her birth and death." seems randomly situated. Perhaps relocate it to the second sentence of the first paragraph?
  • Is there a page range for Burnet? Gog the Mild (talk) 17:35, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Gog, The page range is added, the sentence about the dates has been removed. I prefer to keep the opening para entirely about the notability, and she's not notable for having unknown dates. On reflection, it's not really a leadworthy sentence either - plenty of people had no known dates from that period, so having it up the top of the article felt a little odd when looked at critically. Happy to be persuaded otherwise tho! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 06:38, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 25 June 2024 [7].


Changi Airport MRT station

[edit]
Nominator(s): ZKang123 (talk) 05:48, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Putting this up again after I withdrew a previous nomination to work on another article. This article is about Changi Airport station which serves Changi Airport and is one of the most iconic stations on the Singapore MRT network. ZKang123 (talk) 05:48, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Can you please discuss what you have done regarding sourcing given the issues I found in the FAC in January? I recommended in that review that there be a wider check for the accuracy of sourcing and close paraphrasing, as well as further searches for more reliable/independent sources. There have not been many edits to the article since then. Nick-D (talk) 00:03, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Truthfully, not much. Just a bit of editing here and there. There are unfortunately no other reliable/independent sources on the station article and mainly local news sources I can find.--ZKang123 (talk) 02:20, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

750h

[edit]

In spite of the comment by Nick-D above, I'll take a look at this article. 750h+ 08:10, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • A rail connection to the airport had been planned since the 1980s but these plans were shelved. I'm a bit confused with this sentence. Why does it say "since the 1980s" if the plans have been shelved?
    • Wrote "in the 1980s" instead.
  • On 25 May 2019, it was announced Changi Airport MRT station will be incorporated change "will" to "would"
    • Done
  • An MRT branch to Changi Airport was included in early plans of the MRT network in May 1982. You might consider removing the first "MRT" and changing "An" to "A" since you mention "MRT" later in the sentence
    • Done
  • would be built to serve increased demand to the airport. ==> would be built to serve increased demand for the airport.
    • Done
  • to serve increased demand for the airport. add "the" between "serve" and "increased"
    • Done
  • Should "subcontractor-and-supplier" have hyphens?
    • Fixed
  • A groundbreaking ceremony was held on 29 January 1999. is the word "groundbreaking" necessary?
    • Yes. Usually signals the start of construction.
  • Close monitoring was needed for the construction of the change "for the construction of" to "to construct" (conciseness)
    • Fixed
  • various structures which required extensive foundation reconstruction. change "which" to "that"
    • Fixed
  • reporting a loss of 20 percent in earnings. "per cent" in used in British English. However, I notice that the % sign is used throughout the article rather than the word itself, so you might consider changing that?
    • Fixed
  • Nevertheless, despite developments build around the branch line to boost further change "build" to "built"
    • Fixed
  • In 2040, Changi Airport station will be change "In 2040" to "By 2040" since the former implies that it will be exclusively 2040 and not the years that follow.
    • Fixed
  • The day's first train departs Changi Airport station at 5:31 am on weekdays and on Saturdays, at 5:59 am on Sundays. this sentence could be phrased better
    • Fixed
  • Australian engineering company Meinhardt Facades provided structural-design engineering ==> "The engineering company Meinhardt Facades provided structural design engineering" (something I learnt from SchroCat)
    • Fixed
  • cantilever and are supported by other cables that runs diagonally change the verb form to "run"
    • Fixed
  • In 2011, BootsnAll rated the station 10th out of the 15 most-beautiful subway stops in the world. why does "most beautiful" have a hyphen.
    • Fixed

That's all I got. Solid work on the article. 750h+ 08:44, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed the above issues.--ZKang123 (talk) 02:20, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support 750h+ 03:20, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

comments from sawyer777

[edit]

i aim to get through this fully by next week (i've got a busy weekend so no big promises for the next few days) - feel free to ping me if if it's been more than like 4 days ... sawyer * he/they * talk 03:45, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • ref 32 doesn't link Straits Times or give the publisher
  • ref 35 probably does not need the location of publication since it's in the name of the publisher
  • ref 66 - Birkhäuser could be linked (or publishers could be unlinked)
  • In 2011, BootsnAll rated the station 10th out of the 15 most beautiful subway stops in the world. i'm not sure whether this is WP:DUE or not; BootsnAll doesn't have an article nor seem like a particularly prestigious publication. from what i can tell it's a travel forum & blog.

that's all for now; i'll be back for more. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 07:43, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed the above.--ZKang123 (talk) 09:48, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

back at this; sorry about the delay.

  • the lead doesn't need citations; i'd just remove footnote 3 & move footnote 4 to the applicable spot in the body. not required, however, just a suggestion for consistency as the rest of the lead doesn't have cites.
  • (infobox) i don't think it's necessary to add SMRT Corporation after SMRT Trains Ltd, as one can deduce that from the name of the train company and/or click on the wikilink
  • Changi Airport is linked twice in the infobox

i've read through it several times and i really don't have much for this article anymore; Epicgenius got about everything in his prose review. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 05:10, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done the above.--ZKang123 (talk) 06:17, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

sounds good. per other prose reviews, support. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 17:12, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Epicgenius

[edit]

I hope to leave some commentary here soon. – Epicgenius (talk) 15:07, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lead:
  • Para 1: "an underground Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) station serving Changi Airport and its other amenities including Jewel in Changi, Singapore" - I feel like there may be a few missing commas here. I'd recommend "an underground Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) station in Changi, Singapore, serving Changi Airport and its other amenities including Jewel."
    • Reword.
  • Para 1: "The ends of the station directly connect to Terminals 2 and 3 of Changi Airport." - Are Terminals 2 and 3 accessible from both ends, or is Terminal 2 accessible from one end and Terminal 3 accessible from the other end?
    • If it's the former, I would say "Both ends of the station directly connect to Terminals 2 and 3 of Changi Airport".
    • If it's the latter, I'd specify which end connects to which terminal.
    • If you don't know, I'd just simplify this to "The station directly connects to Terminals 2 and 3 of Changi Airport".
      • T2 is on the east end; T3 on the west end. But I rather simplify to the third statement and also shift the clause about what the station serves.
  • Para 2: "With increased air traffic to Changi Airport and the proposal of Terminal 3 in 1994" - The Finalisation of rail connection section just says "a new terminal" without mentioning the name of the terminal. Is this terminal 3?
    • Yes.
  • Para 3: "The station opened on 8 February 2002, with lower passenger demand than expected" - I'd add a comma after "expanded".
    • Done.
  • Para 3: "In May 2019, it was announced Changi Airport station" - Who announced this? LTA?
    • Yes, the LTA. Although I rather leave it as such, as the body will explain.
  • Para 3: "In May 2019, it was announced Changi Airport station would be incorporated into the Thomson–East Coast line (TEL) as it extends to the airport's Terminal 5 by 2040" - I'd change this to "In May 2019, it was announced Changi Airport station would be incorporated into the Thomson–East Coast line (TEL), which is being extended to the airport's Terminal 5, by 2040". Also, is the TEL using brand-new platforms or the existing EWL platforms?
    • The plan seems to be retrofitting the existing platforms.
Early plans:
  • Para 1: "The branch was to be built when the rest of the MRT system had been completed." - Does this mean that the branch would be built at the same time as the rest of the MRT, or after the original MRT?
    • After the original MRT.
  • Para 1: "Plans for the connection were reviewed in 1984 because the MRT system was built below budget" - I'd say "reviewed again", since the feasibility study was technically the first review.
    • Reword.
  • Para 2: "In response, Communications Minister Yeo Ning Hong said an extension would be considered if there were development plans in the Changi area, otherwise, the low demand might not meet operating costs" - The comma before "otherwise" should be a semicolon.
    • Used a full-stop instead.
  • Para 2: "In 1992, Communications Minister Mah Bow Tan said the government had already reserved land needed for the possible route." - I'd change this to "...reserved the land needed for the possible route", or "...reserved land for the possible route".
    • Reword.
Finalisation of rail connection:
  • Para 1: "In August 1994, the proposal for a rail link was reconsidered following an increase in airport use that exceeded previous projections (10% compared to 6–7% annually)." - The parenthetical comment is a bit awkward. I suggest something like "In August 1994, the proposal for a rail link was reconsidered after airport use grew by 10% annually, surpassing the previous projections of 6–7%."
    • Reword.
  • Para 1: "The CAAS also suggested for the new link to be built in tandem with the new terminal." - Similarly, I recommend "The CAAS also suggested that the new link be built in tandem with the new terminal."
    • Reword.
  • Para 2: "would be built to serve the increased demand to the airport" - Wasn't the increased demand already mentioned?
    • Removed the repetition.
More in a bit. – Epicgenius (talk) 15:24, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Construction and opening:
  • Para 1: "This project combined Japanese technology and experience with local knowledge of subcontractor and supplier availability" - I would specify which one of the companies provided Japanese technology and experience, and which company provided the local knowledge of subcontractor and supplier availability, if that information is available. Also, I just noticed that Phlsph7's Readability script rates this sentence as being hard to parse. (I could understand it perfectly, but the readability script basically rates this as "not easily readable unless you have a college degree".)
    • I removed it - to think of it it's just basically fluff and even directly lifted from the text.
  • Para 1: "to complement the LTA team" - I'd say "to assist" rather than "to complement".
    • Done.
  • Para 2: "Speaking at the ceremony, Communications Minister Mah Bow Tan highlighted the challenges of constructing the station, which would require close collaboration between parties such as the LTA, CAAS and the contractors" - Would it be easier to say that "...Mah Bow Tan said the station's construction would require close collaboration..."?
    • Fixed.
  • Para 2: "Built in a sensitive area, top-down construction works had to be carefully planned to minimise disruption to airport operations" - This contains a dangling modifier. I suggest "The station was built in a sensitive area, so top-down construction works had to be carefully planned to minimise disruption to airport operations".
    • Reworded
  • Para 3: "The east side of the station was constructed first due to more complex deep excavation works near developments such as Terminal 2" - Terminal 2 being near the western end of the station?
    • T2 is on the east end. From what I can tell in the source, they decided to do the difficult part of the construction first. "It was recognised that the contractor should be given early access to the east end of the station to have more time to tackle the technically challenging underpinning and deep excavation works next to the existing Terminal 2."
  • Para 3: "The overrun tunnels beyond the west side of the station would have to pass through an irregular pile layout of the various structures that required extensive foundation reconstruction." - I'm a bit confused about this sentence. Did the foundations need to be reconstructed because of their irregular layout? Or are you saying the foundations would have an irregular layout after the reconstruction was completed? Also, I would add a link to piling for the word "pile".
    • The former. From the source: "Beyond the eastern end of the station the over-run tunnels extend beneath an existing multi-storey car park, the elevated Skytrain link to Terminal 1, a ramp down to an underground bus station, and the Terminal 2 finger pier building. No specific provision for future MRT infrastructure was made in the design of these structures, which are all piled with an irregular overall pile layout making extensive foundation reconstruction unavoidable to create a route for the tunnels.
    • Also I realised it should be east end. Fixed that. Reworded to: "Extensive foundation reconstruction was required for the overrun tunnels as they passed through an irregular pile layout beyond the east side of the station".
  • Para 3: "The LTA briefly considered mining the tunnels but dismissed the method as the works were in shallow ground." - You could say "The LTA dismissed the idea of mining the tunnels, as the works were in shallow ground."
    • Reworded
  • Para 4: "with the official opening ceremony of the line extension held at the station on 27 February 2002" - I would recommend "and the official opening ceremony for the line extension was held at the station on 27 February 2002".
    • Fixed.
  • Para 4: "Taxi drivers said the station put them at a disadvantage, reporting a loss of 20% in earnings." - When did this loss occur? (e.g. within the first month?)
    • Within the first month of operations.
  • Para 4: "the branch was instead served by a shuttle service running from Tanah Merah to Changi Airport in 2003" - Do you mean "ever since 2003", "until 2003", or "only during 2003"?
    • Since 2003
  • Are there any further statistics about daily or annual ridership after March 2002?
    • No reports. But I can extract from the LTA DataMall. From recent data for April 2024, it recorded an average of 19719.6 entering and 18282.3 exiting. I'm taking the average of 19,000.
Incorporation into the TEL:
  • Para 1: "On 25 May 2019, the LTA announced the line between Tanah Merah and Changi Airport will become part of the TEL when it extends to Changi Airport from Sungei Bedok station via Terminal 5 and will open in 2040" - I would reword this or split it into two sentences. For example, "On 25 May 2019, the LTA announced the line between Tanah Merah and Changi Airport will become part of the TEL when it is extended to Changi Airport from Sungei Bedok station via Terminal 5. The extension of the TEL will open in 2040." In addition, does "The line between Tanah Merah and Changi Airport" mean the EWL branch line?
    • Reworded per suggestion. And yes EWL branch line.
  • Para 2: "Construction of the tunnels required tunnelling" - This feels slightly redundant. How about "Construction required tunnelling"?
    • Thanks for spotting that.
Incidents:
  • In general, I do not recommend bulleted lists of incidents like this. My thinking is, if the incidents were major, they could be integrated into other parts of the history section. From my point of view, all of these seem like incidents that affected the station for a day at most, but correct me if I'm wrong.
    • I might hide them. They aren't very significant really.
More soon. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:49, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed the above issues. --ZKang123 (talk) 08:17, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Services:
  • Para 1: "By 2040, Changi Airport station will be served by the TEL" - I suggest "By 2040, Changi Airport station is planned to be served by the TEL". I know it was not your intention, but the word "will" makes it sound like a WP:CRYSTALBALL sentence, even though the source verifies that the TEL is planned to serve the station.
  • Para 2: "On 22 July 2003, this service reverted to a shuttle service" - Was this a shuttle service before? If not, I'd change "reverted" to "changed".
  • Para 2: "The day's last departs" - This seems like it's missing a word (i.e. the day's last train). I bring this up because you say "the day's first" and "the day's last" in the next station.
Fixed the above issues.--ZKang123 (talk) 12:55, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Design:
  • Para 1: "crossover tracks" - I would link this to Railroad switch#Crossover.
    • Done.
  • Para 1: "to enhance the commuting experience of airport travellers" - I would change this to "for airport travellers". Even though it's simply a fact that wide faregates make life easier for travelers,, someone might think that the word "enhance" is promotional.
    • Changed to "improve".
  • Para 1: "also allow easier access for wheelchair users into the station" - Do we need the words "into the station"? The station is already mentioned.
    • Maybe not.
  • Para 1: "Changi Airport station is one of the first MRT stations to be wheelchair-accessible" - This isn't related to this article, but it sounds like the older stations were originally built without elevators, then retrofitted with elevators at a later date. If that's correct, I would say "Changi Airport station is one of the first MRT stations that were wheelchair-accessible when they opened".
    • Added "when they were first built".
  • Para 2: "The station is columnless but supported by platform-edge pillars" - If the pillars are at the edges of each platform, near the tracks, then this sounds contradictory. On the other hand, if the pillars are at the west and east ends of the platforms (or along the trackside walls), then this should be clarified.
    • I mean that the platform itself is columnless, but the pillars are still at the platform screen doors. You can see from some of the platform images.
  • Para 2: "glass bridge" - This sounds more like a mezzanine.
    • Yeah it's a mezzanine but it's literally a glass bridge that goes over the platforms.
  • Para 3: "and minimal structures are used" - You mean minimal support structures? If so, I would clarify this.
    • I guess it's support structures, but I can't find much in the ref cited for this tbh, except it's a commentary on the structures used which I'm unsure if we can infer as "minimal structures"
  • Para 3: "The atria are designed to allow maximum sunlight into the station and minimal structures are used to maintain the transparency of the atria" - I would reword this as something like "The atria are designed to allow maximum sunlight into the station, and minimal support structures are used to make the atria as transparent as possible".
    • Reworded and fixed.
That's it from me with regards to prose. – Epicgenius (talk) 17:44, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Did the above suggested fixes.--ZKang123 (talk) 12:55, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support on prose. I will do the source review in a bit. – Epicgenius (talk) 13:07, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by Epicgenius

[edit]

I will do a source review with spot checks and formatting checks once I am done with the above prose commentary. Keeping in mind Nick-D's commentary from the previous FAC, I will look for close paraphrasing, so I'll probably need to check about one out of every five sources. Although there are a lot of sources from government websites, many of these seem to be newspaper articles. Also, as mentioned in the first FAC, the Straits Times appears to be reliable for this topic, even though it's marked as marginally reliable on WP:RSP. Epicgenius (talk) 01:07, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay. I had a few formatting questions:
  • I noticed that source 2 is marked as paywalled, but I don't really think this is the correct label. It seems you have to apply for an API key, but there doesn't seem to be a paywall, so to speak. I would thus mark this as "registration" unless you do need to pay a subscription fee after receiving your API key.
  • Some sources (e.g. 42. "MRT System Map" (PDF). Land Transport Authority. Archived (PDF) from the original on 21 August 2020.) do not have access dates even though they have URLs. I would be consistent on whether you include access dates.
  • For source 68, I would link Chicago Athenaeum.
Fixed the above formatting issues.--ZKang123 (talk) 04:02, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here are the sources I will be spot checking later. Ref numbers are from this version.
  • 4 "No Line to the Airport". The Straits Times. Singapore Press Holdings. 17 November 1983. p. 18. Retrieved 20 February 2022 – via NewspaperSG.
    • Checks out.
  • 9 "MRT Link to Airport: Not in Next 10 Years". The Straits Times. Singapore Press Holdings. 17 May 1991. p. 1. Archived from the original on 21 February 2022. Retrieved 20 February 2022.
    • Checks out.
  • 14 Tan, Hsueh Yan (16 November 1996). "MRT Line to Be Extended to Changi Airport". The Straits Times. Singapore Press Holdings. p. 1. Archived from the original on 1 March 2022. Retrieved 1 March 2022.
    • Checks out.
  • 19 "Joint Venture of SembCorp Unit Wins MRT Contract". Business Times. Singapore Press Holdings. 3 November 1998. p. 16. Retrieved 21 December 2023 – via NewspaperSG.
    • Checks out.
  • 24 Zhao, J.; Shirlaw, J.N.; R., Krishnan (2000). Tunnels and Underground Structures: Proceedings Of the International Conference on Tunnels and Underground Structures Singapore. Rotterdam: A.A. Balkema. ISBN 90-5809-171-6. p. 422.
    • Checks out, although the sentence "The carriageways connecting to the arrival and departure halls of Terminals 1 and 2 were diverted temporarily to the west of the station site" may be too similar to the source. I suggest rewording this. There aren't any close-paraphrasing issues with the other two uses of this source.
      • Changed carriageways to "roads", "diverted temporarily" to "rerouted... during the construction". Not sure how to change "west of the station site" (changing to "station site's west side" sounds rather awkward). Also "arrival and departure halls" are proper terms to describe these areas.
  • 29 Kaur, Karamjit (9 February 2002). "Next Stop: Changi Airport" (PDF). The Straits Times. Singapore Press Holdings. p. 3. Archived from the original (PDF) on 5 June 2024. Retrieved 5 June 2024 – via Nexis Uni.
    • Checks out.
  • 34 Cheong, Kay Teck (2019). Integrating the Planning of Airports and the City (PDF). Centre for Liveable Cities Singapore. p. 41. ISBN 978-981-14-1385-8. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2 February 2022. Retrieved 3 June 2024.
    • The info seems to be in page 42, rather than page 41.
      • Rectified.
  • 39 "Contract T316 – Schedule of Tenders Received" (PDF). Land Transport Authority. Archived (PDF) from the original on 22 March 2023. Retrieved 22 March 2023.
    • The source seems to indicate that the base tender is about $325.1 million and that the alternative tender is $315.2 million. I do not see the $321.7 million figure.
      • It's in the archived version of Ref 38.
  • 44 "MRT & LRT System Map" (PDF). Land Transport Authority. Archived from the original (PDF) on 29 May 2009. Retrieved 21 February 2022.
    • Neither this map, nor source 43 (Salim, Shazalina (3 August 2001). "Red, Green and Grey". Today. Mediacorp. p. 9. Retrieved 21 August 2020 – via NewspaperSG.) mention the date of June 2003. Although the service pattern may have been changed in 2003, this is not reflected in sources 43 and 44, which only cite the original station code.
      • Removed that part; I think someone else added "June 2003" (which coincided with the opening of the NEL and the new version of the map, I think)
  • 49 "Boon Lay to Expo: MRT Now Running". The Straits Times. Singapore Press Holdings. 20 December 2001. p. 4.
  • 54 Lee, Jian Xuan (25 August 2014). "New Platform at Tanah Merah MRT Station for Trains to Expo, Changi Airport in 2024". The Straits Times. Singapore Press Holdings. Archived from the original on 29 March 2023. Retrieved 29 March 2023.
    • Checks out.
  • 59 Kaur, Karamjit (6 February 2002). "Airport MRT Stop Next in Line" (PDF). The Straits Times. Singapore Press Holdings. Archived from the original (PDF) on 5 June 2024. Retrieved 5 June 2024 – via Nexis Uni.
    • Checks out.
  • 64 Goh, Sushma (2018). RE:think – Designing For Wayfinding (PDF). Land Transport Authority. p. 24.
    • Checks out.
I will randomly spot-check for close paraphrasing later, as well. As far as I can tell, though, there don't seem to be coverage issues, or issues with using specific sources. Though the Straits Times is labeled on WP:RSP as being "marginally reliable", it appears to be reliable for non-controversial information regarding the MRT, and sadly few better sources exist for some of the details mentioned here. – Epicgenius (talk) 18:48, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did not find close paraphrasing in the article upon a random spot check, except for the following two issues:
  • Ref 24 (mentioned above)
  • Ref 66 ( "Changi Airport Glass Atria". Meinhardt. Archived from the original on 6 September 2019. Retrieved 9 April 2020.) - The article says "The atria are designed to allow maximum sunlight into the station, and minimal support structures are used for the atria to be as transparent as possible." The source says "The atria allow as much light in as possible and the facades to the Atria appear as transparent as possible with due consideration to the climate inside."

Removed the "minimal support structures"

I only found two verifiability issues out of the sources I checked. – Epicgenius (talk) 13:56, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Epicgenius, are you feeling able to either pass or fail the source review and/or the spot check? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:44, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild, not yet, as ZKang123 has not been able to respond to my concerns yet. (To be fair, I did leave my comments just six hours ago, at around 10 pm Singapore time.) – Epicgenius (talk) 19:50, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A whole six hours! Tut, tut. Actually, my bad; I misread the date of your last comment. Apologies. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:00, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I had work in the morning and now was able to address the above comments.--ZKang123 (talk) 09:35, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MyCat

[edit]
  • which had plans for a new terminal to cater to passenger growth, urged the MRTC to reconsider the proposal for an airport rail link because new roads serving the new terminal - three "new"s in one sentence is too many for me- vary it up a bit
  • who had been advocating for the branch from 1987 - I think "since 1987" is better for that period of time
  • Changi Airport MRT station opened on 8 February 2002[30] and the - best to be consistent with allowing refs in the middle of sentences- this looks like the only instance of a ref being in the middle of a sentence that I can spot, so I'd just push it to the end
  • Many air travellers preferred to continue taking taxis or private transport because not all of the trains on MRT services have luggage racks - we have two tenses here- preferred to continue tells me past tense, but have luggage racks tells me present. Make "have" into had for consistency
  • The contract for the construction of twin-bored tunnels from this station - start of a new para, say the station name
  • I haven't seen the incidents section on some of your other MRT station articles- is this a new standard?
  • Wl through service

That's all from me, excellent as usual! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 23:58, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed the above issues.--ZKang123 (talk) 01:42, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to support. Also, I have another music FAC open, and would appreciate any comments if you get time- thank you! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 11:02, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review by Generalissima

[edit]
  • File:CG2 Changi Airport MRT platforms 20200919 212555.jpg, your own work, CC-BY-SA 4.0 licensed.
  • File:SGMRT-LRT map.svg - CC-BY-SA 2.0
  • File:Changi Airport MRT Station-wicket-20121111.jpg - GNU Free Documentation License and CC-BY-SA 3.0
  • File:Changi Airport MRT Station (EWL - Changi Branch) - Exit A.jpg - CC-BY-SA 4.0

These are all good. The last one should probably be right-aligned per WP:MOSIMAGE, although it is not a strict requirement. All images, including the map, have proper alt-text - good job. Support on image review. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 19:33, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comments

[edit]
Commute means to travel regularly, so does it not enhance the experience of occasional travellers?
Oh, I thought "commute" means to take public transport.--ZKang123 (talk) 10:43, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Gog the Mild (talk) 19:57, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not according to the three dictionaries I have just checked. Suggest simply removing "commuting", it reads fine without it. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:53, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to "catering to"--ZKang123 (talk) 11:12, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 25 June 2024 [8].

Kes (Star Trek)

[edit]
Nominator(s): Aoba47 (talk) 19:53, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a fictional character played by Jennifer Lien from the sci-fi series Star Trek: Voyager. She is a member of the Ocampa, a telepathic alien species who have latent psychic abilities and a life span of only nine years. Featured in the show's first three seasons, Kes is primarily shown either handling her boyfriend Neelix's jealousy or helping the artificial intelligence known as the Doctor develop his humanity. The character was removed in the fourth season after Lien's unspecified personal issues affected her reliability on set.

Thank you to @J Milburn: for the GAN review back in 2019 and to @Premeditated Chaos: for the help in the more recent peer review. As always, any comments would be greatly appreciated. Thank you in advance. Aoba47 (talk) 19:53, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by David Fuchs

[edit]

Not the Star Trek character I thought I'd see at FAC, but I'm interested in reviewing. I do have some broad opening thoughts on first read, though:

  • Is there are particular reason we start with the development and casting information, rather than an overview? Right now while the lead gives a brief introduction, there's no elaboration on Voyager's premise and the characters met, which I think might be a little backwards; as a Trek fan I don't need that context, but I think that it might dump unfamiliar readers into a lot of behind-the-scenes info without the foreknowledge to get why it matters (for example, the appearances section mentions Kes an an alien with a short lifespan, but we've already talked about that in the development, so it feels weirdly restated, whereas what Voyager is even doing there and why she's meeting all these characters you have to wait for 1300 words before there's any explanation.
  • That makes sense. When the article passed the GAN, it had the following sentence in the lead to provide some context: (Set in the 24th century of the Star Trek universe, the series follows the crew of the starship USS Voyager, stranded far from home and struggling to get back to Earth.) Would it be beneficial to add that information back? I agree it is important to make sure the article can be understood by readers completely unfamiliar with Star Trek.
  • I had originally started the article with the "Appearances" section, but an editor in the GAN review disagreed with this approach so it was changed to fit with the structure more commonly used in fictional character articles (i.e. production information before the summary portions). I could change the order of the sections again if that would help. For a different idea, I could revise the "Creation and casting" subsection so it starts with a brief part about the producers coming up with the show's main concept and then transitioning to the background on Kes as she is one of the first characters created. I would of course be open to any other suggestions or ideas. Aoba47 (talk) 23:53, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I generally agree with starting with development first in a lot of cases, but I think this is one where you're either going to repeat yourself stating a lot of the premise and details early and then going into more depth later to be accessible, or just putting appearances earlier so you can contextualize the background details makes the most sense. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 23:41, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • That makes sense to me. I think it is always important to look at each individual article to see what would benefit that particular topic the most. I agree with the repetition, particularly with the age and alien species designation. Plus, this is about a very specific part of a specific show so a background would be better for an unfamiliar reader than jumping right into production information. Aoba47 (talk) 01:04, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It strikes me as a little weird the reception section talks about positive reception of Lien's acting, versus leading off with the reception of the character itself, especially since the lead highlights the latter more than the former.
  • That is understandable. I was honestly unsure about where to put this paragraph. I heavily revised this section during the peer review process. I could divide the section into two, with one subsection about the character and the other about Lien. It would be similar to what I did with Melanie Barnett. The downside would be that the second subsection would only be a single paragraph. I could also move the paragraph to the end of the section. Please let me know if you have any other ideas though. I have been stuck on this section for a bit to be honest. Aoba47 (talk) 22:28, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • As another idea, I could move the paragraph on Lien's acting directly after the more general paragraph about the character. For some reason, I only thought of that option now. Aoba47 (talk) 02:01, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • That makes sense. I think putting it second makes sense. That way, the section starts off with the more general reviews going from the character to the actor and then to reviews on more specific aspects of the character. Aoba47 (talk) 01:04, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @David Fuchs: Thank you for your comments so far. Take as much time as you need. You have raised some excellent points. I have pitched some potential solutions above, but feel free to let me know if alternative ideas would be better. Apologies for being more cautious and not directly making changes to the article yet. I just wanted to make absolutely sure first. I doubt that anyone would expected to see this character at FAC, but I do often gravitate more toward the obscure topics so that is probably why. Aoba47 (talk) 22:28, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have given this some more thought. I have added a brief sentence to the lead to give an overview of Voyager, moved the "Appearances" section up, and put the reviews on Lien's acting after the more general one on Kes as a character. I did each in separate edits so that way, it can be easily reverted if deemed unhelpful and the changes can be more easily assessed. I would be more than open to any alternate ideas (like starting with a separate "Background" section). Feel free to revert anything if you disagree. I will avoid making any further major edits to avoid interfering with your review. Aoba47 (talk) 16:42, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the response. Apologies for typing so much. I was trying to think my way through it and I wanted to be as transparent as possible just in case I was going down the wrong road or there is was a better alternative in mind. I admit that I want overboard. I was probably way over-thinking things. Aoba47 (talk) 01:04, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think there's a bit more that can be stripped out of the appearances section to make it a bit of an easier read and avoid hitting readers with a bunch of stuff that isn't directly relevant to the appearances. Given that they aren't relevant in terms of Key' actual arc, I think I would axe the Maquis being mentioned entirely from the appearances section; likewise Chakotay doesn't actually have any real relationship with Kes (which is interesting to think about in retrospect) so he's not necessary.
  • Removed. I can understand that level of detail is not necessary for this character article. I have seen people discuss Kes not having scenes with B'Elanna Torres or questioning how she would have interested with Seven of Nine, but I honestly cannot think of any real moments between her and Chakotay. It is certainly interesting in retrospect as I had not really considered it or seen it discussed. Aoba47 (talk) 00:14, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Early drafts had Kes named Dah and portrayed her with an older Ocampa near the end of his life cycle." I'm not entirely sure what this means... she was romantically involved with the other Ocampa? The other ocampa was just another character that was supposed to be a member of the crew? Etc.
  • The only description that we have for the character is they were an Ocampa near the end of their life cycle. There is not any info about their relationship with Kes (or even their gender). I removed this sentence completely as it is not really about Kes and the previous version of her name (Dah) may be too trivial to warrant a mention here. Aoba47 (talk) 20:52, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Kes's age was a topic of critical commentary" given that a lot of this commentary is from after the show aired and relatively contemporary, is there are reason this is given as past tense?
  • My understanding is that all of this type of reception information is always presented in the past (like how a television was poorly received and not is poorly received). I do not think that I have seen any FAs on even new shows, characters, etc. use present tense in this context. Aoba47 (talk) 20:52, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • References:
  • Spotchecked statements attributed to refs 1, 9, 20, 24, 25, 35, 41, 51, 61, 63, 65, 84, 94, 95, 101, 112, and 115. Didn't spot issues with close paraphrasing. I did find there's some issues throughout with stuff going beyond what the text of the source says.
    • "The later casting call was only for women in their early twenties or younger." attributed to ref 38, quotes Gross & Altman 1995, but the source doesn't explicitly say a later casting call was only for that bracket, it just mentions in casting Lien stood out from said young women.
    • "The cast and crew did not publicly disclose the reason for Lien's firing" is cited to Ruditis 2003 but he doesn't quote the crew or cast say they were hiding something, he just gives the explanation for Lien's firing as based on story reasons based on the producers.
      • Apologies for that. I had meant to cite the Robinson & Wright source. The source makes a point that everyone (italicizing the citation's word choice, not mine) chose to keep the situation around Lien private. Let me know if there needs to be any further clarification on this point. Aoba47 (talk) 00:32, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Neither ref 24 or 25 don't seem to cover the plot details for the novel in question (I'm not sure what DeCandido is citing there at all.)
      • Apologies for that again. It was a case of me mixing up the DeCandido sources. I thought that I had checked through those multiple times since I had a feeling that I would screw up at least once. I have replaced it with the appropriate DeCandido source which directly talks about the trilogy. The Ayers citation is being used to support the years that the trilogy was published as DeCandido does not explicitly say that is his article. Aoba47 (talk) 20:52, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would recommend going through some of the citations and double-checking things haven't drifted from copyediting and the like.
      • Apologies for my mistakes with this as shown above. I greatly appreciate the spot-check. You have helped to improve the article a great deal. I will look through the citations again to double-check everything, particularly ones like the DeCandido citations that could be easily swapped by accident. I completely understand if you think this should be handled outside of the FAC process so feel free to let me know if that would be the case. Aoba47 (talk) 20:52, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't necessarily think the primary citations for plot are used incorrectly, but it feels like secondary sources would be better rather than basing it all on interpretation. Given the Encyclopedia, Companion, etc. this seems like it'd be fairly trivial to do.

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 19:44, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      • Agreed. I will go through and replace the primary citations with secondary ones. As you have said, there are citations out there that could be easily used for this purpose. It will just take a moment to do so and I will let you know when I am done with that. Aoba47 (talk) 20:52, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have gone through and replaced each of the primary sources with secondary ones. It is a good thing that I did that as I caught some silly errors that I made in the plot summary and I believe that I (at least) hopefully clarified some things in a better way. I will do a thorough look through the sources tomorrow as I honestly could use a second away from the article as I have been looking at it for a while today. Aoba47 (talk) 00:17, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
David ? Gog the Mild (talk) 21:38, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]

Support from PMC

[edit]

Weirdly, I didn't get this ping, but here I am. I'm a support based on the work done at PR, which I basically treated like FAC. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:10, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the support. I likely messed up the ping somehow. I did not get a notification on my end that it went through. Apologies for that. Thank you for your help as always! Aoba47 (talk) 16:11, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Z1720

[edit]

Non-expert prose review:

The only concern I have with the prose is the first sentence of the second paragraph of "Background and introduction", which is quite long. I suggest that this is split into multiple sentences.

Lede and infobox check:

  • "Set in the 24th century of the Star Trek universe," Could not find in the article body
  • "Reaction to Kes was negative;"... "Kes was considered a fan favorite and Lien received positive reviews for her acting." This confused me, as it seems to be saying that reaction was both negative and positive. When I read the reception section, I also got the impression that she was initially positively received. I think the wording needs clarification, with discussion on who and why they reacted negatively and that the reception was split between reviewers.
  • I must have forgotten to update the lead after changing the "Reception" section during the peer review. I have revised it now, but let me know if further work is necessary. The character received mostly negative reviews in what I could find. There is only one positive critic review in the first paragraph of the "Reception" section. I never got the feeling that critics particularly liked the character even from the beginning. There was some negative response to her removal from the show, but that is separate. It seems like viewers liked her more than critics, and I have hopefully clarified that point. Aoba47 (talk) 00:12, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mother and father are not mentioned in the article, so I'm not sure they should be mentioned in the infobox.
  • Linnis is not mentioned in the article, so I'm not sure they should be mentioned in the infobox.
  • Linnis is Kes's daughter from the timeline shown in the episode "Before and After". The article does mention her, but does not name her. That being said, she is a one-episode character and I do not think it is really worthwhile to name her in the prose (and potential give her undue weight) so I have remove her mention in the infobox. Aoba47 (talk) 00:04, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Her position as "field posting" is not explicitly stated in the article body. I'm not familiar with the franchise, so is this mentioned in the article body?
  • Star Trek often focus on Starfleet officers with rank being important to the character. An example is Harry Kim being an ensign. Kes is not part of Starfleet so she does not have a rank. It seems pretty unnecessary and potentially confusing to point that so I have removed that part from the infobox. I have also removed "Affiliation" and "Posting" parameters as they seem unnecessary as well. Aoba47 (talk) 00:12, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Those are my thoughts. Please ping me when the above are addressed. Z1720 (talk) 23:23, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Z1720: Thank you for your review. I believe that I have addressed everything, but let me know if anything needs further revision. Hopefully, the article was not too confusing to someone unfamiliar with Star Trek. Aoba47 (talk) 00:12, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pseud 14

[edit]

Putting a placeholder and will get to reviewing soon this week. Pseud 14 (talk) 13:07, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Take as much time as you need. Aoba47 (talk) 13:28, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here are my comments/suggestions. I have very few to add, as this seems be in solid shape.

  • its leader Tanis teaches Kes to see and control particles on the subatomic level. -- at the subatomic level
  • Janeway cures her by undergoing a religious ceremony to learn -- I think it much better to say performing a religious ceremony*
  • I agree that "undergoing" is not the best word choice in this context. I went with "participated in" as Janeway is not leading the ceremony and I was unsure if "performing" would give her too much agency or potentially lead to a misinterpretation. Aoba47 (talk)
  • and the 1996 one for "Flashback" by Diane Carey. -- maybe substitute one with something specific like issue or a similar terminology
  • after reading an interview in which Torres's actor Roxann Dawson talked about how the characters rarely interacted -- I think this can be tweaked to something like after reading an interview in which actor Roxann Dawson, who portrayed Torres, talked about how the characters rarely interacted
  • Kes is also in short stories,-- perhaps something like Kes also appeared in short stories or Kes is also depicted in short stories.
  • ranking as the most popular from the show on a Usenet newsgroup. -- is it a Usenet newsgroup listing? Perhaps this can be emphasized.
  • That is a good point. I have adding listing. I am not honestly not super familiar with Usenet so I was mostly relying on the citation. Let me know if there is any way to make it clearer. Aoba47 (talk) 18:41, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rob Owen, writing for the Albany Times Union -- Albany Times Union should be in italics
  • Tembo wrote that Kes and Circle both have the -- you probably meant to write Circe here. Minor typo.

Overall, a well-written coverage of a fictional character, including academic discussions and critical commentaries. Great work here. Pseud 14 (talk) 16:02, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Pseud 14: Thank you for the review! I believe that I have addressed everything, but please let me know if there was anything that I missed or if there is anything else that could be improved. I hope you are having a good weekend so far! Aoba47 (talk) 18:41, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Changes look good. I am happy to support on prose. Pseud 14 (talk) 19:53, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 20:39, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

Reviewing this version. Why does #1 not have page numbers? Seems like we have a diverse set of sources - academic papers, Star Trek analysis/monographs, and a lot of episodes. Nothing that jumps out as unreliable or questionable, with the caveat that this isn't a field where I do have a lot of expertise. I remember way back when that it's often a problem that only a few people have written analyses of fictional characters, making it hard to get a comprehensive overview - how many folks have analyzed this one? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:15, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Thank you for the review. I did not use page numbers for that source as they were not provided in the Google Books version. I replaced the citation with an older copy of the book from the Internet Archive that does have page numbers (and has the same information). That should make it easier for readers to access the information, and I think the Internet Archive version is better for accessibility anyway.
I would not be surprised if there was more coverage (academic and otherwise) for fictional characters over the years. I do not have an exact number off the top of my head, but I believe that I have exhausted all the relevant (and higher-quality) sources on this character. I have tried my best to go through every type of sources so I did not miss anything. Please let me know if there is anything else that needs to be addressed. I hope you are having a good weekend so far. Aoba47 (talk) 17:43, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jo-Jo, is there more to come? Gog the Mild (talk) 21:38, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, not really. I guess the question is how many people have analyzed this character. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:28, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I said above, I do not have an exact number on how many people have analyzed this character, but I believe that I have exhausted all reliable and high-quality sources for this article. I do not think an exact number would be particularly useful anyway. Aoba47 (talk) 19:12, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Vanamonde93

[edit]

At first glance this appears to be a solid piece of work, and I don't expect to have many notes. Please feel free to quibble with any copyedits I may make.

  • My first thought is that the plot summary is on the long side. This isn't a film article, obviously, and I don't believe we have guidelines for fictional character bios specifically. But where MOS:FILMPLOT recommends 400-700 words, you're nearly at 1300 here. I'm not asking you to halve the length; there's more plot to cover here, after all. But I would suggest going through the plot to remove details that aren't needed to understand the character or the rest of the article. For instance; I wonder if the sentence about Tom Paris could be omitted.
  • That is understandable. I kept the first sentence about Tom Paris as the love triangle with Kes, Neelix, and Paris as it is an important storyline for all three characters. I reduced the part on "Parturition"; I think it is important to include a brief part on how the triangle was resolved, but I do not think the more exact details are necessary. I removed parts from "Before and After" (i.e. her marriage to Paris, etc.) as all the reader needs to know is that she lived through an alternative timeline. Kes appears in 70 episodes so it is a good amount of information to distill into a section. If there are any suggestions on what can be cut or condensed, then please let me know as I do understand your concern. Aoba47 (talk) 15:08, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just as an update, but I had also removed a sentence about the episode "Sacred Ground" with an edit summary that should hopefully explain the rationale behind that move. Aoba47 (talk) 18:22, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would also like to see the beginning of the "on-screen" story signposted more clearly.
  • I have included a part that says the character was introduced in the show's pilot episode, but I would be more than happy to hear any other suggestions or ideas on how to address this point. Aoba47 (talk) 15:08, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The discussion of parapsychology in the development section is - unintentionally, I'm sure - misleading, in my view. Parapsychology is considered a pseudoscience. The text needs to be clear about whether any research was into alleged "real" psychic phenomena, into the academic study of parapsychology as a sociological phenomenon, or psychic phenomena in literature (or something else). I'm specifically objecting to the fragment "...to help research parapsychology.[33] Based on these findings, Kes was shown..."
  • I removed "parapsychology". I included it as as the sources references "parapsychological research". I think it would be best to focus instead on what this research resulted in (i.e. a list of psi abilities for the producers to choose from) as that had a more direct effect on the character and is hopefully clearer. Research for Voyager was odd. After all, they did consult Jamake Highwater to help write a Native American character (Chakotay) even though by that time, the controversy around him was already known. Please let me know though if this should be addressed further. Aoba47 (talk) 16:03, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This isn't a full source review, but I did a sweep for analytical sources about this character, and I failed to find anything substantive that isn't already covered; nice work.
  • The opening sentences of the last two subsections are a bit woolly, the second in particular. There's also tense mis-matches between the three subsections: "have analyzed", "had varying interpretations", "scholars focused"...some minor wordsmithing may help. Similarly, ", which critics have interpreted in various ways" could probably be omitted (just that fragment).
  • Thank you for catching this. I had a feeling that this would be an issue, but for whatever reason, I was struggling with actually seeing it. I believe that I have addressed this, but please let me know if there is anything I missed. I am not sure why, but I am just struggling a bit with this at the moment. Aoba47 (talk) 16:10, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's about it from me; nice work, I expect to support. Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:33, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Vanamonde93: Thank you for your review. I greatly appreciate it. I believe that I have addressed everything, but please let me know if there is anything that I either missed or would benefit from further revision. I hope you are having a good week so far. Aoba47 (talk) 16:10, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Joeyquism

[edit]

Hi Aoba47! I should get to this soon, Saturday at the very latest. By the way, thank you so much for your very helpful review on my FAC; your words were incredibly kind and made my entire week. Please consider this review as an extension of my gratitude :) joeyquism (talk) 22:03, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the kind words and for your help. I greatly appreciate it, and I am glad that I was able to make your week. I am looking forward to your review. Aoba47 (talk) 23:15, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again Aoba47! Much of this happens to be personal preference; I see very little wrong with the way this article is written. Feel free to refuse my suggestions with justification:

  • In "Elogium", emanations from space-dwelling lifeforms cause Kes to prematurely enter a fertile period. - Is it worth it to link the page for fertility here?
  • She used her abilities in earlier episodes, including having visions of a planet's destruction in "Time and Again" and showing an eidetic memory in "Eye of the Needle". - Should "used" be "uses"? I feel as if the past tense here is rather awkward, as the rest of the section is mostly in present tense; additionally, these earlier episodes should still exist and thus would warrant the usage of present tense.
  • In Greg Cox's 1997 novel, The Black Shore, Kes has horrific visions... - Is there any information that expands upon the "horrific visions" mentioned here?
  • The source does not describe the visions. I do know that the "twist" in the book is that the people on the seemingly idyllic planet are actually alien versions of vampires. I did not include this as it is not entirely relevant to Kes as character, but I can include further information if necessary. Aoba47 (talk) 13:11, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...but changed to be a medical intern... - Could be "but was later changed to be a medical intern"
  • His initial design was for a pastel-colored costume inspired by a sprite. Producers rejected it, suggesting a costume similar to Peter Pan's. - This is most definitely a matter of personal taste, but I am not too keen on shorter sentences - to me, they disrupt the flow of an otherwise engaging text. I would suggest combining these sentences with a semicolon; perhaps something like "...inspired by a sprite; producers rejected it, instead suggesting..." or similar would be a little better. Again, this is just how little ol' me would write it; you are at total liberty to disregard if you do not feel it is appropriate.
  • ...and as "delicate, beautiful, young". - Add "[and]" before "young"?
  • ...she was key to helping him develop... - Perhaps "key" could be substituted with something like "instrumental" for a more professional tone?
  • In a 2010 StarTrek.com interview, Lien said she preferred "The Gift" as her final episode... - I am not sure of the inclusion of the interview's source, StarTrek.com. I noticed that it links to the page for Star Trek itself; in this case, I think I am more interested in the quotes in the interview itself rather than the source. Perhaps just "In a 2010 interview" would suffice.
  • Other reviewers disliked this change. - I think that a clause about the general criticisms made against this change would benefit this sentence. E.g. "Other reviewers disliked this change, characterizing it as an excuse to avoid utilizing Kes" or something similar? I understand if this is not possible or if it would introduce unnecessary complexities, so feel free to disregard.
  • Comparing Voyager to Homer's the Odyssey - Should just be "Homer's Odyssey"; however, it should be noted that doing this will MOS:SEAOFBLUE the sentence - in this case, I suggest de-wikilinking Homer.
  • Revised. For some reason, I thought it was the Odyssey and not just Odyssey. I kept both links as I think they are important, but I put a descriptor between the two to avoid a sea of blue. Aoba47 (talk) 13:11, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have not seen this show, nor have I interacted with much of the Star Trek series, so I had no prior context going in; however, your descriptions of this character are certainly engaging and make for a wonderful read. I tried to be as comprehensive as I could here, but I tend to be a bit of a pedagogue when an article is of excellent quality when I get to it, so I apologize if my criticisms come off as if they are accounting for minutiae. Nevertheless, once these small points are addressed, I will re-read and likely come back to take a supportive stance. Thank you for a most wonderful read, and I hope you're having a great week! joeyquism (talk) 05:46, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Joeyquism: Thank you for the review. I am glad that the article made sense and was enjoyable for someone unfamiliar with the show and the franchise as a whole. It is always best to get that kind of review as I could miss some really obvious gaps or points of potential confusion. No need to apologize about any of your comments as I agree and understand all of them. I have addressed everything and left a response to hopefully explain the The Black Shore part. Please let me know if there anything else that can be improved. I hope you have a great weekend. Aoba47 (talk) 13:11, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Aoba47: Thank you for getting back to me! I've done a re-read and do not find anything else of concern. I'm happy to support this article for nomination. Hope our paths cross again in the near future, and have a wonderful weekend as well! joeyquism (talk) 16:41, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comments

[edit]
  • "she is also shown as having a hidden strength and maturity." Minor and optional: would this read better without the "a"?
  • It would probably be better without the "a" as it would read more like character traits and qualities rather than singular items that she has in her possession. It would also be a better match for the earlier part of the same sentence. I have removed it. Aoba47 (talk) 22:11, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "While Voyager was airing, Kes was a fan favourite character while critics had a more negative response". Is it possible to having "while" twice so close together?

Gog the Mild (talk) 21:51, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for catching this. I am not sure how that happened. I have revised it, but let me know if a better word choice is necessary. Thank you for your comments and of course, feel free to let me know if there is anything else that can be improved. I hope you have a great weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 22:11, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Spot-checks

[edit]

Spot-checks of a small portion of sources for verifiability.

  • Ref 3 - OK
  • Ref 7 - OK
  • Ref 25 - OK
  • Ref 76 - OK
  • Ref 91 - OK
  • Ref 110 - OK
  • Ref 114 - OK
  • Ref 118 - OK

No concerns from me. FrB.TG (talk) 11:18, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for checking this for me. Aoba47 (talk) 15:33, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 24 June 2024 [9].

Lagonda Taraf

[edit]
Nominator(s): 750h+ 23:33, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My third nomination, following the Aston Martin DB9 and the Aston Martin Rapide articles which both have been promoted. This article is about a drop-dead gorgeous saloon car that was prouduced by the British automaker Aston Martin between 2015 and 2016; less than 200 units were built. Despite being short (just below 1000 words), I believe that it is comprehensive, well written and well sourced. Enjoy the read! 750h+ 23:33, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from ZKang123

[edit]

Let me look through. A rather short article, but I agree it seems well-written and comprehensive at first glance.

  • I think the lead could have more of the technical details that's later elaborated in the body. For now, the lead seems rather short.
done
  • "priced at over one million dollars." – I think I would write "priced at over US$1 million".
done
  • "Aston Martin's Q division conducted the project" – not sure if conducted is the proper term. Like wouldn't it be "executed" or "taken on"?
done, changed to "carried out"
  • "Most of this testing" – "Most of the test"
done
  • "that only one hundred cars" ... "increased to two hundred units". Why not just use 100 cars and 200 units per the MOS on numbers? Not that you can't spell them out, however. Just a bit curious.
changed, people might prefer that
  • "Manufacture of the Taraf" – I think it should be "Manufacturing of the Taraf"?
Changed to "the manufacture".
  • "employs" – might suggest "makes" to sound more encyclopedic and less promo-ly
changed to "extensively incorporates"
  • "In lieu of the Rapide's pressed aluminium body" – what does this mean, however? Like, is it due to this pressed aluminum body that the Taraf features a lightweight carbon fibre exterior?
yes, the Rapide features a pressed aluminum body while the Taraf is carbon fibre
  • "The interior of the vehicle incorporated elements from other Aston Martin models, particularly the Rapide. It featured console-mounted push-button transmission controls, an advanced infotainment system, a 1,000-watt Bang & Olufsen BeoSound audio system, and leather upholstery."
    • I think it can be combined into: "The vehicle interior incorporates features from other Aston Martin models, particularly the Rapide, including console-mounted push-button transmission controls, an advanced infotainment system, a 1,000-watt Bang & Olufsen BeoSound audio system, and leather upholstery."
done
  • "The Taraf features Aston Martin's 5.9-litre V12 engine. It generates..." – can be combined into "The Taraf features Aston Martin's 5.9-litre V12 engine which generates..."
done
  • "Upon release, the Taraf received positive reviews" – "The Taraf received positive reviews upon its debut..."
I've removed "Upon release" since the reviews aren't just in its debut
  • I encourage in the reception section to use less direct lifting and perhaps a bit more rephrasing.
fixed.


That's all I have. Once these are addressed, I will be more than happy to support.--ZKang123 (talk) 05:01, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all of these comments @ZKang123: i'll leave some comments on your FAC shortly! 750h+ 06:07, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've expanded the lead little more by incorporating more details from the body. Feel free to rewrite accordingly. Otherwise, I'm willing to support.--ZKang123 (talk) 09:57, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Much thanks ZKang123, the comments were helpful, and are very much appreciated! I have altered it slightly. 750h+ 10:23, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pseud 14

[edit]
  • I would link saloon in the lead.
done
  • only 100 cars would be built for exclusively for the Middle Eastern market. -- only 100 cars would be built exclusively for the Middle Eastern market.
done
  • both cars possess a similar weight. -- despite the latter's larger size, both cars possess similar weight.
done
  • most expensive four-door saloon in -- I would link this first instance of "saloon" (and unlink the instance in "Design and technology")
done
  • Worth linking "infotainment", seems to be a blend word.
done
  • The Taraf received mostly positive reviews, with most reviewers citing -- consider tweaking so "reviews" and "reviewers" don't sound repetitive. Perhaps critics or something similar in liue of reviewers.
done
  • "it [does not] ride as well as its rivals, but despite its size and physical presence, it handles better than [you would] expect. -- put end quotation.
done

Comments from MSincccc

[edit]
  • I can spot two references in lead. Could they be moved to the article body to comply with MOS:LEAD? It would look neater too.
  • In 1947, the entrepreneur and industrialist David Brown acquired both Lagonda and Aston Martin.[13][14][15] In 1961, Lagonda introduced the Rapide,[note 1] the company's earliest four-door automobile.

In 1961, Lagonda introduced the Rapide,[note 1] the company's earliest four-door automobile. In 1974, Aston Martin introduced Aston Martin's second four-door model, the Lagonda, which was produced until 1990, when 645 units had been produced. In each one of the above cases, the comma after the year could be omitted as done in most articles following British English. MSincccc (talk) 16:36, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments @MSincccc: i've addressed them all. 750h+ 05:49, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Taraf received predominantly positive reviews, with most critics noting the steep price as its primary drawback. This sentence is more preferable for the first sentence under the "Reception" section. Regards MSincccc (talk) 06:09, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
done
The following sentences could be modified as such-
  • Angus MacKenzie, reviewing for Motor Trend, wrote that "this $1 million saloon, hand-built by Aston Martin,...
done
  • Autocar magazine also criticised its price,...
done
  • Mike Duff of Car and Driver magazine emphasised the light yet responsive hydraulic steering and the chassis's impressive lateral grip, even in wet conditions.
done
  • You could also omit the "the" before entrepreneur and industrialist David Brown.
SchroCat said that the original layout was more preferable
  • Furthermore, could you please indicate the reference which speaks of Angus MacKenzie's review for Motor Trend.
done
Once these suggestions are addressed I would be more than willing to extend my support to this nomination. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 06:28, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MSincccc: hope my responses were good. 750h+ 06:37, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@750h+ I will support this nomination, as the required changes have been made. The article overall is well-written and comprehensively covers all aspects of the Taraf, making it suitable for an FA. Regards.e. MSincccc (talk) 06:58, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the support MSincccc, very much appreciated! 750h+ 06:58, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review (pass)

[edit]

Source review

[edit]

Spot-check upon request. It's not terribly consistent which sources link their page numbers and which ones don't e.g #11 does but #15 doesn't. The NYT does not need an ISSN. Seems like we are mostly using magazines for car aficionados. Is there a source out there that discusses their reliability? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:24, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: i've linked the sources with pages that weren't linked. I removed the ISSN for the NYT source. As for the reliability for the car sources, both Car and Driver and Autoweek are owned by Hearst Communications, which publishes many reliable sources like the the San Francisco Chronicle so that should be fine. As for the other sources, like the magazines Autocar and Classic and Sports Car, they are the best I could find; cars--especially with the number of this model produced--are somewhat of an obscure topic that would be covered by reliable sources. I believe that the current sources are reputable 750h+ 07:48, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: wondering if you saw the above? 750h+ 09:26, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I saw it. I was kind of hoping that there is some discussion out there about the reliability of car magazines since this is a field where I know absolutely nothing. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:15, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked through the WT:CAR archives and it unfortunately doesn't look like there was a discussion. 750h+ 23:59, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jo-Jo, any further thoughts. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:51, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd love if there was someone who knows these magazines sufficiently to comment on their reliability. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:21, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok so I’ve found some info.
  • Car and Driver are published by Hearst Communications which publishes many reliable sources like SFGate
  • Top Gear is owned by BBC which is reliable
  • Motor Trend is owned by Motor Trend Group, which is owned by Warner Bros. Discovery, and i believe that is reliable
  • Auto Express and Evo were published by Dennis Publishing, which publishes the MoneyWeek and The Week magazine
  • Autocar and Classic and Sports Car are published by the Haymarket Media Group, which i believe has collaborated with the BBC.
Pinging editors like @Stepho-wrs, Parsecboy, and Mr.choppers: to see what they think. Best, 750h+ 08:07, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The big name, long-time car magazines listed above are written by highly competent writers who know cars well and are considered quite reliable by car enthusiasts. Note that Top Gear magazine is quite reliable but the Top Gear TV show is a complete farce. I've found that non-car magazines such as the NYT tend to be outside of their area of expertise (economics, politics) and therefore often just repeat basic facts from a press release instead of in-depth coverage.  Stepho  talk  08:54, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seconding Stepho and 750h+; while clearly significant in establishing notability, newspapers and non-automotive journals are often less than reliable (NY Times called the Nissan Figaro a kei car once!). C&D, TG, MT, AX, Evo, Autocar, C&SC are all reliable.  Mr.choppers | ✎  01:16, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"I've found that non-car magazines such as the NYT tend to be outside of their area of expertise (economics, politics) and therefore often just repeat basic facts from a press release instead of in-depth coverage" Ha, that's a typical problem with news media I've noticed (in the field of science, not transportation), when people want to use them for stuff that you can use the primary source for. Anyhow, I take that these magazines used here work as sources? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:36, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thanks Jo-Jo. Thanks for the confirmation @Mr.choppers and Stepho-wrs:. 750h+ 07:01, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jo-Jo, is this one all good? Gog the Mild (talk) 12:32, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I guess so. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:32, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PCN02WPS

[edit]

Comments to come. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 16:55, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lead and infobox

  • The quote in the first paragraph (and/or when it appears in the body) should have attribution
done
  • "manufactured by the technology company ZF Friedrichshafen" → to simplify, ZF's qualification could be removed ("manufactured by ZF...")
done
  • Since there wasn't manufacturing in an country besides the UK, could "United Kingdom" be removed from the "assembly" parameter in the infobox
It’s usually like that in automobile articles (weird, I know)

Background/development

  • As someone with no knowledge of this stuff (apart from your articles), I will genuinely ask - do you think a redlink for Wilbur Gunn would be reasonable?
added
  • "When it was launched in 1939, the Lagonda Rapide V12 was" → recommend switching "it" and "the Lagonda Rapide V12" - having "it" in the first clause confused me at first because I assumed we were still talking about the M45R
added

Design and technology

  • Attribute quote as mentioned above
done
  • While not incorrect, I suppose, "possess similar weight" reads a little oddly formal to me; maybe "are of similar weight" or "have similar weight"?
done
  • "developed by ZF Friedrichshafen, a technology company" → as above, I don't think the last bit is necessary
done

That's all I've got for prose, nicely done. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 17:15, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review and great comments @PCN02WPS:, very much appreciated! 750h+ 17:42, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good stuff, happy to support. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 10:21, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the support PCN! Appreciated lots. 750h+ 10:25, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Co-ord query

[edit]
You can. It is that you are doing your nominations no favours by repeatedly nagging us. The next time I am looking for a nomination to consider closing I shall deliberately select one of the 27 nominations which have been waiting longer than this one. I suspect that my colleagues may be similarly inclined. Apart from this, I would only be repeating things I have already said on my talk page or your previous FAC; apparently to little end. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:13, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops sorry about this. I thought only one co-ord ping per nomination would be a bit less annoying than previous. I’ll try to tone down on them. Best, 750h+ 18:31, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt

[edit]
  • Not a subject I'm greatly familiar with but ...
  • "The Lagonda marque was established in 1906" Would calling it a "brand" be better if synonymous? Marque is not everywhere a common term.
done
  • "In 1961, Lagonda introduced the Rapide,[note 1] the company's " You've not before mentioned a company
Lagonda is the company
  • "In the same year, Aston Martin chose to revive the Lagonda brand aiming to explore various market segments and commemorate Lagonda's centenary.[26][27][28]" I might cut "aiming"
done
That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:14, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments, @Wehwalt: much appreciated! 750h+ 23:45, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support with the caveat that I'm not familiar with the subject matter and am not in a position to judge comprehensiveness.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:38, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Wehwalt, appreciated! 750h+ 15:58, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comments

[edit]
  • Books: Taylor and Smale are not in alphabetical order.
  • "between 2015 and 2016". There is no between 2015 and 2016. Suggest 'in 2015 and 2016'.
  • If this is in British English, why "automaker" rather than carmaker?
  • "is based upon the chassis of the DB9 and Rapide". Suggest 'is based on the same chassis as the DB9 and Rapide'.
  • "The car received mostly positive reviews for its spacious rear seating and handling ability." As written, only two features were (mostly) positively reviewed. Perhaps tweak the sentence. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:16, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the comments, Gog. All have been addressed. Sorry about the excessive ping (won’t happen again). 750h+ 23:11, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 24 June 2024 [10].

Igor Stravinsky

[edit]
Nominator(s): MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 14:51, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Back again for more with the 20th century's greatest parody artist: Igor Stravinsky. All jokes aside, his ability to blend in with so many styles and still provide a quintessentially Stravinskyian sound is amazing, and makes going through his oeuvre so exciting! Excited for everyone's comments, and thanks to those who were at the short PR before this nom. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 14:51, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
  • File:Stravinsky-parents_(cropped).jpg was published before 2003. Ditto File:Bakst_Diaghilev.jpg[11], File:Igor_Stravinski_6_slika_1915_žak_emil_blanš_(cropped).jpg[12], File:Vera_Stravinsky_by_Serge_Sudeikine.jpg[13]
    • Then I've no clue how to tag these. They're all very old works of art (the first being created over a century ago, same for Diaghilev) so I've no clue how they could not be public domain. What's the right tag here, because if there is a publication from before 1929 that has those images, I certainly will never find them. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no)
  • File:Dushkin_LCCN2014717914_(cropped).jpg: when and where was this first published? Ditto File:Igor_Stravinsky_(1962).tif
    • LOC said that there are no rights on the Bain collection, so Dushkin is free regardless of when and where (even then, Bain was a news service, so tracking it down would be very difficult). I don't know where the latter was published because I cannot access the source, since it was uploaded by someone else from the archive MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no)

Nikkimaria, wanted to clarify, does the image review pass? If there's anything else that needs to be cut I can try to find other replacements. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 12:01, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All images seem appropriate except the one of Rostropovitch who isn't mentioned at all in the article. Either a mention or a chop... — Iadmc♫talk  12:11, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Iadmc, yes, perhaps that is odd- cut. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 12:47, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe one other thing: alternate the images left/right? Just my preference — Iadmc♫talk  12:49, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also a good idea. I added the Rostropovich image back to replace an unverifiable image, except moved it up to the "Life" section, so it has more context now MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 20:56, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(watching) Alternating is not a good idea. Left images cause formatting problems, therefore images should be left only if they show a person looking to the right. My 2ct. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:14, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gerda Arendt In what way do they cause formatting problems? @MyCatIsAChonk I've added a short paragraph about S and Rostropovitch to go with the image. Hope it's ok? — Iadmc♫talk  03:54, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I saw that, thank you! I edited a bit of it and actually moved it into an efn within the caption- while it does provide context, it feels more like extra info that isn't important to that era of his life. However, I certainly see its value in showing how he collaborated with other musicians, so I think and efn works best. Thank you for writing that out! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 12:21, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's fear enough. I did wonder hao important it was. EFN is better — Iadmc♫talk  12:54, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MyCatIsAChonk Thanks for the thuncks deespyte my speeling! — Iadmc♫talk  13:45, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hardly the worst typos- even some of the most amusing are intentional (WP:YOURMAJESTYYOURSLIPISSHOWING is one of the best essays we have to offer) MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 14:15, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
LOL. End of that — Iadmc♫talk  14:33, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I looked into the Yorck Project issue a bit more. It appears that the PD claim for the artwork is based on life+70 so would still need US tagging. Believe File:Igor_Stravinsky_(1962).tif is still unverified as well. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:37, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cut the 1962 image and added tags to the Yorck images (the Firebird sketch is now owned by the museum of modern art and was included in a 1978 exhibition, so we can safely say that it's public domain; the Rimsky portrait was acquired by the Tretyakov Gallery in 1898 so it's definitely public domain). Thank you for the thorough review! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 20:55, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Article review

[edit]

Hello! I've read through the article. Here are some points to consider:

  • Vladimir Rimsky-Korsakov isn't really notable apart for being Stravinsky's friend and Nikolai's son. Remove the horrible red link!
  • "Importantly, Rimsky-Korsakov agreed to personally advise..." is a split infinitive: this isn't Star Trek! " Importantly, Rimsky-Korsakov agreed personally to advise..." is better.
  • "...the student began his large-scale Symphony in E-flat,[c] the first draft of which he finished in 1905. Stravinsky's first public premiere came in 1905, when the dedicatee of the Piano Sonata, Nikolay Richter, performed it..." I was confused here as was still thinking about the Symphony!
  • Again, a red link: Church of the Annunciation (Saint Petersburg). Needs an article or removing.
  • Renard is linked twice in two adjoining paragraphs: Remove the second link.
  • Turn towards neoclassicism better The turn towards neoclassicism or Turning towards neoclassicism? (See also Turn towards serialism later.) Same Religious crisis and international touring perhaps A religious crisis and international touring? Maybe just me...
  • We know what an affair is! (There are other possibly unnecessary links too like superimposed further up.)
  • "...where the composer died at home on 6 April at the age of 88". No year here! (1971)

Generally the whole article is well crafted and passes all the requirements for FA: well-written, comprehensive, well-researched, verifiable with inline citations where appropriate; neutral, stable, and compliant with Wikipedia's copyright policy and free of plagiarism or too-close paraphrasing. It follows the style guidelines well and all media are appropriate and relevent. It is quite long however... Then again, he was the leading composer of his time and is extremely influential. I did tire towards the end though. Hope you get the FA! — Iadmc♫talk  13:01, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for the review! On the comment about subtitled: composer articles that I referred to use subtitles in the form of "[Subject's] return to Paris", like in Debussy and Tchaikovsky. Here, it's his notable action during that period without his name preceding it: "[Stravinsky's] Turn towards neoclassicism" or "[Stravinsky's] Religious crisis and international touring". All else were fixed- thank you! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 15:39, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Forgot to ping Iadmc MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 15:40, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Got it thanks! Good luck! — Iadmc♫talk  16:11, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Iadmc will you be supporting/opposing the promotion? Just wanted to clarify- it's all good if you're just here for comments! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 21:04, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support easy — Iadmc♫talk  21:10, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Tim riley

[edit]

I'm not quite sure how I came to miss the previous excursion of this article to FAC, but I was one of the peer reviewers this time round and commented extensively then. Rereading now for FAC I see little more to quibble about. In no particular order:

  • I don't think TIME should be in caps in the caption
  • The heraldic picture is of the whole arms of the family (the coat of arms is just the shield) with crest, mantle and all. Just "Arms of ..." is what you want, I think.
  • "By age fourteen, Stravinsky mastered Mendelssohn's Piano Concerto No. 1" – the piano part, presumably, but it might be as well to say so.
  • "the influence from Russian Orthodox vocal music and 18th-century composers like Handel were not well-received in the press…" – singular noun (influence) needs a singular verb (was).
  • "the Brandenburg Concerto-like work…" I think I'd add another hyphen, between Brandenburg and Concerto, but I don't press the point.
  • "Threni showed his full shift towards use of tone rows" – could do with a blue link to tone row
  • " Soon after being dismissed from Lenox Hill Hospital…" – is one dismissed from hospital in AmE? (One is discharged in BrE, but I merely ask the question.)
  • "Stravinsky's music is often divided into three periods of composition … where Stravinsky used highly structured composition techniques pioneered by composers of the Second Viennese School" – the second and third "Stravinsky"s in this sentence would be better, I think, as pronouns.
  • I was uncertain at PR why you sometimes use the ♭ and ♯ symbols but keep referring to his (delectable) early symphony as the Symphony in E-flat. I still am. We also have "E-flat dominant 7 superimposed on an F-flat major triad" and "Piano Sonata in F-sharp minor". I'd recommend sticking either to ♭ and ♯ symbols or to words throughout.
  • Initials: I believe the MoS prefers us to put a space between people's initials: T. S. Eliot rather than T.S. Eliot. You have done so for C. F. Ramuz and W. H. Auden, and I think Eliot should be treated likewise.

Nothing there to prevent my adding my support for the elevation of this fine article to FA, and I'm happy to do so. I still think it's a mean trick to put a link to a different article in the info-box, but if you must… – Tim riley talk 17:51, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, "discharged" from the hospital is certainly where my mind was, but I apparently didn't conjure that word... thank you for this and all the other comments! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 20:51, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pseud 14

[edit]

An in-depth coverage of the subject overall. This would be more of a general (non-expert review) and perhaps some nitpicks on formatting here and there, since the writing and the structure IMO is in solid shape.

  • three ballets for the Ballets Russes' -- there are a few instances where the possessive forms follow an "apostrophe" and "s" (i.e. Thomas's, Los Angeles's) perhaps, either is correct, but perhaps we can make it consistent throughout.
  • died of pulmonary edema on 6 April 1971 -- comma after the year per MOS:DATECOMMA
  • His father, Fyodor Ignatyevich Stravinsky, was a famous bass -- perhaps specify that he is a bass opera singer as you did in the lead.
    • In retrospect, just saying "bass" is enough- cut the bit from the lead instead. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no)
      • I think that works too, as we do refer to folks like Pavaroti and Domingo as tenors.
  • Igor was born in Oranienbaum while his family vacationed there for the summer; -- maybe some slight change to say, Igor was born in Oranienbaum, where his family vacationed for the summer, assuming there refers to Oranienbaum.
  • The Stravinsky family moved to Lausanne, Switzerland -- Lausanne, Switzerland per MOS:GEOLINK
  • Clarens, Switzerland - do not link country or write as "Clarens"
  • Leysin, Switzerland - same
  • Carantec, France - same
  • Nice, France - same
  • His student works were primarily assignments from his teacher Rimsky-Korsakov and were mainly influenced by Russian composers like his teacher. -- some variation perhaps so that the second mention of teacher isn't repeated.
  • however, critics found the works to actually stick too close to his teacher's traditional style -- perhaps something like resemble or similar wording instead of stick too close

That's all from me. Fantastic work on this BLP biography. Pseud 14 (talk) 22:17, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pseud 14 I wish it were a BLP! To see him conduct would be a blessing... but alas, there are many recordings- thanks for the review, all points have been addressed! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 01:37, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Out of habit, I have a tendency to refer to every biographical articles a BLP, when so many are indeed not living (something I haven't worked on yet). Nevertheless, changes look good and happy to support for promotion. Pseud 14 (talk) 02:24, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your long line of BLP FAs is an impressive feat and continues to impress- look forward to the next one! Thank you! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 00:12, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MSinccc

[edit]

Lead

  • Specify that Stravinsky was "of Russian descent" to provide clarity on his background without altering the flow significantly.
  • Use notable for the riot it provoked at its premiere to notorious for the riot it provoked at its premiere for a more precise expression
    • After this, Stravinsky's Russian phase was followed could be changed to Following this, Stravinsky's Russian phase gave way to for better readability
  • Could change adopted serial procedures to adopted serial techniques.
    • Simplify the description of his later work to avoid redundancy, such as His compositions during this period echoed elements of his earlier works.
    MSincccc (talk) 07:11, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]


  • and Anna (née Kholodovskaya), an amateur singer and pianist from a long-established Russian family.

Only one suggestion for now. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 07:53, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MSincccc, thanks for the review! For the comments about the lead: is the green text supposed to be quotes already present? I can't find "notable for the riot it provoked at its premiere" or "After this, Stravinsky's Russian phase was followed" or the others in the lead at all. Are these suggestions to change an already-existing sentence? Thanks! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 12:26, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MyCatIsAChonk The green ones are the suggested versions whereas the turquoise ones are the versions existing in the article. Furthermore, the sentences mentioned under the Life, Music and Artistic influences headings are the suggested ones. The suggestions have been made after consulting the Oxford English dictionary. Looking forward to your response. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 12:54, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MSincccc, I'm having a difficult time understanding the comments. The first five bullet points confuse me, as none of the turquoise text quotes are actually in the lead. For the other points, I'm not sure what those are trying to replace. Could you name the exact sentences in the present version that you think should be rephrased? Thank you! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 14:08, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MyCatIsAChonk I will be posting the remaining comments later. Sorry for the inconvenience. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 14:47, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It’s all good, thanks! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 15:17, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Starting from the beginning then.
Lead
  • Stravinsky's Russian period was characterized... Could use "his" here as "Stravinsky" is mentioned in the preceding sentence.
  • The same sentence could be rephrased as-During his Russian period, Stravinsky was notably influenced by Russian styles and folklore. Works such as *Renard* (1916) and *Les noces* (1923) drew upon Russian folk poetry, while compositions like *L'Histoire du soldat* (1918) integrated these folk elements with popular musical forms, including the tango, waltz, ragtime, and chorale.
  • In 1998, Time magazine listed Stravinsky as one of the 100 most influential people of the century. "Listed" is preferable to "named" for a smoother flow. Also you could delink "magazine" in the above manner. Rest of the lead is fine as it is. Regards.
MSincccc (talk) 04:28, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Life
  • The name "Stravinsky" is of Polish origin,... "Is" is preferable to "was".
  • Stravinsky was born in Oranienbaum while his family vacationed there for the summer;... This version avoids repeating the phrase "was born in Oranienbaum" and also omits his first name "Igor" which need not be mentioned repeatedly. It's also more concise than the present one.
  • Constantly in fear of his short-tempered father "Short-tempered" is preferable to "hot-tempered".
  • There should be consistency in how the article's subject is referred to. In some places, it's "Igor," while in others, he is referred to as "Stravinsky."
    • This is intentional; just saying "Stravinsky" would be confusing since his family is also being discussed. The prose officially switches to just discussing him at paragraph 3, so the last name is used then MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no)
  • By age fourteen, Stravinsky had mastered the solo part of Mendelssohn's Piano Concerto No. 1, and at age fifteen, he completed a piano reduction of a string quartet by Alexander Glazunov. Suggested version.
  • Despite his musical passion and ability, Stravinsky's parents expected him to study law at the University of Saint Petersburg, and he enrolled there in 1901. Refined sentence.
  • During summer vacation of 1902, Stravinsky traveled with Vladimir Rimsky-Korsakov to Heidelberg Could omit "Vladimir" here.
  • In August 1905, Stravinsky announced his engagement to Yekaterina Nosenko, his first cousin whom he had met in 1890 during a family trip. Slightly more preferable as it includes "had" before "met".
  • The couple soon had two children: Théodore, born in March 1907,... Could mention at least the month given it is known.
It's mentioned here though. Regards MSincccc (talk) 18:56, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • as "the best of my works before The Firebird". Replaced "was" with "as". But the present version is also fine as it stands.
Comments up to the International fame, 1909–1920 sub-section. I will provide further suggestions later. MSincccc (talk) 04:58, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Preferred versions from the International fame, 1909–1920 section
  • In 1907, Diaghilev presented a five-concert series of Russian music at the Paris Opera; the following year, he staged the Paris premiere of Rimsky-Korsakov's version of Boris Godunov. Changed "next" to "following".
  • Stravinsky was working on Act I of his first opera The Nightingale.
  • While composing The Firebird, Stravinsky conceived an idea for a work about "a solemn pagan rite: sage elders, seated in a circle, watched a young girl dance herself to death". Replaced "had" with "conceived" for a more refined version.
Illness and wartime collaborations
  • In early 1914, his wife, Yekaterina, contracted tuberculosis and was admitted to a sanatorium in Leysin, Switzerland, where the couple's fourth child, Maria Milena, was born. More preferable.
  • In early July 1914, while his family resided in Switzerland near his sick wife, the composer traveled to Russia to retrieve texts for his next work, a ballet-cantata depicting Russian wedding traditions titled *Les noces*. Soon after he returned, World War I began, and the Stravinskys lived in Switzerland until 1920, initially residing in Clarens and later Morges. Refined version which is clearer and avoids repeating "Yekaterina Stravinsky".
Comments up to the France, 1920–1939 sub-section. I will provide further suggestions later. MSincccc (talk) 11:44, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Starting from the France, 1920–1939 sub-section.
  • During this period, Stravinsky expanded his involvement in conducting and piano performance. He conducted the premiere of his Octet in 1923 and served as the soloist for the premiere of his Piano Concerto in 1924. Following its debut, he embarked on a tour, performing the concerto in over 40 concerts. Refined version that is more preferable.
Religious crisis and international touring
  • Stravinsky's schedule was divided between spending time with his family in Nice, performing in Paris, and touring other locations, often accompanied by de Bosset.
  • Most of 1929 was spent... could be replaced with Most of that year was spent... The latter version is preferable to the former as it avoids repeating the year (1929).
  • Between touring concerts, he composed the choral Symphony of Psalms, a deeply religious work that premiered in December 1930 could also be replaced with Between touring concerts, he composed the choral Symphony of Psalms, a deeply religious work that premiered in December 1930 for the same reason.
    • I'm confused about this one, since the red and green text appear to be the same sentence? I think I understand what you mean though; added 'that year' in place of 1930 MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no)
  • On 10 June 1934, Stravinsky became a naturalized French citizen, protecting all his future works under copyright in France and the United States. Is the precise date relevant in this context? If so, the sentence could be adjusted to adhere to WP:Proseline guidelines despite it not being mandatory.
  • After the short run of Perséphone, Stravinsky embarked on a successful three-month tour of the United States with Dushkin;... Preferable to use "tour of the United States" to "United States tour"
  • Stravinsky's last years in France from late 1938 to 1939 were marked... Could omit the phrase "from late 1938 to 1939" for a smoother flow.
  • In addition, the increasingly hostile criticism of his music in major publications and failed run for a seat at the Institut de France further dissociated him from France, and shortly after the beginning of World War II in September 1939, Stravinsky moved to the United States. Refined version which I suggest could replace the present one. It omits the phrase "the man" which comes out of nowhere(despite it being understood that we are referring to Stravinsky himself).
@MyCatIsAChonk Looking forward to your response to the above suggestions before I publish my final set of comments. It was a great read (pardon me if the list is too long to bear). Regards MSincccc (talk) 14:23, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
MSincccc All fixed- many thanks for the comments thus far! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 18:56, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Preferred versions-
  • Stravinsky and Vera de Bosset were married on March 9, 1940, in Bedford, Massachusetts. After the completion of his lecture series, the couple relocated to Los Angeles, where they applied for American naturalization.
  • ...and frequent guests included musicians Joseph Szigeti, Arthur Rubinstein, and Sergei Rachmaninoff.[150][147] However, Stravinsky eventually joined popular Hollywood circles, attending parties with celebrities and becoming closely acquainted with European authors Aldous Huxley, W. H. Auden, Christopher Isherwood, and Dylan Thomas. You could drop the "like" after "musicians" and "authors" for a smoother flow.
  • In 1945, Stravinsky received American citizenship and subsequently signed a contract with British publishing house Boosey & Hawkes, who agreed to publish all his future works. Additionally, Stravinsky revised many of his older works and had Boosey & Hawkes publish the new editions to re-copyright his older works.[147][153] Around the 1948 premiere of another Balanchine collaboration, the ballet *Orpheus*, Stravinsky met Robert Craft in New York; Craft had asked Stravinsky to explain the revision of the *Symphonies of Wind Instruments* for an upcoming concert. Stravinsky quickly befriended Craft, inviting the latter to Los Angeles, and Craft soon became Stravinsky's assistant, collaborator, and amanuensis until the composer's death. Dropped the phrase "the young conductor" and used "latter". Furthermore, could you please reduce the number of times "Stravinsky" is mentioned in this paragraph (if possible)?
  • In 1953, he agreed to compose a new opera with a libretto by Dylan Thomas... This version avoids using "Stravinsky" in each sentence thus preventing unnecessary repetition.
  • in which the latter sought to correct myths surrounding him and discuss his relationships with other artists. Could use "latter".
  • where he attended a dinner at the White House with then President John F. Kennedy in honor of the composer's 80th birthday.
  • In September 1962, he returned to Russia for the first time since 1914, accepting an invitation from the Union of Soviet Composers to conduct six performances in Moscow and Leningrad.
  • During his three-week visit he met with Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev and several leading Soviet composers, including Shostakovich and Aram Khachaturian.
@MSincccc I see now, thanks- it's been fixed MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 15:07, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stravinsky revisited biblical themes for many of his later works.
  • A funeral service was held three days later at the Frank E. Campbell Funeral Chapel. Added "the"
This concludes my list of suggestions for the Life section. I will be leaving comments for the remaining sections later. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 09:08, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Artistic influences
Preferred versions:
  • You could also link Charles F. Ramuz.
  • Their collaboration was apparently tense:...
@MyCatIsAChonk Nothing more to complain about from this section. Looking forward to your response. Regards MSincccc (talk) 11:00, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Legacy
Preferred versions:
  • After his death, Stravinsky's importance in modernist music became evident: though many modern styles quickly fell out of fashion (like twelve-tone music), the music of Stravinsky stood out as a body of unique ingenuity, according to Walsh.
  • Béla Bartók could also be linked in the article.
Recordings
  • Stravinsky received five Grammy Awards and a total of eleven nominations for his recordings, with three of his albums being inducted into the Grammy Hall of Fame.
The Writings section is fine as it is. Regards MSincccc (talk) 11:10, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MSincccc, all have been addressed- thank you for your thorough reading of this article! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 11:17, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MyCatIsAChonk Suggestions for the Music section -
  • Much of Stravinsky's music is characterized by short, sharp articulations with minimal rubato or vibrato.
  • Stravinsky's student compositions were primarily assignments from his teacher Rimsky-Korsakov and were mainly influenced by the latter and other Russian composers.
  • ...marked the beginning of his international fame and a departure from 19th-century styles.
I will be leaving my suggestions for the rest of the Music section later. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 16:56, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MSincccc addressed those three MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 17:26, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First three ballets, 1910–1913
Preferred versions:
  • Stravinsky also used a folk tune from Rimsky-Korsakov's opera *The Snow Maiden*, showing the former's continued reverence for his teacher.
  • Stravinsky's third ballet, *The Rite of Spring*, caused a near-riot at the premiere due to its avant-garde nature.
  • He had begun to experiment with polytonality in The Firebird and Petrushka,... Avoid mentioning "Stravinsky" in consecutive sentences when its clearly understood that he is being referred to.
Russian period, 1913–1920
  • The composer Béla Bartók considered Stravinsky's Russian period to have begun in 1913 with *The Rite of Spring* due to its use of Russian folk songs, themes, and techniques. Using its and also omitted "The composer" as we have already introduced Bartok in the previous section. Should it be mentioned again under the Music section
  • While Stravinsky did not use as many folk melodies as he had in his first three ballets, he often used folk poetry.
  • L'Histoire du soldat was composed in 1918 with the Swiss novelist Charles F. Ramuz as a small musical theatre production for dancers, a narrator, and a septet.[221] It mixed the Russian folktales in the narrative with common musical structures of the time, like the tango, waltz, rag, and chorale.[222] Even as his style changed in later years, Stravinsky maintained a musical connection to his Russian roots.
  • He pointed out how the opera contained numerous references to Greek mythology and other operas like Mozart's Don Giovanni and Bizet's Carmen,...
  • Stravinsky was inspired by the operas of Mozart in composing his music,...
Serial period, 1954–1968
  • Agon (1954–57) should be changed to Agon (1954–1957)
  • whereas the second movement from Canticum Sacrum (1956) was the first piece to contain a movement entirely based on a tone row.
  • it begins diatonic,...
  • The influence of other composers on Stravinsky can be noticed throughout this period. He was heavily influenced by Schoenberg,...
  • In addition, he was very familiar with the works of Anton Webern,...
@MyCatIsAChonk This concludes my list of suggestions for the prose of the article. Looking forward to your response. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 08:59, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MSincccc, all addressed with just one comment above MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 11:59, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fine then. @MyCatIsAChonk I have nothing more to complain about. Sorry for the delay. Support. Regards MSincccc (talk) 13:41, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's all good- thank you for your very thorough review! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 14:45, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ligaturama

[edit]

I participated in the peer review so my first tranche of comments has already been addressed. I've gone through the lead to ensure all its assertions are backed up by cited statements in the article body. I also have some miscellaneous suggestions. Nothing major, as before it looks fundamentally sound. Ref numbers taken from ID 1227368908

Lead:

  • Says he was granted American citizenship in 1945, but the body only says "they moved to Los Angeles and applied for American naturalization". Walsh 2001 section 8 gives the year.
  • Says the Rite brought Stravinsky "international fame", but I only see that it was an "overnight sensation" and received "widespread critical acclaim" (presumably from Parisian critics); and that his first three ballets (not just the Rite) "were the beginning of his international fame"
    • I think the way its worded further implies that it's the associated "riot" that brought him international fame, but I don't know if that's the intention
  • The standard division of his works into the three periods isn't directly supported by the body, it's just implied in passing by the cited works at the beginning of the "Music" section. A a citation for "Stravinsky's music is often divided into three periods of composition:" should be a quick fix for this.
  • "While many supporters were confused by Stravinsky's constant stylistic changes" - I'm not clear on how this is supported in the body.
    • In Legacy: However, many saw his subsequent neoclassical period as a return to the past while other composers tried advancing modern music.[272] His subsequent turn towards serialism further alienated him from audiences,
      • When going through it I wasn't sure if this really supported the word "confusion", but I can see what you mean and I can't think of any more appropriate descriptor myself. Ligaturama (talk) 06:49, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Citations to look at:

  • [13] for Stravinsky receiving piano lessons: wrong page number, should be p26
  • [32] I can't see this quotation at all on the page or after a search in the book
  • [54] regarding Diaghilev hearing the early Petrushka drafts, should be pp35-36
  • [67] relevant part appears to go on to page 45

For the record I checked all usages of the following and they seem fine: 1, 2, 4, 25, 51, 60, 63, 187, 212, 213, 214, 218, 236, 264, 265, 278.

Misc:

  • "Stravinsky's compositional career is divided into three periods" - I'd say typically divided into three periods, there are bound to be academics who disagree because they're such a contentious lot.
  • The link to Straus 2001 contains a search query, which means if you follow it it highlights lots of text. Remove the question mark after "f9WSc5aLd6IC" and everything after it
  • "the first draft of which he finished in 1905. In 1905, the dedicatee of the Piano Sonata" - repetition of "in 1905" is a little awkward, would replace with "That year"
  • "necessary to making it in the Russian music scene" - "making it" sounds quite casual, I'd put "success", and maybe replace "scene" with something more academic
  • "Catherine was my dearest friend and playmate ... and from then until we grew into our marriage" - this doesn't seem to make sense unless I'm misreading it, perhaps that second "and" should be removed? I can't check on the original text per the note above
  • In the "Life" section, Pulcinella is mentioned directly before the "Turn to neoclassicism" section, which is strange because it was his first neoclassical work so should be the start of that section.
    • There's a reason for this, see my reply to Tim riley at the PR: "These two sections are actually separated by Stravinsky's move to France, as Stravinsky lived in Switzerland when he traveled to Rome, but I had no other ideas for a subtitle. Noble opined that the Symphonies of Wind Instruments officially started his neoclassical era, Bartok thinks it's the Octet... really, I wrote it in this way because Pulcinella still has lots of Russian period elements, but the thematic idea was much like his neoclassical works. So this "turn towards neoclassicism" more refers to his regular use of this style in his music." MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no)
  • "a capella" should not be italicised per MOS:MUSIC
  • The link to "tone row" in "Turn towards serialism": the pluralising "s" has been nowiki-ed so it isn't part of the link to tone row, is there a reason for that?
  • "Between touring, the composer worked relentlessly" - "between tours" or "while touring" would seem to make more sense
  • "Bartók argued that the period "really starts with his Octet for Wind Instruments, followed by his Concerto for Piano ..."" - not sure what's going on with that ellipsis, the sentence ends there.
  • "but still "embody[s] the distinctive structure of a fairy tale"." - "embod[ies]", or "but still embodies "the destinctive..."
  • Footnote C: "Opus" should be capitalised in "Opus 1" per MOS:MUSIC
  • Footnote M needs a space before its ellipsis
  • Footnote R is missing a closing bracket (parenthesis)

Ligaturama (talk) 15:36, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ligaturama I deeply appreciate you going out of your way to find the correct pages for the failed spotchecks- for the giant blockquote, I put the wrong Stravinsky and Craft book, easy mistake to make when there's six to deal with! Individual replies above, all else were fixed without question MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 19:46, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Great, all addressed so no reason not to add my support; I believe the article meets the FA criteria. I think you've done a particularly good job on keeping it summary-style without too much or too little detail on any specific area, and accordingly it flows at a nice pace despite being a fair length. Thanks for all your work. Ligaturama (talk) 06:59, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your help along the way! If you open another GAN/FAC anytime soon, let me know- hopefully Liszt can make an appearance at FAC/PR sometime soon MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 12:00, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments and support from Gerda

[edit]

I also participated in the peer review, and thank for changes I liked. I didn't get to details of the music section yet:

Generally, while we are requested to link each item only once, we may expect readers to be interested only in that section, and start linking again, such as Glazunov.

Student works

  • I'd place the one review from a later time at the very end of that section.

First ballets

  • "Stravinsky's Russian influences often used large orchestration" - I had to read it twice, - not knowing how influences can use something, and then orchestration ;)
  • I believe that the antagonism of Firebird and K. can be told simpler, without repeating each character's name.
  • I think "second ballet" is enough, without for whom.
  • The melody by R.-K.: does the source say it is the elder's "influence"? I think it could just be a sort of reverence ;)
  • I think we could speak about the third ballet without recalling the ubiquitous riot.
    • I believe it's important to mention, since one may skip straight to this section without reading 'Life'. It also shows that the work was very important to Stravinsky's career and unique in the music scene of the time. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no)
  • Why not speak about playing with atonality in the first ballets where they are covered, instead of adding the point afterwards?
    • The source did not state specific examples of how Stravinsky used polytonality in those works; White frames it as a contributing factor to The Rite's tonality MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no)
  • "the small instrumentation of traditional cantatas" - what does "traditional" mean here? Some 19th-century cantatas use large orchestra, and even some Bach cantatas, or are they not "traditional"? If the early cantatas, Italian works for one voice and a few instruments, are meant, perhaps say so, or link?

Need a break. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:49, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neoclassical

Legacy

  • The lists of names at the end look a bit like names-dropping, - perhaps say a bit more precisely what influenced individual ones.
    • The students I have no details about because they come from an encyclopedia of teachers and students. I'm not sure how to elaborate on "Stravinsky also influenced composers like Elliott Carter, Harrison Birtwistle, and John Tavener" because those three names are from a series of quotes in the source- most of them just say that Stravinsky influenced them, not necesarrily naming why or how. Carter claims that hearing The Rite inspired him to become a composer, but I'm not sure how I'd work that into the para, and it doesn't seem too relevant since I'm sure Stravinsky has inspired many to compose MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no)

Recordings

  • link NBC?
  • "the Théâtre des Champs-Élysées (where The Rite of Spring premiered)" - I see a contrast of the strictly French theatre name and the English of the ballet, which was of course premiered in 1913 as Le Sacre du printemps.
    • Well, most sources used say the english title of The Rite, but still use the french name for the theatre. This is all just based on what the sources commonly use (also, in general, I think the average reader would know the name "The Rite of Spring" but not "Le sacre du printemps") MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no)

Writings

  • "In 1959, several interviews between the composer and Craft were published as Conversations with Igor Stravinsky, which was followed by a further five volumes over the following decade." - a bit awkward structure, and I think it's "were published", then also "were followed", no? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:06, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gerda Arendt, all were fixed, with some individual replies above- thank you! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 19:23, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, support. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:17, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ps: In Germany, the third is so known as Le Sacre du printemps, that I looked twice when Pina Bausch staged it danced as Frühlingsopfer ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:19, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support by SafariScribe

[edit]

I have read this and to chip in a little. In the lead second paragraph, change "Stravinsky's father was a famous bass in Saint Petersburg, and Stravinsky grew up taking piano and music theory lessons." to "Born to a famous bass in Saint Petersburg, Stravinsky grew up taking piano and music theory lessons". It reduces the linking and makes it clear for readers. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 19:54, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Though Saint Petersburg is a very popular place, Wikipedia is also an international project, hence I got confused thinking it was the one in Florida. While you may'nt link it, add "Russia" to immediately signal which one.
Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 19:58, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the comments! Yes, I also get confused with the geography- some earlier comments were confused with why French and Swiss cities were paired with the name of the country, and it was really because I'd never heard of those cities before researching this article MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 20:21, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Closure

[edit]

Question: how does this get decided? Does an independent editor swing by and approve/decline the proposal? Thanks — Iadmc♫talk  03:59, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The @FAC coordinators: sorts this out. No other editors close this. — VAUGHAN J. (t · c) 06:15, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks — Iadmc♫talk  08:25, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

There are some page ranges that are put in singular format (e.g "p. 43–44, 47, 56. "), that should be corrected. Just out of curiosity, are there any French or Russian sources? I am kind of unsure if "How Stravinsky's Rite of Spring has shaped 100 years of music" is heavyweight enough for the claim it supports. What makes "Predota, Georg (17 March 2021). "Stravinsky's Literary Sources". Interlude. Retrieved 23 June 2023." a reliable source? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:20, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Pages: done
  • French/Russian sources: There are certainly books in those sources available, however I don't speak either of those languages. One editor was going to help me with Russian sourcing, but they are now on wikibreak and I don't really know anyone else. However, a number of the sources were originally French or Russian and this article cites the translated versions (e.g. Boucourechliev 1987, Savenko 2013, Strawinsky et al 2004)
  • "How Stravinsky's Rite of Spring...": The article's author, George Benjamin, is a prominent composer and teacher of contemporary music- I trust his claim here since he is of such prominence in the contemporary music world. But, I added a ref to Grout to back it further
  • Predota 2021: Interlude is an online magazine where guest writers discuss classical music subjects- there isn't much info about the author of the article, Georg Predota, however I can find some articles he wrote on researchgate and his writings in interlude have been cited in scholarly texts (ref 78 on that page)
Jo-Jo Eumerus, all addressed - thank you very much for the review! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 11:36, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus, is there anything else that needs addressing? Just wanted to check in! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 11:31, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No. I admit that the Russian/French thing is a bit of a big issue re: the completeness criteria. Punting this to FAC coordinators, tho'. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:47, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Got it then- thank you! @FAC coordinators: will this stop the article from meeting the FA criteria? I cannot remedy this- I have tried my best by finding translated versions of foreign language sources, but my reach is limited in this capacity. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 21:20, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That depends. WP:NONENG seems to be relevant. "... because this project is in English, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones when they are available and of equal quality and relevance." So are there non-English HQ RSs which contain information which should be in the article for it to be promoted which isn't in any English language HQ RS? No one is expected to prove a negative, so where to draw the line on this can get a bit hand wavey. That said, I would prefer specific missing works to be mentioned, if at all possible, just as one would for a missing English language source. That help? Gog the Mild (talk) 22:08, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe anything important is being excluded here. There are some Russian sources I've seen on other articles (eg Yekaterina Stravinsky) but I don't think they can add anything more to this article, since they were published before Walsh's massive biography (which essentially adds on to White's biography to include every finite detail of Stravinsky's life). Thank you for the clarification! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 00:36, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Stravinsky scholarship doesn't really expand to French musicological circles; Boucourechliev, an exception, is already used quite a bit here. Although he is not Russian, Taruskin is by-far the leading authority on Stravinsky's relationship with Russia, and he is already heavily cited. All major biographies of Stravinsky are cited as far as I can see. I see Asaf’yev's Russian account missing, but it is rather old (from the 1930s) and largely surpassed by later scholarship. Aza24 (talk) 06:01, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Jo-Jo Eumerus: ping the reviewer. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:20, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
SC
Early life in Russia
  • "originally called the "Soulima-Stravinsky"s,": why not just: "originally called "Soulima-Stravinsky","?
Religious crisis
  • "He had abandoned the Russian Orthodox Church": there are three uses of "church" in this sentence: any chance of rewording slightly
Writings
  • May be worth formatting the isbns in a consistent manner (and you seem to have isbns from before they were introduced in 1967, which is a neat trick!)
Refs
  • Refs 86, 123, 266, 283 should be pp., not p.

That's my lot. – SchroCat (talk) 18:51, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch on the isbns and the refs- thought I'd nipped both of those problems in the bud. Thanks for the review @SchroCat! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 21:30, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coord comment

[edit]

Starting the end of June 21 (this Friday) I will be out of town and offline for six weeks. Sparing any major opposes, I hope this can still go through. To any editors who have other comments: please feel free to implement any changes you see necessary while I'm offline. Thank you! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 12:07, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are no opposes (yet) so this should go through. All the changes necessary are pretty minor. Have a great Wikibreak! — Iadmc♫talk  12:38, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If there are any unexpected queries te absente I'll be happy to field them if I can, but I think Iadmc is right: this review seems to be rounding into the home straight. Tim riley talk 18:34, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is much appreciated- thank you for taking it on! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 20:06, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Matarisvan

[edit]

Hi MyCatIsAChonk, my comments:

  • Link to music theory?
  • Link to ragtime and chorale?
  • Are the second links for neoclassicism and serialism in the lead necessary?
  • Use ill to link to the Russian language wiki for Vladimir Rimsky-Korsakov?
  • Is the Church of the Annunciation we mention, the same as the Annunciation Church of the Alexander Nesky Lavra? If so, consider linking?
    • For this and the Vladimir comment: I actually did have ill links for these, but another reviewer suggested they be cut since it is unlikely those articles will be created on the English wikipedia anyway. I agreed and they were removed, so I think it'd best this way. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no)
  • Link to mezzo-soprano?
  • Link to song cycle?
  • Link to Sophocles?
    • I avoid linking the artist when their name precedes a work of theirs (e.g. "Sophocles' tragedy Oedipus Rex") since the artist's link can be found on the work's article
  • Link to Chicago Symphony Orchestra in the Life and Recordings sections?
  • "researches": just "research" is better from a grammatical POV?
  • Link to Jeremy Noble?
  • There are two sentences we have repeated twice: "The near-riot due to The Rite of Spring's avant-garde nature" and "Stravinsky befriended many other authors as well, including T. S. Eliot, Aldous Huxley, Christopher Isherwood, and Dylan Thomas, the last of whom Stravinsky began working with on an opera in 1953 but stopped due to Thomas's death", where the only thing different from the Life section is the mention of T. S. Eliot. Consider removing these repetitive sentences?
    • The repeat of the first sentence is in the lead and a later section, so I think it's fine. I'm not sure where you see the authors sentence duplicated; yes, the authors are also named in "Life", but not with the same text. Having the authors in both is intentional MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no)
  • Link to Stephen Walsh?
  • Is the second link to CBC Symphony Orchestra in the Recordings section necessary?
  • Link to Mussorgsky in note f?
  • In the biblio, link to Nicholas Cook, Peter Hill (pianist), Wilfrid Mellers, David Matthews (composer, if this is the correct one).
  • Shouldn't Steinberg 2005 be in the books subsection and not the articles?

That's all from me. Cheers Matarisvan (talk) 14:28, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Matarisvan, replies above; all else were addressed. Thank you for the review! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 19:03, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Hurricanehink

[edit]

As a composer myself (and with an active FAC), I figured I’d review this.

  • ”While studying law at the University of Saint Petersburg, he met Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov and studied under him until his death in 1908.” - I suggest varying the wording here, as the two usages of “study” could imply that he studied law with Rimsky-Korsakov.
Tweaked as suggested. Tim riley talk 10:13, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • ”Stravinsky's compositional career is often divided into three periods: his Russian period (1913–1920), his neoclassical period (1920–1951), and his serial period (1954–1968).” - which period was 1951-54 part of?
  • ”about fifty kilometers west of Saint Petersburg” - be sure all units have imperial conversion. Later on you also say “five miles”, so be sure units are consistent too, which one goes first.
  • ”His mother, Anna Kirillovna Stravinskaya (née Kholodovsky)” - why did the mother have a different last name (Stravinskaya) than Igor and his did?
  • That was the convention in some eastern European countries, using feminine forms for the surnames of women. (Even today, the author of the Harry Potter books is billed in the Czech Republic and Slovakia as "J. K. Rowlingova".) Tim riley talk 10:13, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • ”The family was originally called "Soulima-Stravinsky", bearing the likely-German Soulima coat of arms, but "Soulima" was dropped after Russia's annexation during the partitions of Poland.” - the “likely German Soulima” is odd, especially since the previous sentence said it was Polish. I know that part of the world was nebulous, but in the late 1800s there wasn’t even much of a German identity post-unification.
  • ”Igor was born in Oranienbaum” - two paragraphs start mentioning his birth location. Seems redundant
  • and Gury, his close younger brother with whom he found "the love and understanding denied to us by our parents" - who said this quote? I can’t support an FAC with an unattributed quote.
  • I'd have thought it obvious that these were Stravinsky's own words, and having checked the cited sources I can confirm it. Stravinsky and Craft 1981, p. 21: "We found in each other the love and understanding denied us by our parents...". Tweaked to make it plain that these are the composer's words. Tim riley talk 10:13, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • ”From age nine, Stravinsky was taught piano privately.” - by whom? His father the bass? Mother? Family friends? The governess?
  • ”and at age fifteen, he completed a piano reduction of a string quartet by Alexander Glazunov” - would you mind explaining what a piano reduction is in the article, for non-musicians? I also think you could use “arrangement” instead of reduction, which I feel is a more common word.
  • ”likely due to the glamorous charm of The Five's music, according to the musicologist Richard Taruskin.” - I would rather have a bit more context than “glamorous charm”, which doesn’t really sound like you’re describing a group of five Russian composers. Here, something like, “likely due to the popularity of the group of five Russian classical composers known as The Five.” Would be better IMO, something like that
  • ”and it was there that Stravinsky began work on a Konzertstück for piano and orchestra depicting the tale of a puppet coming to life.[55][60] After Diaghilev heard the early drafts, he convinced Stravinsky to turn it into a ballet for the 1911 ballet season.[61][62] Petrushka premiered in Paris on 13 June 1911.” - is Petrushka the same Konzertstück you mentioned?
  • Stravinsky conceived an idea for a work about "a solemn pagan rite: sage elders, seated in a circle, watched a young girl dance herself to death". - again it’s an unattributed quote
  • ”caused a near-riot” is begging to have some explanation! I don’t mind that in the lead as a summary, but you could add a bit more.
  • Footnote added. As the hubbub was more to do with the choreography than the music I think it more suitable to have the details in a note than in the main text. (The music was, in fact, well received when performed in concert on 5 April 1914.) Tim riley talk 10:13, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soon after he returned, World War I began, and the Stravinskys lived in Switzerland until 1920,[g] initially residing in Clarens and later Morges. - a bit grammatically odd. After the WW1 mention, you could say, “leading the Stravinskys to live in Switzerland until 1920.”
  • The grammar seems all right to me, and I don't think we can say unequivocally that the war led the Stravinskys to live in Switzerland. It may well be that the war was indeed one reason, but it isn't for us to conjecture. The family had moved temporarily to Leysin, in the Alps east of Lake Geneva, in January 1914 while his wife was treated for tuberculosis, and they stayed in Switzerland until June 1920, when they returned to France.) Tim riley talk 10:13, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The second paragraph of France is confusing. Did he work on player pianos until 1930, when the Aeolian Branch shut down, or 1933? “and he worked at the Rochechouart factory until 1933, long after the player piano went out of fashion.”
  • Redrawn. The Pleyel premises remained Stravinsky's Paris base even after the bottom had fallen out of the pianola market. Pleyel remained a leading manufacturer of pianos and harps.
  • ”The Stravinsky couple's poor English” - I thought the wife died by the time Igor moved to the US? This is in the US section.
  • “In his 1936 autobiography, Chronicle of My Life” - earlier you referred to it as “Chroniques de ma vie” - it’s inconsistent.
  • I think this is all right. It was published in French first and later in English. This is made explicit in the following section.

All in all, a good read, just a few minor issues here and there. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 22:45, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate all of your edits and feedback, Tim riley (talk · contribs)! Happy to support. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:07, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent! In MyCat's absence I thank you for your support of his nomination. Tim riley talk 19:14, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment

[edit]


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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 23 June 2024 [14].

Bäckadräkten

[edit]
Nominator(s): Dugan Murphy (talk) 16:56, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Earlier this year I saw a Swedish folk musician named Fredy Clue perform while wearing an outfit that looked pretty special: Bäckadräkten. Being a fan of folk music, but also from the US, I didn't know much about folk costumes. Talking to Clue, I learned a little bit about what they were wearing and why it is special. Looking into it online, the costume looked like a notable subject without a Wiki article, so I spent some time going through all the reliable sources I could find and drafting something something I think is worthy of FAC. I collected a few relevant photos and got the permissions necessary to include them in the article. I've seen 8 other articles through the FAC and FL, but all of them on historical topics. This is my first on a current topic, relying entirely on modern media. Thank you in advance for taking a look at the article and making some comments! Dugan Murphy (talk) 16:56, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Draken Bowser

[edit]

Ida Björs, of Järvsö? She's got to be a relative of the famous potato farmers. Anyways:

  • Design: I stumbled a bit during my first read through since "the hardest part of the costume" is used twice, only to realize it deals with either of the co-designers in turn. Do you think it would make sense to combine the statements into one sentence? -- "The brooch pins together the costume's square standing collar" feels incomplete.
Somebody commented on the talk page about this aspect of the article, so now that you bring it up, I really think it's worth addressing. I've reworded that section to more clearly juxtapose the two opinions. Dugan Murphy (talk) 20:42, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Background: I think the 20th century revival needs to be more clearly presented as a revival. Otherwise it might be unclear that regional costumes had already existed among the peasantry at parish level, while (iirc) the novelty of the 20th century was the creation of costumes representing entire landscapes (and of course the Sverigedräkt, but there are no issues as to how that's presented).
I just reworded that section, adding a couple words like romantic nationalism from the source. I'm not sure I can say what you're looking for without an additional source to draw from that speaks to folk costume history more generally. Dugan Murphy (talk) 20:42, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nicely done, I don't think we need to elaborate further within the scope of this article. /DB
  • Development: "nor collaborated with a project partner on a clothing project."
That's a fine recommendation. Accepted. Dugan Murphy (talk) 20:42, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Release: "Sweden's first unisex folk costume" - one instance of notestacking is not worth quarreling over. Still, do you think one or two could be removed?
I do. The stacked citations are there to support that a longer version of that sentence which stated Bäckadräkten is widely reported as the first. Somebody recently pointed out this was WP:SYNTH, and removed the "widely reported" claim. Now it seems we can get by with just one citation, which is what you'll now see. Dugan Murphy (talk) 20:42, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reception: I think Clue gets just a little bit too much space to expound on their views here. Do you think the second paragraph could be shortened?
Shortened. Dugan Murphy (talk) 20:42, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regards. Draken Bowser (talk) 07:39, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for taking the time to read through the article and make a few comments! I look forward to the source review. Dugan Murphy (talk) 20:42, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Source review
[edit]

Spot check Checking 2, 5, 6, 9 and 13.

  • 2: checks out, though there is a missed opportunity here. The source explains how the name "Bäckadräkten" is also part of the flowing water theme, "bäck" meaning stream (specifically of the watery kind).
That's a very good point! I just added that. Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:36, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 9: Svårast att sy berättar hon att de små, små fina vecken på skjortan So it is the pleats of the shirt Björs found the most difficult. Additionally, the way I'm reading note 7 Clue is describing the intricacies of the fabric requiring a hand-woven process, but it seems that this work was done by the weaver in Delsbo and not by Clue or Björs. -- The source was published before the 2022 Delsbostämma, so it is crystalballing that he might wear the dräkt (it would surprise me if he didn't, but we need another note for that).
Thank you for catching the skirt/shirt mixup. That is fixed. I removed the line about Clue saying what part of the costume was hardest to produce. And I see what you're saying about the crystal ball. I removed the reference to the Delsbo event. It was a bit tacked-on anyway. Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:36, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 13: I'm not certain "early-20th-century Swedish folk costumes" is correct here. The article talks about skördesärkar och liknande plagg från förra sekelskiftet. A "skördesärk" and "similar vestments" refers to everyday clothing not directly associated with folk costumes. "Sekelskifte" is usually regarded as meaning before and/or after the year 1900, somewhat similar to "the turn of the century".
I agree. I changed "early-20th-century Swedish folk costumes" to "traditional Swedish clothing from the turn of the 20th century". That seems a better fit. I'll address the next comment in a little bit. Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:36, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2 and 13: I don't see them explicitly supporting that he wore the costume to such events (it would surprise me if he didn't, but we might need another note here).
You're right! Source 2 doesn't say anything despite my notes and 13 says the costume was sometimes on tour during the exhibit, though it doesn't explicitly say what being on tour means. I've removed that sentence but added a line at the beginning of that section about the single copy of the costume being meant for Clue's use on stage, which is supported by source 8. Dugan Murphy (talk) 16:51, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Overall

Sourcing looks decent. There are no academic publications on Bäckadräkten as of yet (not counting the one undergraduate essay published earlier this year). The sources are mostly published by reputable Swedish and international news organisations. The Facebook-source is self published by the Swedish Institute, which is fine. Svart Pist Publishing is a PR firm, but they have experience publishing on Helsingiana topics for several years and I don't think they've been used inappropriately here. I'm agnostic on mumblemusic.net, I'd appreciate if you could give me your assessment of it in terms of reliability. I've never seen the |location= parameter used for {{Cite news}} and I don't think it adds any value, I'd prefer to omit it.

I've removed the location parameter from all Cite news citations. Mumble Music is self-published, so I wouldn't use it to back up anything controversial or stated as a factual assessment. I feel comfortable using it here because it is an interview with Clue and Clue literally announces the pattern release in the interview. It is the only documentation I can find dating the release of the pattern. All the other sources either talk about the pattern being planned for the future or talk about it like it has always been available. Let me know if you have more thoughts about Mumble Music. Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:51, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Based on discussion below with Hog Farm, I've removed the Mumble Music source. Mumble is moot. Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:51, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm leaning pass, but might do another spot-check before completing the review. Draken Bowser (talk) 15:28, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we should include Fria Tider even with a disclaimer, it's deprecated as a source on svwiki due to lax standards. Draken Bowser (talk) 21:43, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the info on Fria Tider. I've removed the one sentence referring to it. Hopefully the reference to the two Czech websites appropriately satisfies both your and Pbritti's (below) comments about the imbalance of positive and negative reactions to the costume's release. Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:51, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Aha, no my concern was that there was too much of Clue's own thoughts. We do not need to go on an expedition to find negative critique that is not repeated in mainstream sources. Draken Bowser (talk) 07:46, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've addressed all the comments you've submitted thus far. Did your additional spot checks turn up anything or do you see anything else that holds this article back from being worthy of FA? Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:51, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in agreement with Buidhe. We need to rely on the best available sources, so reactions from such websites are due only once they have been significantly covered by reliable sources. Let's leave that out.
Agreed and done. Dugan Murphy (talk) 21:20, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think there's one other piece of info that could be included in the article for completeness: an image of Clue wearing the dräkt was printed on the back cover of the Hälsingland Heritage Associations 2022 yearbook, which is verified by this source. Draken Bowser (talk) 08:32, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for finding this! I just added a mention of it in the reception section. What other comments do you have on this nomination? Dugan Murphy (talk) 21:20, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think we have news sources covered now and I'm skipping the second spot-check, since I've found no obvious errors compared to the articles I browsed in Retriever Research [sv]. We should propably cite the article in Hälsingerunor for completeness and because it makes a few interesting points not currently in the text. Here's the template:
Brügge, Anne (2022). "Queer folkdräkt med inslag av Hälsingland". Hälsingerunor (in Swedish). Hälsinglands hembygdskrets. pp. 117–121. ISSN 0440-0585.
  • We get a more detailed description of the components, including the "traditional" and "wide-armed" shirt, the "indigo coloured" kyxa with "large pleats", the use of "practical pockets" at the side and front with their "brass buttons" and "kattun"-lining (no idea how to translate this into English), the "sturdy" belt, the "cotton voile" shawl made by Björs with imprints of seashells and "queer symbols", the silver earrings and vest jewelry. It also mentions engravings by Karin Östberg, but it is unclear here whether this refers to the brooch, the earrings and/or the vest accessories. Later in the text the vest accessory is attributed to Karin Li, with the design as a collaboration between her and Björs.
  • It mentions Björs previous experimentation with folkdräkt tradition, including the year 2000 exhibition at the Hälsingland Museum [sv] Hemskt, ung samtidskonst av sju hemvändare where Björs' Järvsödräkten fritt tolkad – variationer på ett tema (Järvsödräkten being the folk costume of her birthplace) was one of seven entries.

    At the time she described her work as a process surrounding identity, belonging, language and a departure. The visitor experienced a forceful challenge to established customs concerning what could be sewn and worn. Her costumes manifesting adventurous journeys into the past and future [...] themes for Bäckadräkten are similar, but also different, with Clue's question of identity focused on freedom from distinct gender identity and a newfound relationship with the queer community. – Brügge

  • The connection to Hälsingland and the West coast is reiterated, but there's also a connection made to the Dalarna tradition with respect to the handmade shoes and the socks' tassels.
  • The female version of the hat is specifically tied to Toarp parish [sv], which is cited as Clue's inspiration (the general similarity to many male folk costumes is also reiterated).
  • The use of nuggor along the linings of the shirt collar and cuffs, and the use of "wrinkling" to rein in the wide arms is described (no idea which terms to use in standard English).
  • Interestingly the wish for trans flag colours led to a few sketches, before they discovered Ljusdalsdräkten's vest. The fabric used was woven by local textile artist Christina Wreiding (1948–2021).
Folk costumes of Delsbo, left to right: women's suit, men's black version, men's white version ("högtidsdräkt").
  • The belt was inspired by an old design from Delsbo parish [sv]. It is not mentioned here, but the design is strikingly similar to the belt used with the white edition of the Delsbo folk costume.
  • A connection to Knut Nilsson Lenæus [sv]'s Delsboa Illustrata (1764) is made, which brings up another interesting point about gender. The mid-foot heel was a prominent feature of women's shoe designs during the period, but had previously been a part of men's shoe designs in the Delsbo area, at least during the 1730s.
  • It is mentioned that the suit was worn by Clue at the pride festival performance, and during a short tour including the Delsbostämman [sv] before returning to the exhibition at the Borås Textile Museum, so now we could reintroduce that info.
  • Brügge considers the use of the everyday unisex clothes at the exhibition an attempt to also invoke the contrast between such everyday clothing worn for labour and fancy folk costumes "worn to church and festivites".
I'll let you take your pick of what to include into the article. Once the work is done the article will be BESTSOURCES-compliant and the source review is a pass. Draken Bowser (talk) 11:51, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Draken Bowser: Thank you so much for finding this extra source and for writing out some notes for this print publication I don't have access to. I've incorporated almost everything from your notes, which definitely boosts the article's comprehensiveness. Is there anything else keeping this article from passing your source review? Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:01, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, it's a pass. Draken Bowser (talk) 05:21, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, Brügge's assessment of the exhibition is a bit tangential to the topic at hand. Either way I'm concluding my review and leave it to my fellow reviewers to assess whether the other additions based on my suggestions were appropriate. Draken Bowser (talk) 14:12, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Pbritti

[edit]

Reserving a slot. I'll have more time soon (Thursday especially) but I have to prioritize some offline stuff. I made some minor tweaks on this article when it ran at DYK, but I don't think they're significant enough to qualify me as having been seriously involved in the article. ~ Pbritti (talk) 00:38, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • It looks like every linked online reference still works with the exception of Engström. Consider using url-status=live so that the original website link is displayed more prominently, followed by the archived version. For Engström, url-status=dead.
Thank you for the recommendation! Accepted. The Engström link has a paywall, but it is not dead, so I added url-status=live to every citation. Dugan Murphy (talk) 21:52, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think I must have an issue accessing even the paywalled version of the Engström piece, but this is almost certainly an issue with my devices (I've seen it before). Good work! ~ Pbritti (talk) 14:54, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Helsinki is linked in a reference. I'm inclined to believe it might not need to be, but that's up to you.
Draken Bowser brought up that the location parameter isn't all that necessary for the cite news template, so I removed this. Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:57, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • ,[8] artist[3] and musician[10] Fredy Clue Citations mid-sentence can be visually jarring, particularly when not immediately preceded by punctuation. Consider pushing all of them to the end of the sentence (which would also negate the need to cite Andersson twice for the same sentence). You can leave the sentence about international news coverage on the subject alone, as the commas and sentence structure lend themselves to this citation placement. I think Clue sells copies of the pattern[12] is probably ok, but I'd encourage you reserve citation placement to only after punctuation.
I see what you're saying. I followed your recommendation and moved all citations in the sentence from your first example to the end of that sentence. Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:57, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • which appears like a bodice in the front, but a vest in the back I'd consider insertion of "feminine" before bodice and "masculine" before vest. Additionally, if possible, consider indicating what elements from both garments that are present in Bäckadräkten.
"Feminine" and "masculine" added! Unfortunately, the sources don't speak to the specifics desired. 23:57, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
  • he shirt's fine pleats Is this "fine" in the sense of being small or "fine" in the sense of being of a remarkably high quality? If possible, illustration of this intricate detail would be incredible.
Changed "fine" for "thin" for clarity. I don't think the sources offer more detail on this, unfotrunately. Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:57, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • experimentations with unisex folk costume designs. There is unanimous agreement that Bäckadräkten is the first unisex Swedish folk costume. However, this sentence leaves open the possibility that unisex folk garments were produced in Sweden before Bäckadräkten. Is there space to elaborate on these experiments and their outcomes?
Reworded. The BBC article includes some stories about a couple other people in other Scanidavian countries combining and modifying existing folk costume elements to make them more gender-flexible, but I think exploring those stories is beyond the scope of this article. Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:57, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • A post about it on the official Facebook page of Sweden was shared by users on that platform over 1,900 times and attracted over 1,500 comments and 6,700 reactions. Part of me thinks this is BLUESKY, but part of me thinks this is original research. I say the latter because listing the number of interactions suggests there is something significant in this number of interactions (that it is more/fewer than usual, an indication of controversy, or a display of popular support) without a reliable source that interprets this. I'd suggest retaining the source but just adding to the preceding sentence that the Swedish government published it on Facebook.
I think venturing to say whether the number of interactions is significant would be original research, which is why I simply listed the numbers instead of my interpretation of those numbers. I think naming the Swedish Institute here is appropriate. That is done. Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:57, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • have welcomed the new development Now that the Bäckadräkten is a couple years old and to improve the shelf-life of the sentence, I suggest rewording the sentence to read "welcomed the development" or "welcomed the introduction of the Bäckadräkten".
Good point! Changed to "welcomed the development". Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:57, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clue did not report any reactions from the organization I don't speak Swedish, but this seems vague: did Clue report that the organization has not reacted or has Clue been mum on the subject, which suggests the organization hasn't commented?
Thank you for pointing this out. I reworded, so it should be clear now. Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:39, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • There seems to be a bit of a minimization of critics of Bäckadräkten in the article. This may be the result of the sourcing, but including what really only amounts to "social media users mean, more at 11," followed by a response by Clue. This makes the article feel a bit too laudatory (but only a bit). I'd strive to include even just one more sentence of negative criticism, but I understand if sourcing to this end is scant.
I just added three more negative reactions. They are all from news sources considered extreme far right disinformation, which is why I omitted them originally. But between this comment and a similar one from Draken Bowser above, I figured it was time to bring them in. Because they're clearly unreliable sources, their statements are paired with disclaimers. Dugan Murphy (talk) 17:39, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Make that two negative reactions. I am removing one of them per further discussion with Draken Bowser above. I can't find any other negative reaction specifics in the sources. Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:31, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that this is my first "real" FAC review, so my comments are to be taken with a grain of salt. The article is already exceptional so skipping the GA/PR step isn't an issue to me. Wikipedia is far better for this article! ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:44, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the comments! I should be able to address these and respond by Wednesday. Dugan Murphy (talk) 11:16, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent. I'll be free from around 19:00 UTC Wednesday to discuss anything! Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:45, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your replies and adjustments have addressed all my concerns sufficiently. I'm very happy to report that Dugan Murphy provided me the first support !vote at an FAC I nominated and that an article they nominated will receive the first support !vote I've cast in an FAC. Excellent job on a very cool subject! ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:04, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the support! I just addressed your last comment, which required the most editing of any addressed comments, so let me know if you think that section needs more work to maintain your support for the nomination. Dugan Murphy (talk) 17:39, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Having read that, I am good with the changes! It's difficult to find non-laudatory material on a subject like this that comes from purely reliable sources. You did a good job with what you could work with. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:35, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HF

[edit]

I'll try to review this soon. I don't speak Swedish and my idea of fashion is "pearl snap shirt and blue jeans" so the coordinators should please consider this to be a nonexpert review. Hog Farm Talk 01:57, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Its fabric, sourced from Ljusdal," - is this referring to the fabric of the costume as a whole, or of the livstycke is particular?
Just the livstycke. Clarified. Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:50, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is Boras Pride?
Clarified. Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:50, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and juxtaposed it against unisex design elements from traditional Swedish clothing from the turn of the 20th century." - I'm struggling to figure out what exactly you mean by this - did the older clothing have individual elements that were unisex?
You are correct. I just reworded to hopefully enhance clarity. Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:50, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Clue announced the sewing pattern was available as of May 2023" - is there a source actually post-dating the release that can be used to support this?
That's a good question. I've switched to a new source and reworded the sentence to match what it says. Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:50, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A post about it on the official Facebook page of Sweden was shared by users on that platform over 1,900 times and attracted over 1,500 comments and 6,700 reactions" - is there something other than the Facebook post itself that can be used to better demonstrate the significance? Some context would also be useful - is 1,900 shares an unusual amount for context such as this? I also think self-sourcing of things such as this tends to indicate that the information may not be due weight
Pbritti raised a similar concern about counting the number of Facebook post interactions. Though that discussion ended in leaving the status quo, hearing a similar comment from you is making me look into it a bit more. Looking online, the only sources I can find that provide an average Facebook post interaction rate are commercial sources like Oberlo/Shopify and Barker Social. According to their numbers, the number of user interactions is above average, but I'm not sure either website is FA-appropriate. If I am not able to provide context for the numbers, perhaps I should remove them. What do you think? I think the fact that the Swedish government promoted Bäckadräkten on social media is notable, even though no news outlets bothered to mention it, so I wouldn't want to totally remove this part of the article. What do you think? Dugan Murphy (talk) 00:36, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there anything that can really be said about the reaction to this beyond "there were mixed emotions on social media but the guy who created this says everything is okay"? A search for scholarly sources only brings up two unusable undergraduate works, so there doesn't seem to be much available there, but "people talked about it on social media" is a very low bar.
I added some negative reactions from two far right extremist disinformation websites. I left them out of the article initially because they are clearly unreliable, but you're the third reviewer to say there needs to be more detail on negative reactions. I believe the reliable sources are picked dry – they really do only say "people talked about it on social media". Dugan Murphy (talk) 00:36, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's it from me for now, this is a less in-depth review than I usually perform due to my unfamiliarity with the subject matter and inability to read the languages that much of the relevant sourcing is in. Hog Farm Talk 03:23, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hog Farm: Thank you so much for stepping out of Civil War Land and into Hälsingland for a moment. Do you think any of these issues warrant further discussion? Dugan Murphy (talk) 00:36, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If it's extremist disinformation websites then I don't think we need to be directly using that. I guess if there isn't anything in the RS beyond "people talked about it on social media", then there's nothing more to really say about that. On the Facebook post - at a minimum I would remove the content about shares, comments, and reactions, as it looks impossible to provide any sort of meaning to those figures without SYNTH or original research. Hog Farm Talk 02:02, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've deleted the number of Facebook reactions, but I've left the references to the disinformation websites as WP:SELFSOURCE. Now that it's in the article, I think those sentences provide valuable illustration of the discomfort with social change in the following sentence. Do you agree that there's SELFSOURCE value there? Dugan Murphy (talk) 02:53, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Buidhe's points below on this - if these are fringey websites that we have to describe in the article as being disinformation, then I don't see how a SELFSOURCE usage would be due weight. Hog Farm Talk 12:59, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hog Farm: Sure thing. The disinformation sites are removed. I believe all your comments are now addressed. Do you support the nomination? Dugan Murphy (talk) 20:53, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just one more question (since I can't read the languages most of the sources are in) - which source(s), if any, are direct interviews with Clue? Hog Farm Talk 23:45, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
None. The radio pieces and TV piece include long quotes from Clue, but not in response to questions. The Clue quotes in the print sources tend to be shorter, and likewise, none of them are in response to questions. I had one interview in the references list at the initial nomination, but I removed it earlier when addressing your question about the release of the sewing pattern. Dugan Murphy (talk) 00:39, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - I intend to support, but since I can't assess the sourcing well myself I want to hold off until after the source review has been completed. Please ping me once the source review has passed. Hog Farm Talk 00:43, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hog Farm: The source review has passed. Dugan Murphy (talk) 11:47, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
supporting with the caveat that this is mainly a surface-level review due to the lack of subject-matter knowledge and language barriers for me. Hog Farm Talk 16:41, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Epicgenius

[edit]

I hope to leave some comments here soon. – Epicgenius (talk) 22:21, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Epicgenius Ready to review yet? Gog the Mild (talk) 12:21, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lead:
  • Para 1: "like the vest that is also a bodice and the culottes that present as a skirt." - In this situation, I would say "such as" rather than "like" which sounds a bit informal.
  • Para 1: "Bäcka means 'stream'," - I would write "Bäcka is the Swedish word for 'stream'" instead.
  • Brief interjection: the Swedish word for stream is actually "bäck". "Bäcka" is a result of slapping an -a onto certain nouns, common in many Northern Swedish dialects (e.g. "bro" → "broa" bridge, "ko" → "koa" cow). Draken Bowser (talk) 15:18, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Para 2: "Discussions about a potential unisex design for Sweden started in the early 2010s and the idea that led to Bäckadräkten originated with Clue in 2018." - I'd rephrase the second half of this sentence to use active voice, e.g. "Discussions about a potential unisex design for Sweden started in the early 2010s, and Clue first devised the idea that led to Bäckadräkten in 2018."
  • Para 2: "The resulting single costume is for Clue to wear on stage." - So this was created specifically for Clue, or was it a costume intended for nonbinary Swedes in general?
  • Para 3: "Clue said they hope the discussion raises awareness of non-cisgender identities." - Could this just be something like "Clue hopes the discussion raises awareness of non-cisgender identities", or do we specifically need to write that they said that?
  • I guess I wrote it that way to keep it true even if things change. Not that I'm particularly concerned about Clue changing their hopes, but that's a wording pattern that seems appropriate for recent events concerning living people. Let me know if you have more thoughts on that. Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:41, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Design:
  • Para 1: "Otherwise, the costume's primary design theme is flowing water, referenced by the word bäcka, meaning 'stream'." - Similar to the above, I'd write that this is the Swedish word for "stream".
  • Para 1: "The shape of ocean waves are" - This should be "The shape of ocean waves is". The word "is" refers to "the shape", not "waves".
  • Para 2: "The design is traditionally worn by men in most of Sweden," - Is it worn by women too, or is women's usage of the hat restricted to Toarp Parish and Borås only?
  • Para 2: "Its reversibility allows the top to display either pink or light blue." - For some reason, this wording strikes me as weird. Presumably, one side is pink and the other side is light blue, so if that's the case, I'd just say that.
  • Para 2: "The tongue features a heart shape to match the brooch. The brooch is heart-shaped," - The wording "the brooch. The brooch" seems a little repetitive. I would suggest either combining the two sentences, flipping the order of the sentences, or rewording one of the sentences so the same phrase doesn't appear back-to-back. However, this is a minor point.
Background:
  • Para 1: "What are referred to in Scandinavia as national costumes and folk costumes originated as basic clothing for Scandinavians of lower economic classes." - Are the costumes known as "national costumes" and "folk costumes" outside of Scandinavia, too? If so, could this be "Scandinavian national costumes and folk costumes originated as basic clothing..."?
  • Para 2: "While most Swedes are exposed to the folk arts through costuming, artist and musician Fredy Clue was first exposed through folk dance and music." - Clue was first introduced above, in the "design" section. Perhaps you could mention their occupations in that section instead.
More in a bit. – Epicgenius (talk) 15:05, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the comments! I believe they are all addressed. Looking forward to more. Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:41, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Epicgenius Nudge. :-) Gog the Mild (talk) 19:03, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oops. I will leave some feedback on Friday. – Epicgenius (talk) 22:46, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Development:
  • Para 1: "Between that year and 2021, they developed a collaboration with the pride festival in Borås, brainstormed the Bäckadräkten project, and applied for grant funding." - "They" being Clue, or Clue and Andersson?
  • Para 1: "two nonprofit organizations that support youth in the Swedish folk and cultural communities: Folk You and Kulturungdom" - I personally would mention the two organizations' names earlier. E.g. " The project was financed by the Västra Götaland Regional Council, along with Folk You and Kulturungdom, two nonprofit organizations that support youth in the Swedish folk and cultural communities".
  • Para 1: "Järvsödräkten" - Is this her hometown's dress, or her hometown's name?
  • Para 2: "In the spring of that year" - Personally I'd say "That spring", although MOS:SEASON does suggest rephrasing this to get rid of the season.
  • Para 2: "The focus group met multiple times, mostly using Zoom software" - Also, I think you could say "The focus group met multiple times, mostly virtually via Zoom software" or something like that.
More in a bit. – Epicgenius (talk) 15:49, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These are great changes and I appreciate you bringing them up. I'll look forward to seeing more from you later. Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:25, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Release:
  • Para 1: "During that time, however, the costume was for a short while being used by Clue on a tour that included a performance at Delsbostämman [sv]" - I think this can be shortened, e.g. "During that time, however, the costume was briefly used by Clue on a tour that included a performance at Delsbostämman [sv]"
  • Also, are there any data on how many Bäckadräktens have been sold?
  • Nope. I did a thorough online search for information before I drafted this article and added Google Alerts at that time for both "Fredy Clue" and "Bäckadräkten" so I can keep the article up to date. Draken Bowser did their own search and found one print item I hadn't found, but that is included now in the sources. None of these sources say anything about how many copies of the costume have been made since the release. Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:01, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
More shortly. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:55, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I'll look for more comments from you soon. Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:01, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Epicgenius, just a gentle nudge. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:20, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that. I'll finish up my entire review by Monday. – Epicgenius (talk) 17:09, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Epicgenius ? Gog the Mild (talk) 20:27, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry again, I will finish this up on Friday. I did not get the above ping, and I forgot to set a reminder for myself to do this. There don't seem to be many issues with the rest of the article, though, so the review should be relatively quick. – Epicgenius (talk) 16:46, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reception:
  • Para 1: "The Swedish Institute announced the release on the official Facebook page of Sweden" - Do we have a better source than the Facebook page itself? If not, I would remove the [self-published source] tag, since as far as I know, FAs don't usually get promoted with maintenance tags.
  • I haven't found any source yet that mentions this Facebook post. I added the tag myself because another user added it to the same citation in the Fredy Clue article. I feel like I remember reading somewhere that this tag is warranted even for appropriately used self-published sources, but I can't find that policy now, so I will follow your recommendation and remove the tag. Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:18, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Para 1: "on the back cover of their annual publication, Hälsingerunor" - On the back cover of one issue, or on several issues?
  • Para 1: "Many in the media and Sweden's folk community welcomed the development" - Are there any examples aside from Jahn?
  • Para 3: "Clue welcomed the discussion, hoping that it results in greater awareness" - Could this be condensed to something like "Clue said they hoped that the discussion [of Bäckadräkten] results in greater awareness"?
That's all from me. – Epicgenius (talk) 16:55, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Epicgenius: Thank you for the comments! I believe they are all addressed. Do you see any other issues holding back this nomination? Dugan Murphy (talk) 01:47, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. I support this FAC on prose. – Epicgenius (talk) 01:55, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Buidhe

[edit]

In the reception section, it looks like you have loosened WP:HQRS standards in an effort to cover more viewpoints. I don't think that's appropriate; in order to be WP:DUE on wikipedia it needs to be covered in a better source than a social media page or fringy "news" outlet. Furthermore, it's mentioned in the first sentence of that section that Necenzurovaná Pravda is a "news outlet", even though you had cited a source later on that described it as a disinformation site. In case of doubt, characterizations like "news outlet" require a secondary source. I would just avoid mentioning it because why is this fringy Czech website WP:DUE at all? (t · c) buidhe 04:06, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Thank you for chiming in on that. Let me know if you have any more comments about the article! Dugan Murphy (talk) 20:50, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]

All images are well-placed and licenced. ALT text seems fine. I kinda wonder about the copyright status of the costumes, though - might want to put {{costume}} tags on the Commons files. Granted, if it's based on older folk designs then they might be out of copyright. @Nikkimaria:? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:33, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the image review! I see this costume tag used on a bunch of Wiki articles, but not on Commons files. Aside from that, it doesn't seem like a good match for images and articles about folk costumes. I did put {{Folk costume}} at the bottom of the article, which seems very appropriate to me. By the way, I added {{PD-old-70-expired}} to File:Svenska folkdräkter, del2, Nordisk familjebok.jpg because I realized that the copyright tags it had didn't explicitly address usage in the US. You didn't bring that up, but it seemed right. Let me know if you have further thoughts about the use of those templates and the copyright tag. Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:01, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, the costume tag is intended for the 'portraying a character' meaning of costume rather than the 'folk outfit' type of costume. According to commons:COM:CLOTHES copyrightability of these is country-specific - that would be something to check into. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:08, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: Are you talking about the copyright of Bäckadräkten itself? I believe all the images in the article are properly licensed. Dugan Murphy (talk) 02:30, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yep - it would depend whether clothing is copyrightable in Sweden. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:49, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm uncertain how the Upphovsrättslag and the Mönsterskyddslag interacts with photography. I've posted the question on svwiki. If there's no response I suppose we could ask Wikimedia Sweden. Draken Bowser (talk) 12:17, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The law Draken Bowser brings up (thank you for your help with this, Draken Bowser!) makes clear that fashion designs can be copyrighted in Sweden. However, the sources for this article make clear that Clue and Björs intend for Bäckadräkten to be a design anyone can reproduce and modify as they see fit. They clearly have not copyrighted this design. Hopefully my point will be moot if Draken Bower finds that photographs of Swedish fashion are free of copyright entanglements. But regardless of what Draken Bowser hears from svwiki, it seems clear to me that Clue and Björs have not copyrighted the design. Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:26, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Copyright is inherent in Sweden (not claimed/registered), but can of course be waived by the creator(s). Draken Bowser (talk) 23:19, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for figuring that out, Draken Bowser! How would they go about doing that to the satisfaction of Wikimedia requirements? I can reach out to Fredy Clue, but I'm not sure what I'd be asking them to do. Dugan Murphy (talk) 02:31, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is guidance at WP:COPYREQ - just make sure it's clear that it's for the clothing itself. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:40, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We still don't have an answer to whether this is even necessary with how photography interacts with said laws. Let's wait a couple of days for the fine details to become clearer. Draken Bowser (talk) 11:59, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With tomorrow being a bank holiday I don't think a formal answer to this is forthcoming before next week, if at all. Any thoughts on how to handle this? Draken Bowser (talk) 19:24, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy to give it a few more days. If coordinators are getting impatient, then I could reach out to Fredy Clue and Ida Björs, asking them to send an email to VRTS releasing the copyright for the design of Bäckadräkten, as depicted in the images on Wikimedia. I anticipate them being willing to do that. Dugan Murphy (talk) 20:30, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Draken Bowser: I'm starting to think it is time to give up on getting an answer from svwiki, in which case it is time for me to reach out to Clue and Björs about releasing design copyright. What do you think? Dugan Murphy (talk) 19:29, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, let's start with what we know. I got a bit confused, copyright according to the mönsterskyddslag requires registration, copyright according to the upphovsrättslag is inherent. We still don't know how photography interacts with the upphovsrättslag with respect to clothing. So, uh, I guess, but like you said before, I'm not sure what we're asking them to do. Draken Bowser (talk) 20:01, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have sent my request and copyright release instructions to Fredy Clue and Ida Björs, using the guidance linked above from Nikkimaria. Hopefully they will soon email VRTS and this fashion design copyright issue will be resolved. Dugan Murphy (talk) 17:56, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fredy Clue confirms in ticket:2024041410002428 that they and Ida Björs are conright holder of the design and approve the use in the photo. Krd 07:50, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Krd! @Nikkimaria: Does this resolve your concern about the copyright of the costume's design? And do you see any other issues holding this image review back from passing? Dugan Murphy (talk) 11:34, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have VRT access - what specifically does the message say about licensing? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:57, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't either, but Fredy Clue forwarded me the email they sent to VRTS. In part, it says: "I agree to publish the design, as depicted in the above-mentioned content [the images used in this article and in Fredy Clue], under the following free license: Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International." Dugan Murphy (talk) 03:15, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, that should work. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:54, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comments

[edit]
  • "The resulting single copy". I am not sure that a single "copy" is possible. How about 'the resulting single outfit' or similar?
Recommendation accepted! Dugan Murphy (talk) 12:02, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "about the relationship between folk arts and gender more broadly". More broadly than what? I think this may read better with "more broadly" taken out.
Those two words are removed. Dugan Murphy (talk) 12:02, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "saying it provides opportunity for non-binary Swedes". Either 'an opportunity' or 'opportunities'.
"An" added. Dugan Murphy (talk) 12:02, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild (talk) 10:05, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for these comments and for the edits you made directly. They are helpful. Dugan Murphy (talk) 12:02, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 23 June 2024 [15].

Charles Edward, Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha

[edit]
Nominator(s): Llewee (talk) 01:03, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Edward was born a British prince and had a quintessential upper-class Victorian upbringing. Nannies, governess, prep schools, Eton and regular visits to Granny Vicky. Until one day a succession crisis in a tiny German statelet changed his future forever. He was not the first candidate for the dukedom but German emperor (and cousin) Wilhelm wanted a boy he could mold into one of his henchmen and Charles Edward, whose father had been dead since before he was born, seemed like the perfect candidate. The teenaged prince had been put on path that would take him to strange, nasty places.

This is my first featured article candidacy. I have been working on this article sporadically over recent years, heavily in the past several months and done a lot research into this man's life. The article has been promoted to good status, informally and formally peer reviewed since december. Thank you to anyone who takes the time to review it, I will try to respond as fast as I can. Llewee (talk) 01:03, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]

Hello and welcome to FAC! I'll open with an image review

done

  • Suggest adding alt text where it is missing

done

  • File:Groepsportret_van_de_familie_van_koningin-regentes_Emma,_anonymous,_1896_-_1897.jpg is missing information on first publication, and if the author is unknown how do we know they died over 70 years ago? Ditto File:Duke_Charles_Edward_of_Saxe-Coburg_and_Gotha_with_wife_and_children.jpg

The first image is old enough to be assumed in the public domain. I've added a copyright tag specifying that. The second image has been given to the commons by the German archive.

The first one still has a tag based on publication date, so we still need info on first publication. On the second, how did you arrive at that conclusion? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:40, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  1. The United States section of List of countries' copyright lengths says that anonymous works enter the public domain "95 years from publication or 120 years from creation, whichever is shorter" so it should be in the public domain by now whenever it was published. However, I'm not sure what tag to use to indicate that point.
  1. The 120 from creation piece only kicks in if it was first published after 1978, according to that table, so we'd still need to know when it was published. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:35, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]


  1. Sorry I got mixed up between images, I'm not quite sure how to interpret the second image, the source says (http://www.zeno.org/Zeno/-/Lizenz%3A+Gemeinfrei) it thinks the image is in the public domain but isn't sure. Llewee (talk) 23:06, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Since this is hosted on Commons, even if we take that as correct we'd still need to know US status. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:35, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same author problem exists with File:Bundesarchiv_Bild_136-B0556,_Karl-Eduard_von_Sachsen-Coburg_und_Gotha.jpg. Ditto File:Landwirtschaftliche_Ausstellung_Coburg_Juni_1910.jpg

I've looked up a translation of the source and it seems to have been taken by someone who died in 1913. I've added a translation

What about File:Landwirtschaftliche_Ausstellung_Coburg_Juni_1910.jpg? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:40, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Saxe-Coburg_and_Gotha_in_the_German_Reich_(1871).svg: suggest clarifying the caption to specify which portion is the polity of interest - there are two shapes that could potentially be highlighted

Both are - one is Coburg and the other is Gotha. I've added a clarification of the relevant colour.

  • File:Gotha_Order_of_the_Garter.JPG: under US law replication of a 2D work doesn't garner a new copyright - this should be tagged for the status of the work pictured

I've added a UK government copyright template. I'm not sure if it also needs a US template?

No, but the source should be clarified. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:40, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've tried to make the source and author sections more informative--Llewee (talk) 23:06, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see that these have been edited? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:35, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I forgot to publish the edit, done now.--Llewee (talk) 10:53, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:ZIEL_ERKANNT!_12._Reichs-Frontsoldatentag_des_Stahlhelm_B.d.F._Breslau_30_31_Mai_1931_15_Propaganda_Erinnerungsschrift_(Commemorative_rally_book_of_Stahlhelmbund,_German_right-wing_paramilitary_organisation_1918–1935)_No_known_copyri.jpg: why does this have a CC license? I don't see that at the source. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:29, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken that image out now.--Llewee (talk) 14:46, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review Nikkimaria, apologies for asking lots of questions, I'm not hugely fluent in copyright issues.--Llewee (talk) 23:06, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken out the order of the Garter image and added File:"L'oncle de l'Europe" devant l'objectif caricatural - images anglaises, françaises, italiennes, allemandes, autrichiennes, hollandaises, belges, suisses, espagnoles, portugaises, américaines, etc. (14776736585).jpg.--Llewee (talk) 13:56, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is a more specific tag available for this new image? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:14, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a couple of more specific tags.--Llewee (talk) 00:01, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nikkimaria, I've added an additional image to the article. File:Sibylla med Prins Gustaf Adolf och alla barnen.jpg

Support by Nick-D

[edit]

I don't think I'll have time to post full review, but the statement that "In March 1945, the German government formed a "Committee for the Protection of European Humanity" of which Charles Edward was made chairman. This group was meant to negotiate with the Western Allies in order to gain better living conditions for the defeated Germans after the war. The committee members were in theory "uncompromised" Germans with fewer links to the regime. The quick collapse of Nazi Germany after that point meant that enough time was not available for negotiations" jumped out of me:

  • The first sentence is surprising given that the main body of what remained of the German Government (Hitler and his group in Berlin) was determined to go down in flames. Hitler sacked, jailed or killed anyone he found was engaging in negotiations of this type. Was this a committee formed by one of the breakaway elements of the government who recognised that the war was lost?
  • The last sentence is wrong as the Allies had a policy of insisting on the unconditional surrender of Germany, and they would not have engaged with this group (except to see if it could be used to bring about unconditional surrender) no matter how much time was available. Nick-D (talk) 09:30, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The source "Charles Edward of Saxe-Coburg: The German Red Cross and the Plan to Kill "unfit" citizens 1933-1945 pp 165-166" says;
In March 1945 Hitler asked Foreign Minister von Ribbentrop to form a Committee for the Protection of European Humanity. Charles Edward was designated as chairman, and the group was supposed to represent "uncompromised" Germans in their association with the National Socialist government who could negotiate with the Western Allies to ensure tolerable living conditions for civilians in Germany after the war concluded. As president of the DRK, Charles Edward contacted ICRC Vice President Carl Burckhardt who agreed to act as an liaison with the British and American governments on the matter. The coordinated military thrusts from both East and West resulted in such a rapid collapse of the German military that the committee never really had time to begin fruitful negotiations with the foreign governments. Total surrender devolved by May 1945, and Hitler was dead (Zimmerman, 1980; Stauffer, 1991, 167-190, Stauffer, 1998, 350; Poguntke, 2010, 125).
Given the quality of the source I mainly just took its contents on trust. I suppose lack of time might be shorthand for not enough time for the allies to be asked and say no but I don't really know.--Llewee (talk) 11:45, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I checked Ian Kershaw's book The End today, which is one of the standard works on the last period of Nazi Germany, and it confirms that Hitler didn't want to enter into any form of peace negotiations (aside from sort-of tolerating negotiations to end the fighting in Italy). There were multiple breakaway groups though that attempted this. As this topic seems to be outside of the book you're consulting's area of focus, I'd suggest cross checking these claims against more specialist sources, as I'm fairly confident that the author here is mistaken. Nick-D (talk) 09:53, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've searched the book you referenced on Google books for uses of the phrase "Committee for the Protection of European Humanity" but none appeared. I can't find any relevant search results on this website or the wider internet. As the sources Rushton references are all German language sources I probably wouldn't be able to much information out of I think it might be best just to take the text out.--Llewee (talk) 18:47, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies Nick-D, I forgot to link to you.--Llewee (talk) 11:47, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here's some further comments in response to a request on my talk page:

  • The first sentence of the lead is over-complex.
  • I have tried to make the first sentence simpler and reorganised the first paragraph.
  • "Potsdam, the government district of Berlin" - Potsdam is outside of Berlin
  • I have clarified this.
  • "was cheered on by onlookers" - is the 'on' needed here?
  • done
  • I'd suggest swapping the first and second sentences of the second para of the 'Peacetime reign' section
  • "The duke generally tried to stay out of politics, especially diplomatic issues between Great Britain and Germany, which led to him receiving additional criticism" - from who?
  • It doesn't say who made that particular criticism but I have tried to add more context to the paragraph.
  • "By 1918 he would have an estimated wealth of between 50 and 60 million marks" - this wording is a bit awkward. Can you just say that this was his estimated wealth?
  • The problem is that 1918 is forward in time from "peacetime reign" but the information doesn't really fit in the First World War section.
  • "due to having a permanently damaged leg from a sledging accident" - this grammar is also a bit off
  • I think that should be better
  • What he did in World War I is unclear. It's noted that he "He provided non-combat support to the army corps from his territories", but what this involved isn't noted (was this actions taken by his government, or stuff he did personally?). It's then noted that he served in Belgium and the Eastern Front, but the capacity in which he did so isn't explained.
  • I've tried to add some additional clarity to that sentence but the sources don't say much more than that he was present. Urbach says he was not doing very much which is mentioned in the article.
  • "was due to paranoia that he would be killed" - was this really paranoia?
  • I've changed it to anxiety.
  • "He hid Hermann Ehrhardt, a Freikorps commander..." - I'd suggest starting this sentence with when this occurred
  • I have added the year at the start.
  • The final section on works by historians doesn't note his antisemitism and far right views, which appears to have been a significant reason for his support for the Nazis. It seems a bit of a cop out to blame this on his unhappy early life given the article notes his views became more extreme over time. Can this be discussed? Nick-D (talk) 02:43, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The 2016 and 2018 books don't say much about his views in their concluding summaries. I have tried to add more detail, especially more emphasis on his importance to the regime in the relevant section.

Support My comments are now addressed and I'm pleased to support this nomination. Nick-D (talk) 10:36, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drive by comment. ... died ..., [[Haemophilia in European royalty|having suffered]] from [[haemophilia]] is a MOS:EASTEREGG violation (and perhaps one of MOS:SUFFER as well). You could write something like "... who was a haemophiliac like many other European royalty, died ..." but I am sure there is an even better way to phrase it. —Kusma (talk) 10:13, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed the wording now.--Llewee (talk) 21:06, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments and support from Gerda

[edit]

I am interest to read the article again after the informal peer review. I will leave the lead for last. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:19, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the additional comments, I'll work through them as quickly as possible.--Llewee (talk) 00:36, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Birth and family background

  • I think Family would be enough of a header.
    • I've done that and moved the detail about his birth to the childhood section.
  • I'd like to see both father and mother introduced before his father's death, and the titles the boy inherited at birth. Possibly even before the sister.
    • I've reorganised the section so that his parents are introduced first, then his sister and then the stuff about his father's death

Childhood

  • "He was then sent to school without his sister. His schooling took place at boarding schools." - I feel that these extremely short sentences could perhaps be combined, avoiding "school" - "schooling".
    • done

Selection as heir

  • I believe that the "colonies" in the image caption is not needed, as the two districts will not be expected in colonies.
    • ditto
  • ref order: I notice twice in this section that references are not in numerical order as expected, - didn't watch before, please check.
  • "... King William II of Württemberg, and found him a tutor. Later, Emperor Wilhelm organised ..." - it looks a bit strange to see two people with the same name so differently next to each other.
  • I can see that but it's based on the names the two men's articles use.
  • "He attended Bonn University. He studied law but ..." - I bet these sentences can be combined.
  • done

Marriage ...

  • "His entry in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography comments that they were happy, but Urbach indicates otherwise." - if the "happy" from the dictionary should be mentioned at all - how would they know - please find an abbreviation when it's mentioned first.

Personal life

  • "They are so sensible, 'wenn sie nicht verhetzt werden' (when they are not poisoned)", - I suggest to render the sentence in English, and give the German expression in brackets. I believe that "poison" is too ambiguous, - my dictionary has no good word for "verhetzen" but "incite" seems to work.
  • The quote uses different brackets than those usually used for translations by Urbach, so I think the duke might have decided to write the phrase in both languages in his letter.--Llewee (talk) 01:04, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The family often do not appear happy in photographs." - I am not happy with that sentence, as a construction (The family often do not ...), and it contradicts the two photographs we can see ;)
  • "It is unknown whether it was true." - I feel that this sentence is redundant to "allegations".
  • "When they grew up, Charles Edward's children were often a disappointment to him in their choice of romantic relationships, ..." - I think it could be simpler saying that the their choice disappointed him, which would also make "when they grew up" redundant.
  • "The marriage meant that Sibylla would be expected to become Queen of Sweden (which however did not happen)." - I seem to remember that we discussed that all this is implied in "second to the Swedish throne".
  • "The former duke began to look for political options he felt were tougher than the former emperor had been during the First World War." - sorry, I don't understand the meaning.

Political ...

  • I think that the lead of the linked article gymnasium is better than the footnote offered.

Unofficial diplomat

  • the dictionary again, - it should certainly not be linked again
  • done

Second World War

  • "Hubertus † fürs Vaterland" (Hubertus died for Germany). - no Vaterland means "fatherland", or home country, not Germany.
  • "committed suicide" - I guess you are aware that the phrasing is contentious, - too close to "commit a crime"
  • done

Trial ...

  • dictionary once more
  • done
  • can we avoid "as a result" in two sentences in a row?
  • done
  • "Seaforth Highlanders" are mentioned five times, linked three of those (1,2,4) - perhaps check for duplicate links.
  • done

Death

  • "Elsässer Straße (Alsatian Street)" - if the street is needed (which I doubt) there's no need to give it italics and a translation.
  • done

General: the separation of personal and political life (under Far-right) makes for a tricky chronology - something to think about. I'll look at the lead tomorrow. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:59, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lead, infobox

  • I believe that the lead has some unneeded detail. It should focus on the subject.
    1. I don't need his father's cause of death, and even less that the father's condition was frequent in nobility, - that's for later, the latter perhaps not at all.
    2. Instead of "His paternal grandparents were Queen Victoria of the United Kingdom and Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha.", an addition to the father as being the Queen's son might be enough to make the connection.
      • I'm reluctant to take out the reference to Prince Albert because I think the "of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha" is a helpful way of quickly conveying to the reader why a British prince might have been in the line of succession for a German dukedom.--Llewee (talk) 00:36, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        understand that now --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:15, 30 March 2024 (UTC) (accidentally deleted comment)
    3. I didn't get "sickly" from remembering the body section, rather "the perfect little prince" ;) (but that may be just me).
    4. I don't think his children are lead material (beyond saying "five"), unless perhaps Sibylla. They have prime position in the infobox.
  • I think if we hit the reader with "Nazi politician" in the first sentence (on top of the uniform), we might want to add his position with the Red Cross and "unoffical diplomat" there, for perspective.
    • I've put the details about his Nazi positions into the first paragraph and moved down the content about his life as a kid. I've added a brief reference to his status as a British Prince to the first sentence as I think that's one of the most notable details to an English-speaking audience and necessary context to his diplomatic roll.--Llewee (talk) 00:36, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think he lost his English titles before the German ones which might be reflected.
  • "like the other German monarchs" - he was no monarch, and for "nobility", it's the wrong link.
  • I think his function as head of the Red Cross should somehow in the infobox. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:24, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for restoring the comments, I tried the indenting also. Easy rule: when replying to something indented, copy that indenting. (If not the whole idea gets lost. Which may make it tricky for someone blind.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:39, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For your return: reading the lead again after your changes, I like it much better. I suggest you introduce "a state of the German Empire" sooner, because that is so unexpected. I wonder if it would be better to mention in the first paragraph - which should be a rough overview - his functions in the Red Cross and as informal diplomat, and bring the details later. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:14, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've made those changes.--Llewee (talk) 23:39, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I wasn't clear, but I don't know how else to say it. In the first paragraph, I'd just say he was leader of the Red Cross and an informal diplomat (to distinguish from a SS leader or minister). The details - that at the time the Red Cross was carrying out eugenic concepts - don't belong in the first few sentences, but rather the last para of the lead, and in not too much detail. Other than that, I'm ready to support. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:16, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
done--Llewee (talk) 09:40, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, it was a pleasure, - support. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:49, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Therealscorp1an

[edit]
I have reorganised the lead now.--Llewee (talk) 16:55, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]


  • @Llewee: "In 1899, the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha decided on how to deal with the succession of Duke Alfred, who was in ill health. Duke Alfred's only son, Prince Alfred, had died in February 1899." These sentences may seem a little confusing. Specific dates are given as to when Prince Alfred died, but not for when the succession is dealt with. I would suggest changing it to "In late 1899, the House..." - Therealscorp1an (talk) 00:36, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Llewee: Keeping the sections of "Selection as heir" and especially "Regency" out of the "Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha" section may seem a bit illogical as he had a regent while being the Duke, so should it not technically be inside the Duke section? - Therealscorp1an (talk) 00:17, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I created a new section in order to create more of a balance between the different sections sizes. I'm reluctant to split up education and regency because they cover heavily overlapping time periods.--Llewee (talk) 23:47, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Llewee away until next weekend (Old post, please ignore)

[edit]

Hello all, thank you for your comments which have been very helpful. I am about to go away on holiday, I'll carry on working on the article when I get back.--Llewee (talk) 01:11, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for letting us know. I came to say that in this edit (conflict?), you lost indenting and replies, wanting to ask you to fix it. Perhaps I can do it, just not right now. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:14, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Buidhe

[edit]

Article says that Martha Liebermann was going to be deported to Auschwitz. This is unlikely because elderly German Jews and especially those well connected were almost always deported to Theresienstadt. Martha Liebermann's article seems to have the correct information with a source. Can you fix this? (t · c) buidhe 17:49, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Buidhe, The cited book says it was Auschwitz.--Llewee (talk) 14:04, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure it's wrong though, for the reasons discussed above, and especially because the source in Liebermann's article seems to say the opposite. (t · c) buidhe 14:10, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even just googling for "Martha Liebermann" "Auschwitz" I find plenty of sources that say she was about to be deported to Theresienstadt, and no claims that she was going to Auschwitz. —Kusma (talk) 16:42, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed it and added a source from her page.--Llewee (talk) 18:50, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was asked if I plan to support this nomination and the answer is no. Actually after looking at it again, I become concerned about comprehensiveness issues if more German sources aren't used. In just a quick google scholar search I found[16] which sheds light on an issue not covered at all in the article, and this which could clarify the claimed "Committee for the Protection of European Humanity". (t · c) buidhe 13:38, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Buidhe, thanks for the response, I have read through the relevant chapter of the first book and added some information which is pertinent to this article. I will respond to your other comments later this evening. I would like to mention, though, that out of the five main sources used in the article two are in German and one is written in English by a German.--Llewee (talk) 16:24, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

[edit]
  • "the last sovereign duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, a state of the German Empire". A sovereign ruler is one who has no superior. It is the wrong word here.
  • "was off-putting to both his subjects and the German elite". This implies that he only had two subjects. I suggest "was off-putting both to his subjects and to the German elite"
  • done
  • "Charles Edward was not affected by haemophilia because a boy cannot inherit the condition from his father." It is a pedantic point, but this is not quite right. Even if it had been a condition which could be inherited through the male line, he would not have been certain of inheriting the haemophilia allele. Maybe "Charles Edward was in no danger of being affected by haemophilia because a boy cannot inherit the condition from his father."
  • done
  • Theo Aronson. You should describe him - eg "the royal biographer Theo Aronson. Also, it is usual to only use the surname on later mentions.
  • done
  • Friedrich Facius. You should explain who he is.
  • I'm not really sure who he is. He is listed as the writer of the duke's entry in a German encyclopaedia.
  • According to historian Alan R. Rushton. This is at the second mention of him, It should be the first.
  • done
  • "an annual income of about 2.5 million marks". This will mean little to most readers. Perhaps provide a conversion to the value of the pound in the same period.
  • I've added a conversion in a footnote
  • The conversions in notes 2 and 6 are False precision. For "£6,000 in 1890 was the equivalent to £637,962.29 in 2023", say "around £638,000", and for "2,500,000 marks in 1910 was the equivalent of 122152.50 British pounds at the time", "around £122,000". Dudley Miles (talk) 13:38, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Charles Edward could not participate in combat due to having a permanently damaged leg from a sledging accident." This seems important enough to be described when it happened.
I can't find any more information about it.
  • " after Ehrhardt participated in the Kapp Putsch against the government". I would specify "unsuccessful Kapp Putsch".
  • done
  • "disrupted Ehrhart's own attempts to take power". You should explain who Erhart was and his attempts.
  • I've added some more detail.
  • "This was a social club which membership largely consisted of businessmen". This is ungrammatical. Maybe "This was a social club which had a membership largely composed of businessmen".
  • done
  • "Charles Edward used the event as a public display of his ideology and to improve the damaged prestige of the duke's family." How was it damaged? You have not said so unless I have missed it.
She says because of the First World War.--Llewee (talk) 21:47, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The marriage was congratulated by Adolf Hitler and Hermann Göring." This is ungrammatical.
  • done now
  • "an Obergruppenführer in the SA". I would spell out "SA" and provide a translation of the whole expression.
  • done
  • "He lost his SA uniform after the Night of the Long Knives". This sounds odd. Do you mean that his uniform was confiscated? If you mean that he lost the right to use the uniform when the SA was suppressed you should say so.
  • done
  • Eugenics. This paragraph is misleading as it ignores the international context and implies that it was a German phenomenon. Eugenics originated in Britain as an offshoot of Darwinism and gained international support. In Britain its supporters included Winston Churchill and the socialist Fabian Society. Forced sterilisation was introduced in a number of countries, but eugenics was widely rejected after WWII as it was discredited by the Nazis use of it to justify mass murder. I would cut down this paragraph.
  • "Eugenics was a mainstream part of international academic and public debate in the early 20th century.[119][120][121] Eugenic policies were introduced in various countries including France, the United States and the United Kingdom." This is clumsy and dubious on the UK. Eugenic laws were proposed but so far as I know never passed. Maybe something like "In the early twentieth century eugenic ideas received wide international support across the political spectrum and eugenic policies such as compulsory sterilisation of "defectives" were introduced in several countries. The theory lost mainstream support after WWII because of its use by the Nazis to justify mass murder." Dudley Miles (talk) 13:38, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He was president of the German version of the Anglo-German fellowship[132] and lobbied figures believed to be pro-German". 1. I think it would be clearer to give the name in German with a translation in brackets. 2. "figures" grammatically appears to mean Germans. I suggest "Britons" and mentioning Edward as in the source. The previous paragraph on 1937-8 would logically come after this one.
  • done
  • "Charles Edward's ODNB entry". I think you should mention the author, Charlotte Zeepvat.
  • Paragraph starting "In 1940". This should be in the WWII section.
  • I'd prefer to keep it in the Unofficial diplomat section because it falls into that category. The German Red Cross and eugenics section also included information about events that happened after 1939.
  • "to immigrate to the United States" This should be "emigrate".
  • "However, the historian also noted that the duke had a close friendship with Hitler and could have influenced him." I am not sure what you are saying here - that he may have influenced Hitler?
  • Yes that's what Rushton says. He argues that Charles Eduard could have persuaded Hitler to stop the murders of disabled people on the grounds that they were undermining the wartime morale of the German people. I've tried to make the point clearer.
  • "Russia was part of the Soviet Union, a communist state, at the time." I do not think you need to say this. Anyone who does not know it would hardly understand the article.
  • Ok, I have got rid of it now,
  • Ref 90 is odd. You cite p. 289 of an American journal for a British Act of Parliament and the link goes to p. 288 in German. You should be able to find a British source. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:15, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed it now.
I think I have responded to all you concerns now Dudley Miles.--Llewee (talk) 12:24, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment

[edit]

I am aware that Dudley is in the middle of a review, but also that this nomination has been open for eight weeks and while attracting a lot of comments has only the single general support. Unless it makes significant further progress towards a consensus to promote over the next three or four days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:13, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Johnbod

[edit]
Fascinating if sad story. Nothing much jumped out on a read-through, & I see the article has been generally well-chewed over above. I' do some locating in the caption to the photo of him seated with Goebbels etc, though - "from right" perhaps. Johnbod (talk) 16:54, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Therealscorp1an

[edit]
Article looks good and seems like all issues have been addressed. I am in support. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 11:22, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kusma

[edit]

I was asked for a further opinion. I do not yet have a support or oppose to offer (and I am not sure I can without reviewing the sources) but I was surprised to read that "Victoria Adelaide lacked any [..] Jewish ancestry". Why would we expect any Jewish ancestors? European royalty are known for marrying only European royalty (none of which were Jewish) to the point of pedigree collapse. Mentioning explicitly the lack of Jewish ancestors seems odd, almost like saying explicitly that she did not have any Maori ancestry. Also, emdashes in "Marriage and children" section should be endashes, see MOS:DASH. —Kusma (talk) 13:51, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

it is relevant as the article makes clear there was prejudice against non-Germans and German Jews. The rules against marrying non-Royals were not universally observed. According to [17] Prince Philip had Jewish ancestors. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:26, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Kusma, It based on the text of the source which emphasises those two points;
It was obvious that the Duke of Coburg would soon need a German wife. So the Empress arranged the marriage concluded in October 1905 with her niece Viktoria Adelheid of Schleswig-Holstein-Glücksburg - an old German noble family that had no foreigners or even Jews in its ancestry. In a special issue of the Coburger Tageblatt on the occasion of the wedding in the ducal house it was said that the people "will always prefer to welcome a princess born into their own tribe as mother of the country rather than a stranger." --Llewee (talk) 14:28, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have to concede the point on Jewish ancestry (and I know I was exaggerating wrt "only royalty"; the scandals surrounding Mary Bowes, another ancestress of Charles III, feature prominently in one of my articles, Eliza Stephens). Besides the rumors of illegitimacy, Franz Leopold Lafontaine, the grandfather of Julia, Princess of Battenberg, appears to have married the daughter of a converted court Jew. I think the main point is the German public objected to foreign-born duchesses. It is weird this was such a big issue in a country ruled by a grandson of Queen Victoria. —Kusma (talk) 14:54, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think this was perhaps the point. The Kaiser's mother Victoria, Princess Royal (odd article title, given she was Empress of Germany, if only for a Truss-like 99 days) caused a fair degree of embarassment by more or less refusing to "be German". For example, she died in 1901 and left instructions she be buried wrapped in a Union Jack. Johnbod (talk) 15:50, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for pointing out the dashes, I have changed them now.--Llewee (talk) 14:42, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Kusma, just checking if there is any more to come? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:51, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I don't really have time and energy to look in very much detail and will not comment further on prose (as would be needed for a well founded support). I have looked at the sources mentioned by buidhe above and tried a short search myself and could not find extensive coverage in my usual places. From Morgenbrod-Merkenich 347–350, I think there is a little bit to add about the 1940 voyage; that Roosevelt almost did not meet Carl Eduard (p. 348), and that Carl Eduard's charisma prevented a diplomatic disaster (p. 349). The American Red Cross's hostility sounds less harsh on p. 348. None of this is major though.
It looks like JJE is on the source review; if that ends in a pass, I am not planning to object to promotion of this article. —Kusma (talk) 10:58, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comments

[edit]
  • The "References" section contains several p/pp errors, and at least one hyphen which should be an en dash.
  • "Bibliography": details of books should either all have publisher locations or none should.
  • Sandner should have a page range.
  • The titles of articles - those in quote marks - should either all be in title case or all be in sentence case.
  • "He was privately educated, lastly at Eton College." The "lastly" seems to be contradicted by "Between 1899 and 1905, he was put through various forms of education".
  • "The duke was a conservative ruler". "duke" needs an upper-case D per MOS:JOBTITLE. Please check the rest of the article for similar instances. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:13, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the comments Gog the Mild, I think I have responded to all but one of them. I'm not quite sure what you mean by the Sandner one, as the only use of it is citation number 44 which has a page number.--Llewee (talk) 16:12, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cite 78, should that be 2016?
  • Cites 31, 35 and 43 do not link to Victoria in the bibliography.
  • "During the First World War, he chose to support the German Empire and participated in the Imperial German Army in non-combatant positions due to a disability" is slightly ambiguous. Perhaps 'During the First World War he chose to support the German Empire, participating in the Imperial German Army; due to a disability he was only appointed to non-combatant positions' or similar?
  • "The German Revolution deposed him". Er, actually it didn't. Maybe 'He was disposed during the German Revolution ...'?
  • The second paragraph of the lead uses "he was" five times, including three times in one sentence.
More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:53, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Entries in the bibliography should be in alphabetical order. (Stadler}
  • Stadler and Sandner each need eg "|pages=269–298" to show the source's page range of the chapter or article referred to within its host work.

Gog the Mild (talk) 11:08, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gog the Mild, I've responded to these issues.--Llewee (talk) 21:46, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Airship

[edit]

Note 4 needs a citation. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:08, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

done, AirshipJungleman29--Llewee (talk) 10:53, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

I must echo the point raised by other people that the article relying almost entirely on English sources strikes me as inappropriate - this is a topic with way more pertinence to German history. "Moorhouse, Roger (18 July 2015). "Go Betweens for Hitler by Karina Urbach". The Times. ISSN 0140-0460. Retrieved 19 December 2022." does not need an ISSN. I am not sure that O'Donovan is prominent enough for them to be cited here in the review. There seems to be a bit of an alphabetization issue in the Sources section. Is "Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, H.H. Prince Andreas (2015). I Did It My Way. Memoirs of HH Prince Andreas of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha. Eurohistory.com. ISBN 9781944207007." used anywhere? Giving a courtesy cite to @Ealdgyth and K.e.coffman: in case they have further points. Spot-check of this version:

I don't think it is fair to say the article is based almost entirely on English sources. Büschel, Oltmann and Facius are all used extensively in the article. Also, Urbach is a German writing in English. With the exception of Rushton, the English language sources written by authors with no connection to Germany tend to be concentrated in the early part of the article or in the later sections about his relationship with Britain. I've tried to add more information from the sources Buidhe suggested. I'm including O'Donovan because it was published in The Daily Telegraph which is a well-known newspaper in the UK. I have taken out the ISBN in Moorhouse.--Llewee (talk) 14:35, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the memoirs you mentioned was being used but has been removed by another editor.--Llewee (talk) 16:49, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2 I don't see the Alfred issue here. "On 11 November, his abdication was demanded in Coburg. Only on 14 November, later than most other ruling princes, did he formally announce that he had "ceased to rule" in both Gotha and Coburg. He did not explicitly renounce his throne" is a pretty close translation of "11. in Coburg seine Abdankung gefordert; erst am 14. ließ er verkünden, er habe in beiden Herzogtümern „aufgehört zu regieren“, ohne ausdrücklich auf den Thron zu verzichten." My understanding is that nationalistic-militaristic groups and völkisch are not mutually inclusive, so we can't say "völkisch" in our article. The paragraph in "Trial and final years" is a bit too detailed for this source.
  • "somewhat delicate condition" almost undoubtedly means illness, 19th century newspapers often used euphemisms for subjects which were considered crude, you would baptise a baby early because you were worried about them dying prematurely at a time when infant mortality was still quite common--Llewee (talk) 22:09, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 55 Doesn't say it was before the birthday or that George V was his cousin, and I wonder if these details are important.

Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:06, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jo-Jo Eumerus, this a link to a document with a copy of the sources; https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vSbwZByG1f9f0H5euUwVUJTYzJEAP9egtSfSIE3R95fD5jIEveDtyHtpEdJzZ841-dXaGAJlbyrLzyG/pub Llewee (talk) 17:33, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Jo-Jo Eumerus, I've now responded to all the issues you mentioned in the review.--Llewee (talk) 22:33, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've also tried to increase use of Büschel throughout the article to add more emphasis on the German point of view.--Llewee (talk) 22:47, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like this is fine, then. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:32, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Update from Llewee

[edit]

Thank to everyone who has recently commented. I haven't been able to respond to many of your comments as I haven't had much time to edit for the past few days. I am likely to be very busy for about another week. I should have more time to work on this article after that. Llewee (talk) 13:22, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Llewee, this has now been open for ten weeks. It has been moving along nicely but has more recently stalled. I note your comment that you should be able to address comments about a week after 23 May. Hopefully this means that we will be seeing responses in the very near future, as it would be a shame for this to time out over "actionable objections have not been resolved" after getting so far. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:30, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Llewee, could you confirm that the information requested by Jo-Jo has been sent to them? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:29, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Gog the Mild, I have sent it to them now.--Llewee (talk) 17:35, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 19 June 2024 [18].

You Belong with Me

[edit]
Nominator(s): Ippantekina (talk) 10:00, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a song by Taylor Swift, an American musical artist. Those who have heard this song might remember it via the infamous mic grab in 2009. That incident aside, this song is a pretty good pop hit that was everywhere in 2009 but was denounced by feminists. I believe this article is well-written and comprehensive for the bronze star. I appreciate any and all comments, Ippantekina (talk) 10:00, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Placeholder

[edit]
  • I'll do a full review soon (I owe it to my son, who literally just the other day told me that after three months with his Swift-obsessed girlfriend he has a favourite Swift song for the first time in his life and this is it :-)) but one thing caught my eye on a quick readthrough: In "TMZ", Yankovic sings about the ways paparazzi and the bossip website TMZ.... What is "bossip"? Is it a neologism/slang term of which I am not aware (in which case, is there an appropriate wikilink?) or is it just a typo? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:21, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Chris, I noticed there were a few typos after the GOCE request, so I did a read through and eliminated all remaining typos. Ippantekina (talk) 09:00, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No worries, I wasn't sure if I was not just down with all the latest terminology :-) I'll do a full review shortly...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:23, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Draken Bowser

[edit]

It's always nice to see all the aspects that can be comprehensively covered for a famous song, where there's plenty of sources. I especially like the paragraph on music theory including chord progressions. It's a decent song as well, although I tend to agree with Alexis Petridis.

  • Lead: Prefer "..widely covered controversy."
  • Background: "was recorded by the audio engineer" and I know -ing is generally frowned upon, but isn't "She recalled him becoming defensive" better? For the final sentence, is there anything more to it? As it is written it's not evident why it would be due?
  • Music and lyrics: "The lyrical motifs evoke a typical American high-school setting; the narrator sees herself as a typical girl and an underdog, and the girlfriend is a popular, attractive cheerleader." - Change one or the other. - "as an underdog contributes to her reliability." - Was this supposed to be about being "relatable"? I was only able to read one of the sources so I'm unsure, but as it is written it doesn't make complete sense to me.
  • Accolades and retrospective reviews: "Sheffield ranked it 128th out of Swift's 243 songs" - add year here as well
  • Live performances: "You Belong with Me" was the opening number on the set list of Swift's first headlining concert tour the Fearless Tour in 2009 and 2010." - Optional commas around "the Fearless Tour".

That's all for now. Regards. Draken Bowser (talk) 15:25, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Draken Bowser:, thanks for the comments. I've addressed all of them accordingly :) Ippantekina (talk) 16:26, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Supporting. Draken Bowser (talk) 08:24, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I forgot, the somewhat vague "final sentence" refers to: Rose suggested Swift write "something about bleachers" and they conceived another lyric: "She's cheer captain and I’m on the bleachers". I've warmed up slightly to it, but I'm still unsure why it would be important to single out this passage, after it has already been established that they co-wrote the lyrics. Draken Bowser (talk) 08:47, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Imo it's a fun fact that Rose was the one who suggested the bleachers lyric to Swift, no big deal! Ippantekina (talk) 12:30, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]
  • "both the antagonist—an unsympathetic, popular brunette cheerleader, and the protagonist—a sympathetic" => "both the antagonist—an unsympathetic, popular brunette cheerleader— and the protagonist—a sympathetic"
  • "with prominent, high-school and fairy-tale lyrical imagery" => "with prominent high-school and fairy-tale lyrical imagery"
  • "a close male friend, whom she understood but was in a relationship" => "a close male friend, whom she understood but who was in a relationship"
  • "and said, contrary to Swift's status as an attractive and popular figure, her" => "and said that, contrary to Swift's status as an attractive and popular figure, her"
  • "Critics commented Swift's vocals are the most prominent change" => "Critics commented that Swift's vocals are the most prominent change"
  • "Emily St. James commented on this recording, Swift's voice" => "Emily St. James commented that, on this recording, Swift's voice"
  • That's all I got! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:45, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the review, should all be done now! Ippantekina (talk) 14:54, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:55, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47

[edit]

Unfortunately, I will be unable to do a full review for this FAC, which is a shame as this is my favorite Taylor Swift song. I am not sure about using the karaoke version as the audio sample. I would imagine that readers would benefit from hear the main version of the song and hearing how the elements of the instrumental discussed in the caption are represented in the actual song. I just do not think that this is the most helpful choice. Apologies again for not being able to do a review, but I still wanted to point this out. Aoba47 (talk) 21:57, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Aoba for the comment. I think the Karaoke file isolates the lead vocals from the instruments, making the latter clearer, hence my inclusion of that file. I however do understand your concern and let's see what the file reviewer says :) Ippantekina (talk) 05:36, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review – pass

[edit]
  • "as the third single from Fearless" → not supported by add date ref alone. Also, I would do p=4 and department=Chart. It's not really labelled "page 14" but "chart page 4".
  • "It also holds the record for the highest audience impression for a country song" → the source text says "holds the record for the largest overall radio authence for a song by a country-based act". Most for country act is different (more impressive?) than most for country song. Also, maybe add "as of" unless there is a more recent ref verifying it still holds the record?
  • "In Canada, the song reached number one on the airplay charts Canada Country, Canada CHR/Top 40, and Canada Hot AC" → missing the Country and Hot AC refs
  • "By 2019, the single had sold an estimated seven million copies worldwide" → I don't necessarily doubt this, but it would be nice to source this from something other than an opinion article if possible
  • Folha De S. Paulo ref should have language=Spanish
  • Oops
  • Belfast Telegraph said "You Belong With Me is another slice of effervescent pop" – should pop be given as a genre as well?
  • Jon P McLaughlin → Jon P. McLaughlin
  • BMI accolade should be from an independent ref to demonstrate notability
  • "the video premiered on May 4, 2009" → not seeing May 4, 2009, in the source - In fact the website was first archived on May 2.
  • Andreson, Kyle → Anderson, Kyle
  • why isn't "pop" in the infobox?

More to come. I commend you for taking on such intimidating articles effectively! Heartfox (talk) 19:03, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Heartfox: thanks for reviewing. Let me know when you've brought forth all comments so I shall resolve them all at once :) Ippantekina (talk) 04:45, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Curious why New Yorker has an ISSN given but no others
  • Sermon, Craig S. → Semon, Craig S.
  • Philadelphia Inquirer web source has page num?
  • Consider removing Us Weekly per WP:RSP

This concludes the source review comments. Heartfox (talk) 21:14, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Heartfox, I believe all points are addressed now. Let me know if it's a pass or not, Ippantekina (talk) 09:38, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The video premiere date remains unaddressed. Heartfox (talk) 11:51, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing that out. It's supported by the Music Row ref which also covers GAC. Removed the CMT link. Ippantekina (talk) 15:33, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pseud 14

[edit]
  • the song into 1980s styles of pop rock -- link first instance of pop rock in the body, since this is also linked in the lead.
  • Airplay on non-country radio gained the song the largest crossover radio audience -- If we drop the second instance of radio, I think this will still work.
  • Craig S. Semon of the Telegram & Gazette described the song as an "irresistible keeper"[78] and Chris Richards of The Washington Post described the use of country banjos and new-wave guitars as "perfectly natural" -- maybe just some variation since "described" is used consecutively.
  • For accolades received by the song, I don't think it is necessary to mention that she lost. Something like "at the 52nd Annual Grammy Awards, it was nominated in three categories" and then list them. Same goes with the ACM award nomination.
  • Some feminist authors deemed "You Belong with Me" antifeminist or slut-shaming - as antifeminist or slut-shaming
  • In a defense of the song, Emily St. James -- In defense of the song, Emily St. James
  • Filming took place in two days in Gallatin and Hendersonville -- Filming took place for two days in Gallatin and Hendersonville
  • Similar comments as above re the accolades received by the music video.
  • Billboard in 2022 ranked it as the 14th-greatest VMAs performance of all time. - Billboard, in 2022, ranked it as the 14th-greatest VMAs performance of all time
  • as a homage to all of her album -- an homage (since "h" here begins with a vowel sound)
  • That's all from me. Great work overall. Pseud 14 (talk) 20:15, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you Pseud 14 for your comments. I've addressed them all accordingly :) Ippantekina (talk) 03:10, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Couple missed points, but made the edits here as it is easier. Pseud 14 (talk) 12:41, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]

File:Taylor Swift - You Belong with Me.png, I kind of wonder what "The cover art can or could be obtained from Big Machine Records" means. File:Taylor Swift - You Belong with Me music video 02.JPG's WP:NFCC#8 rationale is kinda lacking - how does this photo significantly increase the understanding of the article topic? Otherwise, images seem well-placed but not all have ALT text. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:34, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jo-Jo Eumerus, thanks for the file review. I've added the source URL for the cover art, updated the rationale for the screenshot, and added alt texts to all photos. Ippantekina (talk) 16:10, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I must say, I am a bit unsure if the article topic is significantly enhanced by that screenshot. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:55, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The screenshot sheds more light on how the music video contributes to its reception. I added something to the FUR. Ippantekina (talk) 10:50, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Jo-Jo, your thoughts on that? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:06, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Kind of weak, to be honest. Still seems to be expanding the understanding of a subtopic rather than the whole article. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:35, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the file contributes to an understanding of a subtopic (as you said), and in this case this subtopic (the music video) is part of the article topic (the song), then it should be strong enough to warrant inclusion, no? Ippantekina (talk) 08:53, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nay, sometimes the subtopic is just the subtopic and not important enough that an image illustrating it would significantly enhance the understanding of the article topic. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:00, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My stance remains that the image sheds light on understanding of the music video and its reception, which is discussed in a substantial portion of the article. "sometimes the subtopic is just the subtopic and not important enough" is not convincing for me to remove the file. I would like to hear more opinions regarding this, maybe from the coordinators @Gog the Mild: @FrB.TG: ? Ippantekina (talk) 07:24, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I usually try to find an interesting fact or a commentary on the specific scene I'm including in the music video section to justify its use (see Telephone (song)#Analysis for example). I think it would really strengthen your case if you added a bit more (if there is something in the sources) than "a and b portrays c and d". FrB.TG (talk) 20:05, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My view is that a vastly experienced reviewer of images considers that the article should not be promoted to FA with the image in question in it. Ie, there is not currently a consensus to promote. I do not personally see any reason for the coordinators to override this. Other coordinators' mileage may differ. @FAC coordinators: A second reason for the coordinators to archive this nomination - actionable objections have not been resolved - also seems to apply. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:47, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Ippantekina that there needs to be more clarification on how this criteria can be met as this has now come up in multiple reviews. The music video section is the longest subtopic in the article and even has two sections of its own. I don't understand why the extensive secondary source coverage is not proof that an excerpt from the music video is relevant to understanding the article topic. Secondary sources already determined it is. Should non-free content only be included if the subtopic is 50%, 75% of the article? I'm sorry but this is feeling like an impossible standard to meet due to a fundamental disagreement about the importance of music videos to singles. Heartfox (talk) 00:06, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This question has come up in non-FAC venues, too, including FFD. My issue is that the guidance at NFCC#8 does not clearly endorse this kind of file use; it's a maybe-maybe-not situation so I think there needs to be a consensus at a FAC that the guideline is satisfied for a given file. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:30, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi all just a note that I'll be on break till 22 June and I'll get back to this then :) Ippantekina (talk) 06:42, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the said screenshot for now. Despite the debate surrounding NFCC#8 dating back to 2008, I don't think we've got to a point where a consensus has been made. My viewpoint remains that the file adds significant value to the reader's understanding, but I don't want this FAC to suffer from (mis)interpretations of the clause, and obviously I don't want to see this FAC archived because a non-free music video screenshot became scrutinised as part of a wider Wikipedia-level question. Ippantekina (talk) 04:57, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comments

[edit]
Thanks @FrB.TG:! @Gog the Mild: I've provided the page range for Gasser :) Ippantekina (talk) 08:23, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of trivial bits for you to consider:

  • "Swift described as an homage to". Should that not be 'a homage'?
  • "on televised shows and events". Maybe 'on television shows and events'?

But promoting anyway. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:03, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 18 June 2024 [19].

KNXV-TV

[edit]
Nominator(s): Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 05:39, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pound-for-pound, the most interesting TV station in Phoenix is probably the one with an N for "News" in its call sign yet which mocked local newscasts with the "Bluebird of Happinews" in its early years. After years of funding-related delays, KNXV turned up in 1979 as the first new English-language TV station in Phoenix in 12 years. It got built mostly as a conduit for ON TV programming (and is part of the ON TV Good Topic), but cable became widespread enough by 1983 that it was one of the first markets where the company withdrew. After being sold to Scripps-Howard Broadcasting and affiliating with Fox in 1986, KNXV found its stride and eclipsed heritage KPHO-TV, a station that failed to get with the times, as the leading independent station in the market. Plans for a newscast became reality in 1994—in time to be scrambled by a huge affiliation realignment which sent ABC to 15. In spite of substantial early promise and a style distinguishing it from its four competitors, News 15 scuffled hard after changes in management and talent. More recently, the station has expanded its news output and improved its quality, as demonstrated by two Peabody Awards in consecutive years. Thank you to Lee Vilenski (GA reviewer in March 2022) and Valley of the Sun Retail for providing the studio image. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 05:39, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
@Nikkimaria A user put that image (and some others I want to use in articles) up in a Discord server. I asked him to release them under CC-BY-SA 4.0 for Wikipedia purposes; he agreed and, on the advice of User:Snowmanonahoe in WP:DISCORD, edited the messages to add "Images released under CC-BY-SA 4.0". He did not want to create an account and wanted me to upload the image. Is there additional documentation, short of a VRT ticket, that would help? Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 18:07, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is the image available elsewhere online? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:13, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria It is not. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 18:49, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
K. To my knowledge VRT doesn't generally accept secondhand permissions, particularly if we can't verify that that user owns the photo copyright, so we might be stuck here. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:53, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria The user in question *did* take the photo—that I know. Do you think I need to have him go through the VRT process? Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 19:30, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that would probably be the best option. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:35, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's a bit of overkill, especially because the Discord server is public (I could link an invite if you wanted and then point you to the message in question), but... I'm working on it. It may not happen until tonight because the creator I think works during the day. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 19:49, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no reason to believe the claim is false. Sammi Brie could've just uploaded the photos as own work. This is the same thing. A VRT ticket doesn't make any sense here because this person has no verifiable online contact information. The ticket would be verifying the identity of a random guy whom we don't even know is the actual photographer because his photos are not publicly available. Snowmanonahoe (talk · contribs · typos) 19:50, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, unfortunately, if we go by that logic we're back to being stuck. (And uploading stuff as own work which is not own work is not a good workaround for that). Nikkimaria (talk) 20:41, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What I was trying to convey by that point is that when someone makes a claim of own work, it is no less dubious than the claim Sammi Brie is making--that she was given permission to upload an otherwise unpublished work by a personal friend. The copyright status of the photo is not 'stuck' anywhere, because there is nowhere Sammi Brie could've gotten the photo besides the photographer, because the photo is not published. Snowmanonahoe (talk · contribs · typos) 21:34, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not doubting Sammi's good faith here, but as far as I'm aware every time this situation has come up on Commons, the response has always been to send them through VRT, just because having a copy of a photo is not evidence of permission. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:22, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you think there is significant doubt of the file's free status, you can open a DR. Snowmanonahoe (talk · contribs · typos) 22:35, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Got him to generate a release for that image. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 07:54, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

voorts

[edit]

Review to come. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:59, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've made some minor edits throughout. Feel free to discuss them here.
  • Most of the sourcing in the article is to newspapers. Has anyone written a reliable history of the station or broadcasting in Phoenix that can be cited to?
    • I don't see a good history of broadcasting book for Phoenix or Arizona. If it existed and was from 2000 or earlier, I think it would cover KNXV on a cursory level due to its relative age (even moreso given it has only been a news-producing station/network affiliate for 30 years). There is apparently an Images of America book, but it would be mostly photos. I have been lucky with some markets (Milwaukee) and states, but I have also seen state books (Kentucky) where the material was already heavily sourced from newspapers. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 04:27, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • KNXV-TV also proved itself a tough partner for Oak's subscription service. This needs a citation.
    • Reworded (this was an intro to the next sentence).
  • after Scripps was required Clarify whether this was pursuant to the contract or an FCC requirement.
    • Done.
  • with the figure increasing to 30 beginning in the 1990–91 season KNXV beat out KPHO-TV and KUTP to become Phoenix's Fox affiliate at the network's inception on October 9, 1986; as Fox's first and only program was The Late Show Starring Joan Rivers, KNXV remained essentially independent. This is an incomplete sentence.
    • Missing period. Fixed.
  • What is an "also-ran"?
  • Ref 34 appears to be a primary source and also links to the docket, not the actual PDF. Is there a secondary source that discusses those points?
    • I can't link to a single PDF because of the way the FCC handled the pagination and splitting of documents in some of these legacy imports. Everything is strewn across several PDFs. I first heard about this from an article I ran across years ago in the Phoenix Gazette, which reported on Miller's claims, but the Gazette is not in Newspapers.com (it's my most-wanted publication to be digitized). I can only get basic bibliographical information for it. The only other place I can see this being reported is in the Sarasota area because it turned up in the WWSB filing, but my search for "Scripps has a gun" only turned up an open letter from WWSB.
      • Regarding the Phoenix Gazette article, perhaps you ask someone to get it for you via microfilm. Additionally, I don't think we ought to be sourcing to a declaration of someone filed in an agency proceeding, unless it's properly attributed. Even then, it's a primary source document that wasn't necessarily fact-checked, so inclusion of too much information from it is probably undue.
        • @Voorts: I have added a citation to the article that I know (at least I can search for it) reprinted the "Scripps has a gun" remark, as well as more in-text attribution. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 05:58, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          • I added "According to Miller" to the beginning of the paragraph to clarify that everything in that paragraph is from Miller's declaration. Do we have evidence other than that declaration that Iger, Murphy, etc. said the things that Miller attributed to them? Did they confirm those quotes anywhere? Did they deny them? Also, I think you need to clarify who Miller is. In terms of the linking issue, any way you can download all the PDFs with the declaration, combine them into one PDF, and upload it somewhere so that readers can access the entire declaration? voorts (talk/contributions) 19:57, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm still pretty unsure whether this paragraph should remain in. For FA, we need high quality sourcing. Relying on a declaration filed in an agency proceeding (I assume by someone with a vested interest, but correct me if I'm wrong) and a newspaper story quoting from that declaration that you currently don't have access to doesn't pass that bar. I could maybe live with one or two sentences instead of a full paragraph. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:28, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Voorts That's fair. I've left in a sentence that I think sums up the key details in that piece. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 00:11, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • KTVK's loss of the ABC affiliation was attributed to it being a standalone, family-run operation, while Scripps held substantial clout as a major broadcast chain. This is depressing.
  • What is a "time brokerage agreement"?
    • Wikilinked. An agreement under which one company purchases airtime from a broadcast station to program on its own. (If that sounds like half-ownership...that's kind of the problem for Nexstar.)
  • The style was toned down slightly What was the style before and why did Scripps tone it down? That also appears to contradict the next sentence, which states The new newscast was fast-paced with a high story count. That doesn't seem particularly toned down.
    • We can't really say because we never got to see News 15 in its original form. They seem to have been intending a very special-effects-heavy newscast to appeal to a young audience when they were still Fox. They had to modify their plans quite a bit once they realized they were going to be an ABC affiliate. I've seen some of KNXV's early newscasts, and they did not change much.
  • Under Kronley, the investigative reports were discontinued and replaced by more live shots, and the station acquired a helicopter. This is also depressing.

That's all for now. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:34, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from ZKang123

[edit]

This looks well-written on first glance. Let me see through any nitpicks.

  • Curious, what does KNXV stand for? Never mind, later explained in history.
  • "In February 1975, pioneering UHF broadcaster Edwin Cooperstein, who had started New Jersey's WNJU-TV in the 1960s before moving to Phoenix, announced that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) had granted a construction permit to his company, New Television Corp., to build a television station in Phoenix on UHF channel 15."
    • I find this sentence a bit long. I understand it's also to add more context of who Edwin Cooperstein and how he is a "pioneering UHF broadcaster", but I felt the "who had..." clause could be a footnote or something to focus more on him building a television station, which I find more relevant to the article. Maybe consider preparing a redlink for Edwin Cooperstein.
  • "Plans were soon delayed by the inability to secure financing" – "Plans were soon delayed due to the inability to secure financing"
  • " the station still had not been built." – "the station was still unbuilt."
  • "funding problems continued to stand in the way of getting KNXV-TV on the air, leading" – I find this clause unnecessary given it's clear there's still funding issues before. Might shorten the sentence to: "In 1977, Cooperstein and his investors sold a majority of New Television Corp..."
  • No wikilink for Arlington Corporation?
  • "In late 1978, firm plans were made for a 1979 launch of the station." – I think it could be rewritten as "In late 1978, the station was planned to launch in the following year."
  • "as a commercial independent, airing first-run and off-network syndicated shows and children's programs." – I did a little trip reading this (thinking it's some run-on) before understanding "independent" as a noun.
    • The fact independent station wasn't linked here at its first mention contributes to this. "Independent" as a noun is common in articles on this, but never on first mention!
  • "but signs of trouble for the business were emerging rapidly." – this clause by its own here isn't clear in stating what signs of trouble there were for the company.
  • ";[15] however," – Not necessary to have a semicolon here given "however" is a connector signpost for a contrasting statement. Plus, the next statement can stand as its own sentence.
  • "in part because" – "partly because"
  • "dipped below 25,000, a drop of" – could use an en dash or emdash here, whichever you prefer
  • "and those syndicated shows" – remove "those"
  • ", the established independent in Phoenix," – I understand the need for clarity for what KPHO-TV is but I think the wikilink to the article would give context. Otherwise, you can do a footnote.
    • Disagree. A modern reader might not realize KPHO-TV was an indie (Big Realignment '94 made them the CBS affiliate). This clause establishes "OK, 15 was competing with 5".
  • ", potential buyers appeared for channel 15" – something about "appeared" don't seem encyclopedic to me.
  • Might also add modern value dollars for $22 million and $30 million
  • "and accepted a" – "but accepted a". I think "but" is more suitable
  • ", with the sale being finalized in 1985" – "The sale was finalized..."
  • "One new program on channel 15 in its first months with Scripps had much to do with its new owner." – something about this statement doesn't seem encyclopedic. I understand it is to tie the relationship of the new programme. Maybe like "is related to its new owner?"
  • " purchase more recent sitcoms" – I think at this time they aren't as "recent". Maybe like "purchase sitcoms that were new at the time?" Might suggest also adding which sitcoms were purchased as examples.
    • Couldn't substantiate this much, unfortunately.
  • For this chunk: "After KPHO turned down an offer to affiliate with the fledgling Fox network, it approached KNXV. Channel 15 joined Fox at the network's inception on October 9, 1986; as Fox's first and only program was The Late Show Starring Joan Rivers, KNXV remained essentially independent.", maybe I would rephrase to:
    • "The expanding Fox network approached KNXV after KPHO turned down an offer to affiliate, and Channel 15 joined Fox at the network's inception on October 9, 1986. As Fox' first and only..."
  • "(channel 10, which New World was in the process of acquiring from Citicasters)" – Suggest putting as a footnote instead.
    • Rewritten a bit but not to a footnote.
  • "Just as importantly, however," – this part sounds like fluff. Remove this.
  • "ABC affiliates, WXYZ-TV and WEWS-TV, in these markets" – I recommend the use of dashes here.
  • "or else it would affiliate with CBS in those markets." – "otherwise it would affiliate with CBS"
  • "This was not a demand to which ABC was initially amenable." – "ABC was not initially amenable to this demand."
  • "For this reason" – "Hence"
  • "wanted to keep a station that had risen from one of ABC's weakest affiliates to one of its strongest." – something about this sentence is a bit clunky.
  • "swelled to 85" – "expanded to 85"
  • No issues for the remainder of the history section
  • "However, after Sullivan left the station in 1996, Michael Kronley was installed as station manager from Charlotte ABC affiliate WSOC-TV: the investigative reports were discontinued, replaced by more live shots, and the station acquired a helicopter." – Suggest rewording to: "Sullivan left the station in 1996, and under Michael Kronley as station manager from Charlotte ABC affiliate WSOC-TV, the investigative reports were discontinued and replaced by more live shots, with the acquisition of a helicopter."
    • Reflowed.

The rest of the article seems fine. That's all for me.--ZKang123 (talk) 07:22, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Z1720

[edit]

Non-expert prose review:

  • "KNXV-TV, standing for "Newswatch 15" (the "XV" stood for 15 in Roman numerals)." If XV is for 15, how does KN represent "Newswatch"? Can this be explained in the article either in the prose or as a note?
    • Just the N. The K was going to be there regardless because all call signs for broadcast stations in the western US start with K (cf Call signs in the United States). This is likely too much of a digression to include in prose.
  • "As a result, in 1977, Cooperstein" Consider removing "as a result" as I don't think it is necessary.
  • "In late 1978, firm plans were made to launch" Delete firm, not necessary.
  • "KNXV-TV signed on September 9, 1979," I assume "signed" means to begin broadcasting? If so, I would wikilink the term or say "KNXV-TV began broadcasting on September 9, 1979"
  • "One of the station's most memorable early promotions" delete most memorable: it is a quantitative, opinionated statement that doesn't need to be in wikivoice, and also isn't necessary
  • "One of the station's most memorable" After some thinking, consider removing this whole sentence as the promotion isn't mentioned again and this might be in the category of "trivia".
    • I think there's some irony here. The N in the call sign stood for News. They mocked news...and a decade later got news.
  • "ON TV took the station to court over its refusal" -> "ON TV sued the station over its refusal" to reduce the word count
  • "the television station's revenue." -> Remove television, as I don't think it's necessary?
  • "KSHB-TV general manager, had convinced Muscare to work in Phoenix and coaxed Muscare out of retirement" -> "KSHB-TV general manager, coaxed Muscare out of retirement and work in Phoenix"
  • "—who later worked in Chicago, Pittsburgh, and Charlotte—" I don't think this is necessary and can be removed.
  • "KNXV was already in the process of building a local news" delete already as redundant.
  • "ABC affiliate (1995–present)" is quite long. Is there a way to split this with two or three level-3 headings?
  • " in the Phoenix metro area.[59][58] " While not necessary, consider putting these refs in order as the other refs in the article are organised this way.
  • "However, after Sullivan left the station in 1996," Delete this "However", it is not necessary
  • "KNXV and KPHO then both adopted the slogan" delete then
  • "the lowest rating in the history of the report, an "F", for its" Not sure if its necessary to have "an F" here as it is already described as the lowest rating.

Those are my thoughts. Z1720 (talk) 21:46, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

Are Arizona Republic and The Arizona Republic two different newspapers? Ditto for Phoenix Gazzette and The Phoenix Gazzette. What is #25? #60 seems to be missing some information. #76 should say what it is. What makes tvnewscheck.com, broadcastbeat.com and Warren Communication News a reliable source? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:17, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Fixed the "The" issues for the Republic and Gazette. Marking down here: the Republic ceased printing "The" in its name with the March 30, 2014, issue, though internal usage was inconsistent for years thereafter, and it may now merit an article name change. (Not entirely uncommon; this is an issue with publications like the Orlando Sentinel.)
  • #25 is a season preview. Broadcasting used to print every year previews of the television and radio rights situations for MLB, NFL, and NBA teams. A shadow library mirrors nearly every issue of Broadcasting, but I do not add new links to it except to help reviewers verify sourcing. [20] Newspapers.com has some frustrating month gaps for the Republic in the 1980s and early 1990s, and the rightsholder change falls into one of them.
  • #60 has a metadata issue in the source that a citoid widget probably carried over. The author is listed as an Alex with a Twitter of "@alexcervantes" (in the source). But the actual user with that account is a Mexican economist. Removed any name as they are not listed in plain text on the page.
  • #76 has had information added to it.
  • TVNewsCheck is a reputable site for coverage of the local TV industry. My comments on this site can be found in Talk:KLKN/GA1. I do not see the other two sources here, Jo-Jo Eumerus (though Warren Publishing would be reliable in any event). Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 18:00, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Now I can't find broadcastbeat either. So I guess it's moot now. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:27, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Turns out I also linked the wrong Warren Publishing, but Warren was a reliable shop with the Factbook and several publications that do not survive in easily researchable form. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 06:45, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jo-Jo, is this one good to go? Gog the Mild (talk) 11:35, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comments

[edit]
  • References: article titles should be in a consistent case - sentence or title - regardless of how they appear in their original.
  • "affiliated with ABC." Acronyms should be given in full at first mention, in both the lead and the main article.
Then ABC should be linked on first mention in the main article. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:27, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild Done. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 19:35, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "ON TV folded in 1983", "folded" seems a little unencyclopedic. And may not always be understood outside North America.
  • The lead seems very detailed, perhaps over details, regarding events to 1995, then switches to summary style. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:53, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. It is now too long, has too many paragraphs and needs a copy edit. :-) I have had a go here. What do you think? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:50, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You've given it a good go, and I'm fine with it (I added it with a few extra links I felt were missing), but I note that its arrangement is a little unusual for our topic area. Let's see how it goes, @Gog the Mild. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 00:00, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 16 June 2024 [21].

Turabay dynasty

[edit]
Nominator(s): Al Ameer (talk) 21:34, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the Turabay dynasty, a family of Bedouin emirs that governed northern Palestine in the 15th–16th centuries under the Ottoman Empire. Their territory, formalized first as the 'Iqta of Turabay' then as the Sanjak of Lajjun, spanned the area between Jenin and Haifa. The long reign of the Turabays was owed to the strength of their tribe, their largely consistent loyalty to the sultan, and their success in administering and securing their sanjak. Backed by their close allies, the Ridwan and Farrukh dynasties of Gaza and Nablus, they prevented Fakhr al-Din II, the powerful Druze emir who had reduced Ottoman rule in the Levant "to a mere shadow", from conquering Palestine. These three local dynasties treated Palestine as their own dominion and, ironically, with Fakhr al-Din out of the way, the Ottomans were freed up to gradually eliminate these dynasties' power. Turabay governance finally ended in 1677. Their descendants still live in northern Palestine and Israel. Al Ameer (talk) 21:34, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FM

[edit]
  • Sanjak is linked twice in the intro.
  • Add date in captions of images that lack it for context?
  • Link Mamluk.
  • I don't think the common term soldier needs to be linked.
  • "were in the coastal plain of Palestine" it seems a bit odd that Palestine is only mentioned and linked this far down, shouldn't it be already in the first paragraph of the article body?
  • "according to Sharon" You haven't presented any Sharon before this point.
  • Link Arabian horses?
  • Link Transjordan.
  • "to avoid a future a Ma'nid takeover" Second a seems redundant.
  • You use both Laurent d'Arvieux and Chevalier d'Arvieux, probably best to be consistent.
  • Do we know anything about the women of the family?
  • I see you added a map, but unfortunately it creates some WP:image sandwiching under Governorship of Ahmad. Are there other ways the images can be placed to prevent this?
  • The copyright info of the new map also needs to be the same as the original, as it is still the same authorship and public domain though it has been modified
  • "and the use of a band composed of tambourines, oboes, drums and trumpets" For what purpose?
  • Clarified that sentence in general—the innovations concerned their tribal way of life (not innovations to government) and the band is a military band. Let me know your thoughts on the revision. Al Ameer (talk) 18:06, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The building was the only grave of the Turabays to have survived into the 20th century and no longer exists today" Do we know what happened to it?
  • No. According to the source, the mausoleum no longer exists as far as he knows. For my part, I cannot find anything else about it. It was last documented in 1941 by an antiquities inspector with the surname "Husseini" and was in a deteriorating state at that time. Al Ameer (talk) 18:06, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The mausoleum image could be right aligned to precent it clashing with the section title beneath it.
  • "Sharon attributes the decline of the Turabays to the eastward migration of the Banu Haritha to the Jordan Valley and the Ajlun region in the late 17th century" How would this have affected them? It was their power base that moved away, or?
  • Clarified. The tribe was their base of power and with them migrating away from northern Palestine, the Turabays probably lost their means to keep order and enforce their rule and became useless to the Ottomans who were trying to centralize power away from local dynasties anyway. I should note here that so far it has been frustratingly difficult to find much information about the Haritha tribe in general. The plain south of Haifa, the 16th-17th-century stomping grounds of the tribe, was known as “Bilad al-Haritha” as late as the 19th century but even for this I cannot locate a source that explicitly associates the name with the tribe. I also have no information about why they left the region or what later became of them. Al Ameer (talk) 18:06, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The family remained in the area, with members living in Jenin at the close of the century and in Tulkarm." But the article body indicates they still exist?

@FunkMonk: Thank you for taking the time to review this candidacy. I believe I addressed the points you raised but let me know if there is anything else that needs improvement. Al Ameer (talk) 03:38, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - looks good, I still see some image sandwiching under Governorship of Ahmad (perhaps move an image to the empty Governance section?), but that won't hold it back. FunkMonk (talk) 04:59, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Borsoka

[edit]
  • Are Bakhit (February 1972) and Rhode (1979) reliable sources?
  • Yes. I replaced Bakhit's 1972 thesis with the version published in 1982. He is one of the leading authorities of Ottoman history of the Levant and this work in particular is widely cited by scholars in the field. Rhode's work is well-cited in academia about the subject of his work—16th-century Ottoman Safed and its sanjak. Al Ameer (talk) 03:38, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Introduce Deir al-Balah as a Palestinian town/city in footnote "a".
  • I think the geographical context should be determined because for the time being Palestine is first mentioned in connection with the Mamluk rule.
  • Their power was dealt a serious blow in a Mamluk campaign in 1253. Unclear: were they fought for or against the Mamluks?
  • ...tradition claims that their ancestors "migrated to Palestine during the Early Islamic period." Do we know from where they migrated to Palestine?
  • Rmv; this was added later and without a page number or way for me to verify, but more importantly the article already offers more elaboration on the family's origins. Al Ameer (talk) 03:38, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is not "transl" template used when mentioning Mamlakat Safad. I would also mention that it was a Mamluk province to introduce the reference to the Mamluks in the next sentence.
  • Mamlakat Safad is a proper noun, so not sure it should be presented that way, but please correct me if I am wrong. Mamluk-era Palestine is mentioned as the context in the sentences preceding and following this mention. Al Ameer (talk) 03:38, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we know why Turabay was executed and why allowed the Mamluks his son to succeede him?
  • Unfortunately, none of the secondary sources on hand provide any explanation. Abu-Husayn mentions that Bakhit elaborates about the possible reason in his Arabic-language article in Al-Abhath vol. 28, but I have zero access to it (and cannot read Arabic in any case!) Al Ameer (talk) 03:38, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Qaraja's son is Turabay or Turabay II?
  • I understant Qaraja was still alive when his son joined the Ottomans. This fact should be mentioned because Qaraja's execution in 1519 surprised me in the next paragraph.
  • Qaraja's activities are mentioned in the preceding and following sentences so this should be sufficient for a reader to conclude he was still alive. I will take another look to see if I can make this clearer. Al Ameer (talk) 03:38, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would make it clearer and explain why the son joined the Ottomans instead of the father. Did he support the Ottomans on his father's order or against his father's will?
  • Revised, let me know if clear now. Qaraja supported the Ottomans and his son Turabay even joined the sultan's campaign against the Mamluks in Egypt. The sources do not elaborate on whether Qaraja ordered his son to go on campaign but it is probably implied. Al Ameer (talk) 03:59, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • A link to the conquest of Mamluk Egypt?
  • Delink soldier.
  • Done!
  • Why Constantinople instead of Istanbul?
  • Introduce Via Maris.
  • Why is not "transl" template used when mentioning iqta?
  • A sentence about the iqta system?
  • ...three chiefs... Bedouin chiefs?
  • Turabay was already introduced as Qaraja's son.
  • A link to akce?
  • Some general remarks about the administration of Palestine under Ottomans? Perhaps: extensive taxation, employment of local chieftains in state administration, appointment of rival chiefs to offices, ( I am only guessing). Do we know why the Turabays were frequently conspiring against the Ottomans?
  • In Early relations with the Ottomans, I added further context about the Ottomans' main challeges in the Levant and how the Turabays played into this. In Assessment, I added about the power dynamics between the Ottoman imperial state and the local chiefs on whom they often relied for keeping order and, most importantly, collecting taxes. Still looking to add further info about why the Ottomans had to rely on such local leaders in the first place and the administration of Palestine, or the Levant more broadly, during early Ottoman rule. As for their run-ins with the authorities, the Turabays are actually noted for being mostly loyal to the Ottomans while preserving their autonomy and Bedouin spirit of independence to a great degree, as hopefully the article demonstrates. This was the key to their unusual longevity as practically hereditary governors of Lajjun. Their 'rebellions', unfortunately are rarely elaborated by the sources, but were usually short-lived and could simply mean they were stockpiling muskets or failing to meet tax obligations, both illicit activities that were often reason enough for the state to deem someone a rebel. They may also have been implicated in Bedouin raiding against Muslim pilgrim caravans, either by direct participation or failure to prevent, though this is only speculation by the secondary sources. Al Ameer (talk) 01:46, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pending. Al Ameer (talk) 03:38, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Iqta of Turabay became its own sanjak... Perhaps, "The Iqta of Turabay was transformed into a sanjak..."? Do we know why?
  • Do we know the relationship between Ali and Assaf?
  • Was Assaf exiled to Rhodes and pardoned in the same year?
  • Why is Sinan Pasha linked in the name of his son?
  • Ahmad's rule over Lajjun was soon followed with the appointment of the Druze chieftain Fakhr al-Din Ma'n to... I assume Ahmad's ascension was followed by Fakhr al-Din's appointment, because Ahmad will be mentioned in subsequent sentences.
  • Fakhr al-Din became governor of Safed in 1606 (he was already governor of Sidon from 1593) and Ahmad became governor of Lajjun after the death of his father in 1601. Al Ameer (talk) 02:47, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the wording is misleading: for me, "Ahmad's rule was followed" indicates that Ahmad was dead or dismissed by the time Fakhr al-Din was appointed governor.
  • Overall commander? Perhaps supreme?
  • ... he ignored summons... Who?
  • In the picture's caption: Ahmad Turabay sounds a little bit strange.
  • Explain the terms "kethuda" and "sekban" with one or two words.
  • Introduce Ali Janbulad.
  • A link to piaster? What is the exchange rate between piaster and akce?

An excellent article. Thank you for it. Borsoka (talk) 02:38, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the comments and suggestions Borsoka. I addressed most of the points you’ve raised but there are a few more I need to tackle. —Al Ameer (talk) 03:38, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you watch a preview for the article before publishing your edit you will find two messages at the beginning indicating errors in the "cite journal" and "cite book" tags.
  • File:Khan al-Lajjun.jpg: it needs a US PD tag, and the source link does not verify the picture.
  • File:Lajjun Sanjak in Ottoman Palestine.png: I would add a direct source to the picture.
  • Revised the map slightly based on Marom et al, a source cited in the article, as well as Hutteroth and Abdulfattah's work about the 16th-century Ottoman tax records concerning Palestine. Sources listed in the file summary. Al Ameer (talk) 01:46, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Palm trees at Jenin, possibly the site of ancient Jezreel. C Wellcome V0049488.jpg: PD tags are needed.
  • I added an alternative (more universal) PD tag.
  • File:Muhammad Turabay by d'Arvieux.png: the name "Muhammad Turabay" is strange in the caption.
  • File:Qubbat Amir Turabay Jenin 1941.png: it needs a US PD tag.
Al Ameer son ? Gog the Mild (talk) 17:09, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
BorsokaGog the Mild Truly sorry for the slow-going here. Please see replies above. Al Ameer (talk) 01:46, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cplakidas - support

[edit]

Looks very interesting, will have a look. Constantine ✍ 17:51, 1 April 2024 (UTC) Not much to complain about, just a few nitpicks.[reply]

Lede
  • under the Mamluks for clarity for readers who may not immediately understand the reference, perhaps 'under the Egypt-based Mamluk Sultanate', or similar? Likewise, During the Ottoman conquest 'during the conquest of the region by the Ottoman Empire'?
Origins
  • Mamluk (1250–1518) periods the end date is incorrect here
Early relations with the Ottomans
  • Do we know why they defected to the Ottomans? Was this common occurrence or were they driven by rivalries or ambition?
  • Their motive is not spelled out by any of the sources that are available to me. However, I clarified that their contacts with the Ottoman sultan followed the Ottomans' victory against the Mamluks in Syria. We're left to presume they simply went with the tide to preserve their Mamluk-era position and priveleges, and the Ottomans clearly saw them as useful from that earliest stage. Al Ameer (talk) 04:00, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to Bakhit, he has not been introduced yet
  • The iqta was a Mamluk-era form of land tenure while technically correct in that it was also used by the Mamluks, the iqta pre-existed them, and was established by the Abbasids in the 9th/10th century; perhaps strike the 'Mamluk-era' part or replace it with 'common form of land tenure in the medieval Islamic world' or similar?
  • but Abu-Husayn suggests Abu-Husayn has not been introduced yet
  • akces -> akçes, an requires a {{transl|ota|}} template I think as it is not a common English word. BTW, the {{transl|tr|}} should likely be {{transl|ota|}} throughout.
Early governors of Lajjun
  • in connection to a Bedouin rebellion any more details here?
  • While checking on this, it turns out the whole episode of his dismissal, possible exile and return and his successor was a confused series of events, the confusion starting with the 16th-century imperial records and then with modern scholarship's reading of events. Revised to clarify. Al Ameer (talk) 04:00, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Governorship of Ahmad
  • of the janissaries corps either 'Janissary Corps' or 'corps of the janissaries'
  • held iltizam, timars, and ziamets as the latter two terms have not appeared in the main text so far, suggest linking them and adding a brief explanation

Will do the rest later today. Constantine ✍ 10:10, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Later chiefs and downfall
  • "courageous, wise and modest" does this quote come from said sources or is it Sharon's summary of these sources' portrayal?
Governance
  • akce per above
  • They levied customs recommend spelling out the Turabays again here
  • Maltese pirates I assume that this refers to the Knights of Malta? Then relink and/or adapt accordingly.
  • whose solidarity 'solidarity' is an odd word to use here; perhaps 'loyalty'? Or is this meant to represent asabiyya?
Way of life

That's it. The article is well-written and well-referenced, comprehensive and takes pains to introduce the context to the non-expert. Constantine ✍ 18:39, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cplakidas: Thank you for taking the time to review, and for your recommendations. I addressed most of the points raised and aim to finish by tomorrow evening. Al Ameer (talk) 02:09, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cplakidas: I completed the final items, pending your review. Al Ameer (talk) 04:00, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support or oppose?[edit]
@Al Ameer son: one minor issue left, otherwise it looks fine. I have already supported. Fine work, as usual! Constantine ✍ 07:11, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image and source review

[edit]

Image placement is sound. I see no ALT text. If File:Qubbat Amir Turabay Jenin 1941.png was taken in Jenin which is in the West Bank, wouldn't a Palestinese copyright law apply? commons:Commons:Copyright rules by territory/State of Palestine implies that the copyright law applicable is unclear, though. Spot-check upon request. Sources seem reputable, although with distinct information available for each. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:45, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Al Ameer son ? Gog the Mild (talk) 13:48, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus:@Gog the Mild: I missed the part regarding the missing ALT text, which I have now added to all of the images in the article. As for whether or not Palestinian copyright law applies, unfortunately I am not sure. I had been under the impression that Israeli copyright law still applied in the occupied territories. @FunkMonk: As usual with any of my image copyright queries, can you please offer some guidance on this point? Thank you ;) --Al Ameer (talk) 17:26, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seems mandatory/British law would apply then, so it may only have to be switched to another tag. It also depends on where the photo was first published, though, not where it was taken. FunkMonk (talk) 17:41, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for providing this clarity FunkMonk. It would have been published in British Mandatory Palestine, as the image is in the possession of the Israel Antiquities Authority. Does this mean we continue to use the PD-Israel tag? Al Ameer (talk) 18:24, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From the guideline Jo-Jo linked (The Copyright Act 1911 (extension to Palestine)), I think we could assume so, as it's from 1941. FunkMonk (talk) 09:31, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Spot-check of this version per request:

  • 9 Can I have a copy of these pages?
    OK.
  • 10 Can I have a copy of these pages?
    I presume the details of prisoner treatment are in #12?
Yes. Al Ameer (talk) 17:09, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 11 Can I have a copy of these pages?
    Confused a bit about whether Qaraja was executed or not, or who exactly helped along with the conquest of Egypt.
I expanded the citation to more pages which, when all read, should sort the confusion. Qaraja was executed in 1519. His father Turabay was executed in 1480. Qaraja's son, also named Turabay, participated in the conquest of Egypt in 1517, while Qaraja helped mop up escaping Mamluks in Palestine on behalf of the Ottomans at that time. Later, when the sultan returned to Damascus in 1518 on his way to the imperial capital Constantinople, Qaraja met the sultan in person. Al Ameer (talk) 17:09, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 19 Can I have a copy of these pages?
    Yeah, will need a copy or new source here, as Google Books doesn't work.
I replaced Bakhit 1982 with Bakhit 1972 and emailed you the source. Al Ameer (talk) 17:09, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:34, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 22 Can I have a copy of these pages?
    OK.
  • 23 Can I have a copy of these pages?
    Yeah, will need a copy or new source here, as Google Books doesn't work.
See above. Al Ameer (talk) 17:09, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That new source seems to be talking mostly about a different topic. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:34, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The citation (Bakhit, p. 14, n. 69) mainly supports the information in the footnote (note e.) at the end of that sentence. When I originally moved the supported information to the footnote, I must have forgotten to remove the citation from the end of the sentence. I hope this sorts any confusion, let me know otherwise. Al Ameer (talk) 19:01, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 28 Can I have a copy of these pages?
    Where does it say that Jenin was the capital?
I fixed the page #. Sharon states Jenin was their administrative headquarters. Al Ameer (talk) 17:09, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 31 Can I have a copy of these pages?
    Where does it say of watchtowers? And of the ship taxes?
Fixed. Watchtower is in Bakhit, but clarified that it was one watchtower. Corrected the page number for the ship taxes. Al Ameer (talk) 19:11, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 34 Can I have a copy of these pages?
    I don't see "he went into hiding and his son"?
In footnote 5 on page 53, the source relates there was another version of events in which Assaf "had revolted and, mingling with the Bedouins, had disappeared. Thereupon, somebody claiming to be Assaf seized the sanjak and oppressed the peasants. The genuine Assaf's son [sic] is now to be sent from Rhodes to Lajjun ..." The source is stating that in this other version, it was Assaf's son who had been exiled to Rhodes as his father "disappeared", i.e. went into hiding. Al Ameer (talk) 19:11, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 38 Not sure what this supports.
  • Amended citation to include page 1024, which together with continuation on page 1025 provides the detail of Ali's (Ahmad's brother) role in the fighting against Fakhr al-Din's forces in Haifa, and the list of Ali's holdings. Al Ameer (talk) 21:08, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 41 Can I have a copy of these pages?
    "Fine horses", not "Arab horses"? Also not seeing "Shia Muslim rural chieftains who fled Safed Sanjak"
Removed "Arabian" (thought it was synonymous). Please see bottom of the cited page (194), which reads "Meanwhile, many Shiite shaykhs had fled the sanjak of Safad and took refuge with the Turabays since the return of Fakhr al-Din from Europe (Khalidi: 71). This must have provided further cause for conflict between the Druze emir and Ahmad Turabay." Al Ameer (talk) 19:11, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 43 Can I have a copy of these pages?
    A bit liberal source interpretation: It's not clear that the battle on the river, was Haifa actually captured was decisive and Ahmad didn't submit, but did he ignore the offer?
I removed 'decisively'; I believe this was from another source and once located, I may restore with that citation. As for 'ignore' instead of the source's "never submitted", we are on safe grounds there in my opinion, but I'm open to suggestions on different wording. Al Ameer (talk) 19:10, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 45 Can I have a copy of these pages?
    Didn't get this one.
I emailed Ze'evi's book to you in the same email with the other sources. (Bakhit was sent in another email.) Al Ameer (talk) 19:11, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mm, doesn't seem like it arrived, then. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:34, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just re-sent it in a separate email. Please confirm. Al Ameer (talk) 19:01, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Received, it fits. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:44, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 54 "Iltizam" does not appear on the pages given. Nor the names?
Revised this to remove Ahmad's brother Ali. His brothers Azzam (written Cazzam in the source, with the 'C', which is supposed to be taking the place of the Arabic glottal sound usually represented as 'ʿ'; amended the pages to include p. 1026, which is where the list of Zayn Bey's holdings begin. And, as you may have concluded, the source is using Hijri years. Al Ameer (talk) 21:08, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 62 Can I have a copy of these pages?
    Need this one still.
See above. Al Ameer (talk) 17:09, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 67 Where does it say that the Tarabih were descendants of the Turabay?
I replaced the cited source with one that explicitly states the Tarabih descended from the Turabays. Same author, new book. Al Ameer (talk) 21:08, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 68 Can I have a copy of these pages?
    OK, I guess, but some bits (namely, the protection) should be in the other sources.
  • 70 Can I have a copy of these pages?
    OK.
  • 75 Can I have a copy of these pages?
    OK.
  • 76 Is "Assaf built a mosque in Tirat Luza in 1579/80" in #75? Also, does "ibn" mean "son of"?
Yes. The quote from the citation #75, Sharon p. 27, note 87: ʿAssāf built in the village of Ṭīra (of the Carmel) a mosque on which he left an inscription bearing his name. See Z. E. Von Mülinen, "Beiträge Zur Kenntnis des Karmels," ZDPV, Vol. XXXI (1908), p. 62. Al Ameer (talk) 21:08, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:34, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Do you want me to email you screenshots of these pages or is there a special form to upload these here temporarily? Al Ameer (talk) 17:55, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Either by email or a temporary Google Docs link. I've seen both techniques being used. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:44, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: I sent you an email; please confirm receipt and I will send over the requested pages. Thank you. Al Ameer (talk) 21:08, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jo-Jo, just wanting to confirm that this has happened and you have received the pages. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:36, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: I addressed your points above, hopefully to satisfaction. Please let me know if there is anything further. Thanks, Al Ameer (talk) 19:10, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jo-Jo Eumerus, any chance of a progress report on these two reviews? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:48, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like the spotcheck passes. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:31, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Airship

[edit]

As always, these are suggestions, not demands; feel free to refuse with justification.

History
  • Does the first paragraph really need a separate level-3 subheading (MOS:OVERSECTION)?
  • "which stemmed from" it is not clear whether the "which" refers to the Banu Haritha or the Sinbis.
  • If "Jezreel Valley" is the WP:COMMONNAME of Marj Ibn Amir, I would include a gloss in-text.
  • "Turabay was executed by the Mamluk authorities in 1480" do we know why?
  • No. However, one of the sources cited here, Abu-Husayn, hints that another secondary source may offer more about this episode, but unfortunately that source is not accessible to me and it's in Arabic. It is Muhammad Adnan Bakhit's journal entry in Al-Abhath volume 28, Beirut: 1980, p. 56. The name of the article: al-Usra al-Harithiyya fi Marj Bani Amir 885–1088/The Harithite Family of Marj Bani Amir, 1480–1677. I might take a stab at getting this from our resource exchange but do not have high hopes. Al Ameer (talk) 16:14, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "an invasation" ??
  • A map would be helpful for the description of the early years.
  • "the Turabays of northern Palestine" were there Turabays not in northern Palestine? If not, this is perhaps an indication that the geographical location needs to be more firmly fixed earlier in the section?
  • "and the security of the Hajj pilgrimage route between Damascus and Mecca" presumably not the security of the whole thing?
  • "including that the latter was supported by" the "that" compromises the rest of the list, so possibly "including the latter's support from"?
  • "With the suppression of Janbirdi's revolt" year?
  • "once again entered into a state of rebellion by acquiring firearms" did acquiring firearms automatically begin a rebellion, or did it just show disobedience towards the Porte?
  • Acquiring firearms alone was considered a rebellion against the state by Ottoman officialdom and was a recurring official reason for Ottoman expeditions against warrior communities like the Bedouins of the desert and the Druze of the mountains in the 16th and 17th centuries. The imported firearms, mostly from the Venetians, were often superior to those carried by Ottoman soldiers and their stockpiling was viewed as an intolerable threat by the state. I may add a footnote about this in the article for context. Al Ameer (talk) 16:14, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "Governorship of Ahmad" subsection is very good.
  • "The fortunes of the family began to deteriorate under his leadership" how?
  • Frustratingly, neither the primary source d'Arvieux or the modern scholars have elaborated as to how—and afaik d'Arvieux is the sole source material from which modern scholars derive any info about Muhammad and his rule. Bakhit only reports the length of Muhammad's term. Abu-Husayn, who otherwise provides the most detailed account of the family's history, stops with the rule of Ahmad, writing "The story of the ultimate disintegration of their [the Turabays'] political power lies, chronologically, beyond the scope of the present study." Sharon also does not elaborate, but leaves the reader to speculate that Muhammad's drug addiction and aloofness was to blame for the deterioration under his leadership. Al Ameer (talk) 16:14, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Al Ameer son did you see the above? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:00, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

[edit]
  • "sanjak-beys (district governors) of Lajjun Sanjak". It seems odd to nominate an article about the government of a territory which does not have its own article. Maybe create a stub article on Lajjun Sanjak?
  • I suggest putting the map in the infobox to give context from the start.
  • "In the effort, he consolidated the family's alliance". "In the effort" sounds to me odd and superfluous. I would delete.
  • "Turabay was executed by the Mamluk authorities in 1480 and replaced with his son Qaraja." What was he executed for?
  • The sources used do not elaborate. There is a source that may offer some color but it's inaccessible to me and in Arabic: Bakhit, Muhammad Adnan, (1980). al-Usra al-Harithiyya fi Marj Bani Amir 885–1088/The Harithite Family of Marj Bani Amir, 1480–1677 in Al-Abhath, vol. 28: Beirut, p. 56.
  • "the revenues of which amounted to 516,855 akçes". Very few readers will have heard of an akçe. Is it possible to add an explanation or conversion?
  • "and the motivation for the rebellion unknown". Was there a rebellion? From what you say it seems unclear.
  • "The latter was a nephew of the actual Assaf, who lodged a complaint against Turabay in March 1592 for allegedly seizing from Assaf 150,000 coins, 300 camels and 2,500 calves." Presumably from what you say the complaint was unsuccessful, but you should clarify this.
  • "In 1594 he served as a placeholder for the sanjak-bey of Gaza, Ahmad Pasha ibn Ridwan". What does placeholder mean here?
  • "Reinforcements sent to Mustafa were defeated by the villagers of Nablus Sanjak. Mustafa and Fakhr al-Din opposed the refuge Ahmad offered to fleeing peasants from the Nablus area and Shia Muslim rural chieftains who fled Safed Sanjak." The first sentence says that Mustafa was defeated and the second implies that he won.
  • "resent Mustafa to Nablus". This is an unusual meaning of "resent". I think "sent back" would be better.
  • "Sharon notes that "the memory of the Turabays was completely erased with their fall"." This seems an extreme view as they remained a significant family in the area. Perhaps "in the view of Sharon"?
  • I agree this statement could have been better qualified or explained by Sharon, who was one of the first (if not the first) historians to author a study about the family and whose successors in this regard provided much more detail. The Turabays did indeed cease being a political power at this point. But as has been shown, they did not "completely" disappear; now powerless, the family continued on and maintained some residual prestige in the places they resided, i.e. Jenin for some time, Tulkarm, Sakhnin. I speculate, but by "memory" he may mean the "historical record" or the memory of broader society in later years. In any case, I revised per your suggestion. Al Ameer (talk) 18:19, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Turabay emirs oversaw nearly a century of relative peace and stability in northern Palestine." From when to when? They governed for nearly two centuries.
  • Good point. I can only assume that this was a typographical oversight on Sharon's part since there is no implication in his text that he is referring to a specific period during their rule. I revised the sentence to keep it in line with the source without being vague. Al Ameer (talk) 18:19, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfortunately, no. We do hear of an unnamed granddaughter of Ahmad Turabay marrying the son of his ally, the governor of a neighboring sanjak Muhammad Farrukh. I took this part of the existing footnote into the main text since it helps illustrate the families' clinching of their alliance. Al Ameer (talk) 18:19, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Al Ameer, could you finish responding to Dudley's comments and then ping them? Gog the Mild (talk) 14:22, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dudley Miles: Sorry I had not noticed the additional comments until Gog the Mild's ping a few days ago. See replies above and revisions, and let me know your thoughts. Thanks, Al Ameer (talk) 18:19, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Looks fine now. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:27, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Matarisvan

[edit]

Hi Al Ameer son, this was a good read, some minor comments:

  • Consider including a lit/trans template in the infobox for amir al-darbayn?
  • Consider a consistent use of articles. For example, in some places you have "the Lajjun/Safad Sanjak" and in some places you don't have the "the" article.
  • What was the the reason for Turabay I's execution?
  • This question has been raised by most reviewers of this FAC. Unfortunately, none of the sources available provide any information about this, though there's a possibility an Arabic-language source inaccessible to me (Bakhit's 1980 al-Usra al-Harithiyya) provides some color, though even that would be speculation by the author. Al Ameer (talk) 18:09, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consider linking to Abdulrahim Abu-Husayn?
  • Google Books shows Damascus as the location of publication for Bakhit 1982. Is thia correct, because Damascus is in Syria and the publisher is the Library of Lebanon? If the former, consider adding?
  • Consider providing links, ISBNs, OCLCs for Hourani 2010 and Rhode 1979? Also, is Hourani 2010 reliable, because generally self published sources aren't accepted at FA or even GA level?
  • Regarding the reliability of Hourani's work, the greater part of it is a repository of untranslated Ottoman tax documents concerning the Levant region and toward the end of the book an appendix of information about the various tax farming families derived from those documents, listing which tax farms were held by which individuals in a given Hijri year. It is self-published but it is cited in some leading works in the field, including Stefan Winter's The Shiites of Lebanon..., which is also cited in this article. That said, I limited its use to some supplementary details in this article and if necessary, I can remove it without affecting the article's integrity. Al Ameer (talk) 18:09, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's alright with me. A link for Rhode 1979 is still needed, any reviewer wishing to do a spot check will need it. Matarisvan (talk) 10:18, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Matarisvan: I can no longer locate the online link for this work; however, I have the PDF saved and can upload it. Please advise. Al Ameer (talk) 18:02, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You should upload the PDF to Academia.edu or Archive.org or some auch website and add the link here. Matarisvan (talk) 06:17, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consider providing translated titles for both the research papers and journal titles, for Mülinen 1908 and Saleh 1980?
  • You note Sharon 1975 to have been published by Gefen and don't have a location of publication, Google Books says Magnes Press is the publisher and Eretz is the location of publication. Consider changing to whichever one is correct?
  • If we have the full names for the authors in the biblio instead of just their initials, consider using full names? I'm not sure what the MOS on this is though.
  • For some sources you do have the location of publication, for the rest you don't. Consider adding it for the ones which lack one?
  • Ze'evi 1996, Yazbak 1998 and Sato 1997 have ISBNs which have formats inconsistent with the other sources, that is they don't have the 978 prefix. Would the ISBNs not work if you add the prefix? I've known some works which used the old format and don't show up on this one. If not, consider adding the prefix?
  • Consider changing the left alignment of Fakhr al-Din's portrait and the sketch of Lajjun, to right alignment, per MOS:IMAGELOC?

That is all from me. Matarisvan (talk) 09:02, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Matarisvan: Thank you for your helpful suggestions. Please see responses above. Al Ameer (talk) 18:09, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Matarisvan, is there any more to come on this one? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:00, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, a link for Rhode 1979 is still required. @Al Ameer son did add the link for Hourani 2010 but not for Rhode. But once that's done, can support. Matarisvan (talk) 14:25, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild are the coordinators still waiting for more reviews for this one? If so I'm happy to review it, just not sure where we're at here. – Aza24 (talk) 18:06, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Aza, I think we're good, thank you. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:43, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 15 June 2024 [22].

Outer Wilds

[edit]
Nominator(s): PresN 02:30, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Outer Wilds is a game that's hard to explain: not because it's complex, but because the less you know going into it, the more you'll get out of it. All you ever have in the game is what's in your head, so I'm doing you a disservice by nominating this if you ever plan on playing it. But I'm doing it anyway, because for a subset of people (myself included), Outer Wilds is the best experience they've ever had with a video game, and I wanted to share that in an article. It's a GA and polished and ready for review and this isn't my first (or 20th) rodeo at FAC and all that, but really I just wanted people who go cared enough to go looking to know that in 2012 Alex Beachum made a sketch of a game about roasting campfire marshmallows while the sun explodes, and a little over seven years later what it became won the video game BAFTA for game of the year without losing that heart. I enjoyed writing this, and I hope you enjoy reviewing it. --PresN 02:30, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from NegativeMP1

[edit]

I have never played this game, and I'm not sure if I ever will. I can't tell if this means I am the perfect candidate to review this from the perspective of a casual reader, or if it makes me one of the worst candidates. I'll drop some comments in the coming days. λ NegativeMP1 04:06, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

From the outlook of my schedule in the coming days, it seems I'm going to be doing this review while on mobile and also not in the country. I intend on squeezing in time to review this anyways, but I'll have to be breaking up my comments by section over time. Hoping this is fine with you. λ NegativeMP1 05:27, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I feel like the screenshot should be moved over to the gameplay section, since seeing the image while reading gameplay may help better understand it. Just a suggestion, though.
  • "No longer able to detect the signal, dubbed the "Eye of the Universe", the Nomai built a civilization throughout the system in order to find it again." Unless the "Eye of the Universe" is the dub for something else, it should be "No longer able to detect the signal, the Nomai built a civilization throughout the system in order to find it again, dubbed the "Eye of the Universe." If it is the dub for something else, that should likely be clarified.

Didn't notice anything else right now but I might take a second look later since I did this short on time. λ NegativeMP1 02:13, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@NegativeMP1: Moved the image; it was in development because on wider screens the infobox pushes most of the way through gameplay. Rephrased that sentence. --PresN 15:45, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@PresN: After seeing an example of how wider screens can change how images get displayed on articles at my own FAC, I think it's completely up to you on whichever one you think it is best. Anywho, anything else I could've pointed out has been pointed out by the following reviews, so I think my comments end here. Indie game articles of this level of quality are always good to see, Support. λ NegativeMP1 01:59, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Some images are missing alt text

Comments from Jaguar

[edit]

Comments to follow soon. ♦ JAGUAR  22:13, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, work has been hectic. Comments incoming. ♦ JAGUAR  09:21, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 48 - Edge's publisher is Future
  • Ref 58 - link Gamer Network
  • "...Matthew Castle of Rock Paper Shotgun, and Evans-Thirlwell of Eurogamer praised the new mechanics and puzzles of the Stranger," - while Castle undoubtedly praises the DLC, his article does not mention the Stranger. You could split this and say he praised the amount of content the DLC offered, in contrast to modern cash grabs
  • "while mrderiv of Jeuxvideo.com said that the game creates" - perhaps it would be best to put this in single quotes?

I have conducted a source review and could not find any issues to raise, bar a couple of missing fields. The text is all backed up, and with the exception of the tweet all sources are properly archived. Likewise there are no dead links or copyvios. I am happy to support based on the source review, since everything is in order, and I have been beaten to reviewing the prose. ♦ JAGUAR  10:31, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All done; Castle didn't use mention the Stranger by name, but all the content he called out was on it; I've sorted it by making it "new mechanics and puzzles of the expansion". Thanks for the review! --PresN 15:26, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Draken Bowser

[edit]

Reading. Draken Bowser (talk) 11:39, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Content-wise I think we're covered, but the prose could use some attention.

Lead
[edit]
  • The game features the player character exploring a planetary system stuck in a 22-minute time loop that ends with the sun going supernova. The player explores the system on foot and in a small spacecraft, investigating the alien ruins of the Nomai and finding their history and the cause of the time loop. - Repetitive, I'd prefer introducing the setting and the player's journey in wholly separate sentences.
  • The game began development in 2012 as director Alex Beachum's master's thesis, integrating several concepts he had developed while at school. He was inspired to create a game focused on exploration rather than traditional gameplay elements like resources or conquering, and in which the player character was not the center of the game world. - I don't think we need to go into this detail in the lead.
Gameplay
[edit]
  • an unnamed four-eyed Hearthian space explorer - the reader will probably assume this is an alien species, but could we get the relevant context from "settning" to come before this somehow?
  • killing them if too much injury is sustained. - how is damaged tracked, a standard hp system or by some other metric?

More to follow. Draken Bowser (talk) 12:46, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • requiring the player to counteract their own momentum to slow down while flying, and causing the planets and other bodies to swiftly orbit the sun throughout the 22 minutes and exert their own variable gravity fields. - Not an error, but I think going from general to specific flows better, which would mean switching the clauses. Regardless, "throughout the 22 minutes" can be struck.
  • this damage can destroy it and kill the player if there is too much, and can otherwise be repaired by exiting the spacecraft and interacting with the damaged component. Both the spacecraft and the spacesuit can be used to launch a small probe that can light up an area or take pictures. → too much damage can destroy it and kill the player, but can otherwise be repaired by exiting the spacecraft and interacting with the damaged component. Both the spacecraft and the spacesuit can launch a small probe to light up an area or take pictures.
  • The player character does not have an inventory, and can only carry a single object at a time. - Do we need to specify that there's no inventory? I'm undecided
  • Removed, I think its implied by the second half of the sentence
  • and Nomai writing, presented as a branching conversation, can be read with the use of a translator tool. - I'm imagining that reading it is a bit like going through an RPG dialogue, but could it be made more clear?
  • Tried - see the image in "plot" for how it works- a statement is a line, and one or more responses branch off of that line, each of which can in turn have responses
Plot
[edit]
  • Optional wl: [[Cloaking device|cloaking field]]
  • The ending of the "story" and "Echoes of the Eye" paragraphs mentions "quantum versions", it is not immediately clear to me what this means.
  • Removed- I think "versions" probably gets across the idea, which is that the game leaves it ambiguous to what extent they're the "real" people in question and gives no explanation for how they got there, it's pretty dream-like.
  • Ok, I don't like the standalone "version(s)", could we go with "alter ego(es)"? /DB
  • Eh, they're not alter egos, though, so I'm hesitant to use that term. Echoes maybe? Or I could just leave it as "the player encounters the other members of Outer Wilds".
  • I see. I think the idea that something seems slightly out of place needs to be, to the extent that sources allow it, somehow conveyed. Echoes sorta works, doesn't it? Otherwise we could as you suggest omit it entirely. /DB
  • Used 'echoes'.
Development and release
[edit]
  • Might want to lead with "The development of Outer wilds.." or something similar.
  • Beachum had created elements that would later make it into the game in previous projects at the school, including a planetary system changing over time, a planet falling apart, and trees that moved when they were not observed, and for his thesis wanted to combine and build on these elements. → Beachum reused elements from previous projects at the school, including a planetary system changing over time, a planet falling apart, and trees that moved when they were not observed.
  • and Giant's Deep is loosely on Santa Cruz beach cliffs. - add based or go for "inspired".
  • This is intended to train players to not exhaustively check every area, in order to discourage players from spending time searching where nothing is present as well as to steer them towards the paths the team wanted them to find first and not hidden shortcuts. - slightly redundant and can be inferred from the preceding sentence, or add "or empty areas" at the end.

Time for another break. Draken Bowser (talk) 06:12, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Draken Bowser: Above all done, left a couple explanatory comments in-line. --PresN 18:52, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Design
[edit]
  • who had worked with Beachum previously - we could tack this onto the first sentence.
  • Wl [[Motif (music)|motif]] and then I think we can go with The central motif of the music was based on sitting around a campfire
  • Based on the description of the other Outer Wilds explorers, Prahlow gave each of them an instrument based on their personalities to either "He gave each of the other Outer Wilds explorers an instrument based on their personality" or "Each of the other Outer Wilds explorers was given an instrument based on their personality"
  • with the concept that they were all playing the same song apart but still together. - from what part of the source is this derived?
  • Gah, it's not in that one, sorry- 38:20-39:10 in the Making of documentary (ref 29, which was being used for the next couple of sentences already)
  • Prahlow did not write more general background music - remove or replace with "any"
  • so that it would only play - replace with "music"
Echoes of the Eye
[edit]
  • They came up with a central motif of light and darkness, with the concept that the truth was hidden in the darkness waiting to be found, but might be scary or unpleasant.
  • The team had previously considered the idea of having an invisible planet, including it as a stretch goal in the original Fig campaign, and returned to the concept in Echoes as an invisible artificial structure. → I'm not entirely pleased with my attempt at a rewrite here, but maybe something like: "The original fundraising campaign had included an invisible planet as a stretch goal, and in Echoes the team molded the concept into an invisible artificial structure." and in that case maybe add: "The original fundraising campaign for Outer Wilds"
  • Prahlow returned as the composer for the expansion, incorporating new instruments into the tracks to give the impression of stepping into somewhere new and scary but still anchored to where the player character came from. - Is he reusing entire tracks or motifs to make it seem familiar? If tracks, "old" could be added for clarity.

That would be all! Draken Bowser (talk) 07:49, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Draken Bowser: Above all done, left a couple explanatory comments in-line again. --PresN 15:55, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers! I think you forgot to address my comments on the lead or else assert why the current version is better. Draken Bowser (talk) 14:52, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Draken Bowser: Whoops, I did but then I didn't actually save. Now done. --PresN 17:04, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@NegativeMP1, Jaguar, and Draken Bowser: Pinging as a reminder. --PresN 01:41, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jaguar: second ping (and @Draken Bowser:, mostly to indicate that I think I've responded to everything now so if you're waiting on something else please let me know.) --PresN 15:41, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just following the review from the sidelines, but no more lollygagging! Nice work. Draken Bowser (talk) 19:50, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've just realized that there are a couple of books and academic sources, which probably have to be included. Are dissertations due for a subject like this by enwp-standards, or no? Draken Bowser (talk) 21:47, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Theses/dissertations are not typically used unless there's a compelling reason for them. I'll see what I can use, but besides a few master's theses (not typically usable), I'm seeing some articles on posthumanism ("it's posthuman in the sense that the aliens aren't human"), philosofiction ("things look like science but aren't"), and archeology ("some games explore things that look like archeology, which is neat"), in very minor journals I've never heard of, and some essays in a book and college magazines about time loops ("they're neat") and global warming ("the sun exploding is like global warming"). They're not actually about the actual themes of the game (the journey matters, even if its not as long as you'd like) but kind of tangential to the game, so I'm not sure how to use them beyond a sentence about "scholars have used the game as an example of themes in fiction and video games", which seems trite. --PresN 00:49, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What do you think about Collaborative Worldbuilding for Videogames by Kaitlin Tremblay? If nothing else it should allow for a more detailed description of the planetary environments. Draken Bowser (talk) 09:57, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Independent Videogames by Paulo Rufino makes the interesting point that Annapurna's purchase offered a nice return on investment for the Fig backers. Do any of the other sources ballpark just how much? Draken Bowser (talk) 10:09, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Added a sentence + source that gives the specific amount- a 245% return (implying that Annapurna paid ~300k, though that's OR). I don't get the Outer Wilds section of the Worldbuilding book in my preview, but video game articles typically do not give detailed descriptions of the game environments. --PresN 01:01, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think we could use Chapter 4 to give a description of the Hearthians and Nomai (third to last paragraph), there's also an interesting elaboration on the utility of the signalscope, and how the player can position themselves to get the "full version" of the soundtrack with all instruments (second to last and last paragraph). I've emailed you a transcript. Draken Bowser (talk) 14:26, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Draken Bowser: Thank you so much for emailing me the transcript! You're right, there was a good amount to use there and I was too quick to dismiss it. I've added it as a source for additional details in setting and development. --PresN 14:59, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looking good. There is also some content on OW in chapter 2, but it's mostly by using The twin hourglasses as a case study in game design, and making a couple of other statements that are either already covered or might otherwise not be due. Still, I could send the chapter 2-transcript for your consideration, if you like. Draken Bowser (talk) 16:13, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Draken Bowser: Yes please, my preview just has the last sentence of that segment. --PresN 19:32, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Draken Bowser: Thanks again; I don't think that it's a due level of detail, but I do think it's a better source for the bit in gameplay about the changes over time then the review I was using, so added that in. --PresN 00:22, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by DWB

[edit]

Hi PresN, thank you for taking the time to review Mission Impossible Fallout. As I'm trying to build up a bit more review activity I've taken the opportunity to review the Outer Wilds in return as it's one of the few articles in an area I like (gaming). I don't know much about the game, I played it briefly but couldn't quite get into it. I have the following notes which mostly relate to copyediting and are coming from the perspective of someone who doesn't know a lot about the Outer Wilds so hopefully it'll give you an outsider's perspective. Most of them are recommendations as I may have misunderstood elements of the game.

  • "The game features the player character exploring a planetary system stuck in a 22-minute time loop that ends with the sun going supernova. The player explores the system on foot and in a small spacecraft, investigating the alien ruins of the Nomai and finding their history and the cause of the time loop." -> recommend a possible change "The game follows the player character as they explore a planetary system stuck in a 22-minute time loop that resets after the sun goes supernova and destroys the system. The player is able to freely explore the system in a small spacecraft and traverse planets on foot to discover the history of the ancient Nomai race and the cause of the time loop."
  • Did the first sentence, but this overlapped with a change for the above reviewer on the second.
  • "He was inspired to create a game focused on exploration rather than traditional gameplay elements like resources or conquering" I think maybe from a layman perspective this may not make sense? I'd suggest maybe changing this to "collecting resources" or "fighting enemies"(?) if that's what conquering means.
  • Change overlaps with one made for the above reviewer that removed the phrase altogether
  • "an unnamed four-eyed Hearthian space explorer referred to as the Hatchling" I would maybe consider removing "four-eyed Hearthian" as we've not established what Hearthian is at this point.
  • Done
  • " if they are wearing their spacesuit they may also use its jetpack to propel themselves" Upwards? Forwards? Omni-directional?
  • Done (upwards)
  • "The locations change over the course of the time loop, such as by parts of a planet collapsing or sand flowing from one place to another, causing some areas to only be accessible at certain portions of the time loop." I think this could be potentially re-worded, a suggestion is "Locations evolve throughout the duration of the time loop, such as parts of a planet collapsing or sand flowing from one area to another, making some areas only accessible from specific points in the time loop."
  • Done
  • "Hearthians throughout the planetary system can be communicated with in text-based dialogue trees, and Nomai writing, presented as a branching tree of messages, can be read with the use of a translator tool." I think you are trying to avoid short sentences here but I think the meaning is getting mied together as, if I'm reading it right, we're talking about two different gameplay elements right? Maybe specify that Nomai writings are hidden among their ruins? I don't know if they are found from other means.
  • Done
  • "Timber Hearth, a forested Earth-like planet that is the homeworld of the four-eyed Hearthian species and is orbited by a small rocky moon, the Attlerock;" I'd maybe make these separate entries as I think it reads a bit weird, not a huge change just "; the Attlerock, a small rocky moon orbiting Timber Hearth;"
  • Done
  • "Brittle Hollow, a hollow planet that is collapsing into the black hole at its center and is orbited by Hollow's Lantern," Same here, a black hole hasn't been established at this point, is this a black hole INSIDE Brittle Hollow? I'd maybe just change "the blackhole" to "a blackhole", "the blackhole" makes it sound like it's a bigger deal to the solar system.
  • Done (a)
  • " Additionally, the loop resets after 22 minutes regardless, as the sun abruptly goes supernova, killing the Hatchling." seems like a bit of an understatement, it destroys the entire system doesn't it? Is it not the end of all existence, although I don't think the player knows that at the time.
  • Done
  • "After discovering that with enough power, objects or information sent between a linked pair of black and white holes could travel backwards in time, they built a probe cannon in orbit around Giants Deep that would fire the probe in a random direction to find the Eye, and a sun station orbiting the star that would induce a supernova to send the probe's data back in time 22 minutes." I think the first comma is misplaced and should come after "that" and another after "enough power". It also seems quite lengthy as a single sentence. A suggested change is "The Nomai eventually discover that, with enough power, they can send objects or information backwards in time using a linked pair of black and white holes. To this end, they built a probe cannon in orbit around Giants Deep to fire the problem in a random direction to locate the Eye, and a station in orbit around the sun that would artificially induce a supernova, generating enough power to send the probe's data back in time 22 minutes."
  • Done
  • I'm a bit unclear why they were trying to send things back in time 22 minutes? I assume so the probe would be reset and they could use it again?
  • Added a bit to clarify (the direction is different each time, so with the time loop they can just fire it millions of times until they find the eye, and then cut off the time loop before it starts again.)
  • "The sun station did not work, however, and before an alternate power source could be found, the Interloper entered the system. Upon reaching the sun and melting, a powerful wave of "ghost matter" spread throughout the system, killing all of the Nomai instantly. " I'd include this sentence in the paragraph above it since it's part of the Nomai history and the next sentence brings the reader to the present.
  • Done
  • "Within this ship, called the Stranger" - the Stranger should be italicized as a shipname I believe?
  • The game doesn't italicize it, as it's treated like an object/location, not a formal name for a spacecraft
  • "films Apollo 13 and 2001: A Space Odyssey, and took cues from The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker's" add year of release in brackets, i.e. Apollo 13 (1995)
  • Done
  • "After graduation in May 2013" -> "after graduating in May 2013,"
  • Done
  • "Loan Verneau, who had worked on Outer Wilds" the prototype? I might be misunderstanding but is there one version of Outer Wilds from university through to release or is their the university version and the Mobius version? I think maybe just make, if I'm understanding correctly, that the Outer Wilds they made originally is the same Outer Wilds released, just polished in a professional environment at Mobius
  • Tweaked
  • "by their output"->"by their work"
  • Done
  • "They submitted it to the Independent Games Festival, where in early 2015" -> "In early 2015, they submitted it to the Independent Games Festival, where..."
  • Tweaked it a different way ("The team submitted Outer Wilds to the 2015 Independent Games Festival,")- it's not useful to the reader, but technically entries would have been submitted in mid-fall 2014, with finalists announced in January 2015 and the winners in February.
  • "This inspired Mobius" -> "In response to its positive reception, Mobius..." I think saying the company was inspired probably doesn't fit.
  • Done
  • "the development timeline was pushed out" extended?
  • Done
  • "A PlayStation 4 retail version was released by Limited Run Games in 2020." I assume you mean a physical copy? There's no mention that the other versions were digital though? Or am I misreading this?
  • Tweaked
  • "Critics highly praised the gameplay, though some aspects had a mixed reception." this would need a source as the only references are two separate reviews which don't really support the statement. Same with "Reviewers also praised the graphics and aesthetics." The game is 5 years old now so it might be easier to find modern sources that look back at the game and support broad statements like this.
  • "The changes to the system over the time loop were often compared to clockwork," I think this needs to be clearer what system you're referring to as at first I thought this meant the gameplay but I assume it means changes to the planetary system?
  • Added planetary
  • Are there any sales figures?
  • No, unfortunately. Unlike for films, because sales platforms don't release sales numbers, we're at the whim of the publishers/developers to release information, and annoyingly neither Mobius nor Annapurna ever have for this game. Non-RSs have guessed about a million and a half copies, but that's little better than a guess.
  • As mentioned above the game is 5 years old now, I think it's fifth anniversary just passed actually, has it been noted to have influenced other games, other game designers? Talks of a sequel? For instance I've found this article by PC Gamer listing the best games of that console generation. There might not be much as it's still relatively young but just covering the bases.
  • Ah, missed that one, PC World isn't a big video game review outlet. Added to the sentence that covers "game of the decade/generation" lists. But no, I haven't seen anyone calling out the game as an explicit inspiration yet, though I fully expect to within the next few years.
  • Is the metacritic box for the DLC really necessary? The score is in the text and the table only offers 3 other alternate scores. Given that, on my monitor at least, it's pushed down almost into the Awards section by the metacritic box for the main game, the article may benefit from just removing it entirely.
  • I'll drop it, but some people get unreasonably insistent on having them whenever possible, so we'll see.

Hopefully this is useful to you. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:36, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Darkwarriorblake: Thanks for reviewing; I've done all but responded inline with details where appropriate. --PresN 22:37, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good job PresN looking better, shame there are no sales figures available for it. One last thing I noticed, the gameplay image is doing this on my high resolution screen so it will be affecting other users. The lower resolution you go the more space the text takes up and the image fits better so it probably looks fine on your screen. I would potentially consider floating the image on the left instead of the right so the infobox isn't pushing it down or maybe host it in the plot section? Although gameplay section is probably the best place for it. It's not mandatory as what looks bad for me might not look bad for 80% of users, I don't know what a common resolution is, but it's something be conscious of. I'd also consider setting the awards table to full width as there's a lot of empty white space there. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 17:29, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It does that for me too; I had the image down in Development so it wouldn't do that, but the reviewer above asked for me to move it to Gameplay instead. Thanks for supporting! --PresN 18:14, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comments

[edit]


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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 13 June 2024 [23].

St Melangell's Church

[edit]
Nominator(s): ... sawyer * he/they * talk 05:49, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

St Melangell's Church, built over Bronze Age sacred ground, housed a prominent shrine in medieval Wales. The titular Melangell, patron saint of hares, founded a monastery in the area in the 7th or 8th century, and the current church was built during the Norman period. After a period of decline during and after the Reformation, renewed interest in the 19th and 20th centuries resulted in the reconstruction of the shrine and extensive scholarly analysis of the site; an entire journal volume dedicated to fresh archaeological discoveries was produced in 1994. This article was a stub marred by a giant blockquote and some very 2009-style references when I found it, but it was a diamond in the rough. I've been working on this on-and-off for around 6 months, and exhausted every scholarly source I could possibly find on this topic. Since this is my first FA nomination, I recently sent it to peer review to iron it out and put the finishing touches on the article. Thank you! ... sawyer * he/they * talk 05:49, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PMC

[edit]

Putting myself down for this. Usually I get to FAC comments within a week, if I don't, feel free to throw popcorn at me. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:54, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lead & Location
  • Is Melangell pronounced how it's spelled?
    • to my knowledge, the double L in Welsh is pronounced kind of breathy, almost like a th sound. however, i don't know any Welsh nor really any IPA to be able to add that here... -s
  • "commemorate the traditional grave" - "traditional grave" in this context is ever so slightly unclear to the layman. That being said I'm trying to figure out a way to word it without spending like an hour explaining and I'm coming up short, so this may just be intractable (the phrasing "reputed grave" later is maybe better, at least for the lead)
    • i switched "reputed" and "traditional" so that it's hopefully a little more upfront. -s
      • Hmm. It's not my favorite but as I said I think it may be intractable, so I won't fuss.
  • Sentences 2 3 and 4 all start "The church" or "The current church", any way to jiggle it around a little? "The building" maybe?
    • sentence 4 switched to "building" as it's talking about renovation, but i think switching the wording of 2 & 3 might create too much ambiguity -s
  • I might swap the order of the last two sentences. Right now you go from talking about the building to the archaeology of the area and then back to the building
    • good catch, done -s
  • "dismantled again, and restored" channeling the power of Sammi Brie tells me this doesn't need a comma
    • trimmed -s
  • "now privately owned" be careful with "now" phrasing; per MOS:NOW they are liable to become outdated. {{As of}} might be better
    • i'm not terribly happy with this either, as well, it's cited to an article from 1994. after trawling around on google maps going "yeah that looks like private land", i'm pretty confident it's still up-to-date. i also worry that "As of 1994," would look a lot goofier than it actually being outdated... not sure what a better solution would be. -s
      • I think the "as of 1994" is better, since it's more specific
        • done -s
  • "Glebe" not being a common word, could it be footnoted or possibly contextualized in-text, so the reader doesn't have to click through?
    • added a smidgeon of context -s
History
  • "oldest surviving Romanesque shrine in Britain or in northern Europe as a whole" - why the "or"? Is it because the northern Europe claim is uncertain?
    • i've actually got 2 citations saying it's the oldest in northern Europe now that i'm looking at this again, and if it's the oldest in northern Europe then by definition it's the oldest in Britain. i've just been bold and gone with the northern Europe claim. -s
  • I might split para 1 under "Medieval period" at " Pennant Melangell was probably founded"
    • done -s
  • "Under Norman rule" I know it's in the footnote, but I might put a reference to the time period in the text
    • added -s
  • Para 3 under Medieval period feels a little jumbled, chronologically. We have the Normans, then the 12th c. stone church, then we're going backwards to a possible 11th c. timber church, then back to the 12th c. shrine. I might order it something like "Norman whatever, possible timber church but no definitive evidence, 12th c. church & shrine"
    • good point - i've switched it around a little -s
  • Also, if there's no definitive evidence, what is the evidence for the timber church?
    • the source doesn't give any specifics - postholes (the kind of evidence one would look for) were found during excavation, but not explicitly connected to a timber church being at the site. -s
      • I would mention that, as currently it's unclear. maybe something like "postholes at the site suggest that there may have been a timber church..."
        • the issue is that the posthole thing specifically would be SYNTH - however, through some advanced techniques (searching "timber" in the journal) i've finally found & added the specific detail that the author is using as evidence. it's one sentence frustratingly split over three pages with an illustration cutting through, which is why i missed it previously. -s
  • I quite like that little watercolor, nice find
    • me too! Ingleby's illustrations are lovely -s
  • "possibly dismantling the rood screen" if the "current rood screen" still exists, what's this?
    • it was maybe dismantled, presumably reused elsewhere, and later reconstructed. this whole section of Pennant's history is pretty foggy though. if it was dismantled, then the parts of it would have been used to create other features in the church, and it would have been reconstructed at some point. for specificity, i've added "the loft of" the rood screen as it's closer to what's speculated about in the source. -s
  • in para 2 under "restoration efforts", you have "restoration work" in two successive sentences
    • trimmed -s
  • The lead of the article mentions the "cancer ministry", which leads me to think it'd be hugely important in the body, but it only merits half a sentence here. Is there any more to be said about it?
    • it was a request from Gerda; the cancer ministry is also mentioned in the "modern pilgrimage" section as a reason people visit the shrine. -s
      • I guess, but I still wonder if there's any more to be said about the ministry in the body.
        • there really isn't as far as i know - i wouldn't oppose removing it -s
  • Also, the phrasing "a Cancer Help Centre" makes it sound like an official thing readers would be familiar with. What is it? Can we footnote it?
    • this is also something UC asked about; in the source it's capitalized, and i'm not really sure why. i've just taken the liberty of putting it in lowercase because clearly it's giving a weird impression -s
  • What is meant by "shrine guardian"? Is it separate from the parish priest, if there still is one? Who's doing the appointing?
    • currently, the shrine guardian is the same person as the parish priest (now that women can be priests in the Churches of England & Wales), but i get the sense that previously it was a position held by women who took leadership of the church's ministries but were outside of the clergy structure. i added a short extra bit of context for the position -s
  • "In modern times" same issue as the "now" thing; better to be specific
    • switched to "in the 21st century" as that's what the studies mentioned cover -s
  • It only occurred to me now, but maybe we should link pilgrim somewhere
    • linked in the leade & the first mention in the body -s
  • This is a nitpick, but I would move the prayer card image up to the first paragraph, it just looks a bit goofy hanging down there
    • moved -s
Archaeological excavations & Shrine
  • First three sentences here all have variations on the "cell-y-bedd was excavated" or "Excavations in the cell-y-bedd". Can this be written around? You could maybe replace that last one with "These excavations revealed", which at least gets rid of one repetition of "cell-y-bedd"
    • one issue with switching the third sentence is that the entire paragraph is about specifically the cell-y-bedd, and it would become somewhat ambiguous, but yeah i'm not thrilled about the repetition. -s
      • At the very least could you try to write around the repetition of "excavation"?
        • i've gone straight ahead and reworked it a little bit - i added some more details about the 1958 excavation
  • "several layers of medieval flooring, within the" rm comma
    • done -s
  • If there's anything more about the filming of that movie, that might be worth putting in the actual history section
    • the source doesn't mention the name of the movie or really anything else about it other than it ruining the soil, so i don't have any leads about this. -s
      • If it ain't there, it ain't there
  • Not much of note under the Shrine section except - how are willows and half-pears connected to Ireland? (and what is a half pear?)
    • no idea what a half pear is, but i've clarified the sentence -s
Architecture
  • "waterworn pebbles" meaning that they were worn by water before construction? (Maybe this is a technical term I'm unfamiliar with?)
    • i'm actually not entirely sure whether they were already worn or centuries of being on the exterior of a church made them weathered; the source doesn't really clarify -s
  • In the lead, you hedge with "reputed grave"/"traditional grave", implying that the existence of the grave isn't certain. In the body you phrase it as "It was possibly built over Melangell's grave" and go on to say "A stone slab marks the site of the titular grave", both of which are a lot less hedgey and a lot more certain about the existence of the grave.
    • part of the thing here is that it is equally likely that she was never buried under there as it is that she was. her relics were probably displayed at the original 12th-century shrine, and the in-ground stone settings of the grave are very very old. above you suggested "reputed" as clearer to the uninformed reader, which i agree with, although i think "traditional" is more precise in this case, because regardless of whether she was ever buried precisely under that spot, it's been mostly uncritically venerated as her grave since at least the 12th century. i've decided to switch "titular" to "traditional" as slightly less certain but still accurate wording. -s
      • I think that switch works, but I still feel like the phrasing of "It was possibly built over Melangell's grave" shifts the uncertainty from "is there a grave?" to "the grave exists, but it may not quite be where the cell-y-bedd is". How do you feel about "It is traditionally believed to have been built over Melangell's grave"? (You'd have to tweak "traditional grave" in the next sentence, but that's not so hard - "putative grave" would work. Actually that phrasing might work well for the lead too since it literally means "commonly accepted or supposed")
        • works for me! -s
  • In para 2 under Cell-y-bedd, you're jumping around a bit, going from the demolition in 1989 to the original construction in 1751. I would just start with that, finish describing it, then say it was demo'd and move into describing the modern one
    • good catch, switched (& switched two sentences in the above para for the same reason) -s
  • I love the whale rib. Picturing a bunch of 15th century fisherman like "Yeah idk man stick it in the church, it's cool, make a harp out of it"
    • it's very whimsical - bone harps seem to be a motif in British folklore as well; one of my favorite folk songs features a haunted harp made of a woman's breastbone!
      • :O D&D campaign inspo
  • "the church also contains" idk if you need the also here; you definitely don't need the comma after paintings
    • trimmed -s
  • This may be because my caffeine is wearing off, but you assert that the church contains a number of wall paintings, then describe a) traces b) obliterated inscriptions/coats-of-arms c) one surviving reredos and d) gothic stencils. Only one of those things seems to be what most people would call a painting. Also, "contains" in the present tense implies that those things are extant, but two of the four things you mention are toast. I think this needs rephrased.
    • good point. i think the confusion arose from the fact that the source says "[the] church contains traces of painting from every major phase of the church's existence" - indeed it contains a lot of painting, but i must have mis-summarized it at some point. i've reworded it slightly to give a more accurate sense -s
      • "The church has decorative wall painting dating from the medieval period to the Victorian era (1837–1901)." I'm not sure works either; the present tense implies that the Church still has all those paintings, but it doesn't. Maybe something more radical, something like "The church has had various paintings and wall decorations throughout its history, not all of which have survived. The earliest known are traces of floral and geometric patterns which date to the medieval period"
        • yeah i like that better, done -s
  • I'm assuming the gothic stencils are what's meant by the Victorian wall paintings?
    • yes, per above -s
  • This is 100% a personal aesthetic preference so feel free to disregard it, but I think the rood sketch would be better placed above or below the paragraphs, not between them
    • agreed & moved sorry Gerda -s
  • I don't love para 1 under effigies.
    • It feels too close to the source for comfort; swapping the order of knife-sharpening and cutting of initials isn't quite sufficient, the structure is still very clearly similar.
    • (The source also says they were later moved from the west wall to the chancel, but the article doesn't).
    • I would suggest revising the section along the lines of "the chancel contains effigies, one male and one female. dated to the 14th c., but original location unknown. male effigy in the churchyard until 1876, female location unknown, moved to west wall. moved to chancel in XXXX"
      • good call & thanks for doing the restructuring work for me haha. i've re-worked this section a bit -s
        • If I'm good at anything, I'm good at structure, ngl. Your version looks good.
  • As I read it, only the male has initial-cutting damage, the female has knife sharpening damage (and is "broken in two parts" which also isn't mentioned? seems significant)
    • fixed & added -s
Churchyard
  • Why is the image of the churchyard dangling from the bottom of the effigies section?
    • good question. moved -s
  • "Antur Tanat Cain" who's this?
    • i actually don't know and the source doesn't give any context (presumably this was obvious to Welsh historians & archaeologists in the 1990s, but not to me). my only lead is that google brings up some kind of cultural charity founded in 1980, which may be what's referred to here. i've just removed it, as i don't think it's super pertinent information; this survey isn't even publicly available. -s
  • slightly repetitive - "recorded the gravestones" followed by "Records were made for each gravestone"
    • rephrased -s
  • "Welsh harpist..." when?
    • added -s
  • "said to be the last to perform in an interlude at Pennant" also when?
    • added (no date is given for his actual performance, i just know when he lived) -s
Other
  • Footnotes B D and E need citations
    • done -s

That's what I got, take your time responding. All suggestions are open to discussion and I'm perfectly open to you not changing something if you have good reason. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:14, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UC

[edit]

What a lovely article, and hats off for your work on it. On first glance, it looks well polished indeed. A few comments:

  • I don't find the OSM map particularly helpful, since its scale only really shows that the church is in the middle of nowhere -- on my small-ish screen, there's no named or particularly recognisable features depicted. Suggest swapping for a static map of Wales.
    • agreed & done - it was there when i found the article, and i didn't think to swap it out! -s
  • between 1987–1994: better as between 1987 and 1994 (you'd use the dash when saying e.g. "in 1998–1999")
    • done -s
  • reconstructed for the first time in 1958: do we need for the first time here? Even given the following sentence on subsequent reconstruction, I think it's clear enough.
    • done -s
  • A few terms in the lead which you might consider linking: apse, Rood screen, hermit, abbess, nave, liturgy.
    • done -s
  • rectoral and vicarial glebe farmland: this could be made clearer for non-experts: suggest "Church-owned farmland held by the church's rectors and vicars as a glebe" or similar. Can we put even approximate dates on "now" (since when?) and "historically" (in 1980, 1890, or 1380?)
    • done & done -s
  • more isolated than many other popular pilgrimage churches: we haven't actually shown, yet, that it is a popular pilgrimage church.
    • hmm... good point. i'm not sure how to go about that, as adding that it's a popular pilgrimage destination would be kind of off-topic for the "location and surroundings" section, but i do think its isolation is relevant to this section. -s
  • the old village surrounding the church: again, any chance of being more precise on "old"?
    • the source cited gives it as medieval but no more detail, so i've just added that. i've really not been able to find much information about the village itself - when it was abandoned, etc. -s
  • St Monacella's Bed: just to clarify -- in English?
    • as far as i'm aware, yes - her name is almost never rendered as "Monacella" in Welsh from what i've read. perhaps it was scratched by a Romantically-minded English visitor... -sm
  • We should translate Ffynnon Cwm Ewyn and Ffynnon Iewyn ('Ewyn's Valley Well' or 'Iewyn's Well'), as we have for other Welsh names. Any idea who Ewyn/Iewyn was?
    • it wasn't translated in the source, and i don't know Welsh, so i didn't add a translation, but WP:OR says that translation is not original research, so i've added yours to it. no idea who Ewyn/Iewyn is - an 1894 (if i recall correctly) source speculates that the well is of pre-Christian origin, but i deleted that when i was purging some stuff i'm less confident about - i could add it back if the context is needed. -s
      • I wouldn't include those translations unless the sources do (and they can't get much more specialised than "Place-names and Field-names of Pennant Melangell""!), as Ewyn/Iewyn may not be a personal name. Geiriadur Prifysgol Cymru defines "ewyn" as foam, spume, froth; often fig. to denote whiteness, purity, frailty..., so cwm ewyn could be 'valley of foam' or something similar. Ham II (talk) 14:22, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • Seems that Nant Ewyn ('brook of foam') is a tributary of the River Tanat which joins the river at Pennant Melangell (pen nant is probably 'head/end of [the] brook'), and the valley of that brook is Cwm Nantewyn; Cwm Ewyn must be another form of Cwm Nantewyn. Ham II (talk) 16:25, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • thanks for clarifying - i've removed them since you make a good point. the origin of the name of this well is pretty ambiguous it seems ... sawyer * he/they * talk 03:20, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Romanesque" is linked in the lead but not the body. So is Yew tree, at least not on first mention (it is linked much later).
    • fixed -s
  • late medieval farmstead: hyphenate as a compound modifier. Also, later, Bronze Age burial mound and early medieval stone slab and a few others. Technically, Middle Bronze Age burial activity needs two hyphens.
    • thanks for pointing it out; fixed -s
  • centuries before the arrival of Christianity in Wales.: when was that?
    • the sentence was kind of awkward and superfluous anyways, so i just removed it -s
  • As we've had "Saint Monacella" a bit further up, with the bed, I think that's the place to explain that Melangell and Monacella are the same person.
    • done via efn -s
  • praying with the hare safely under her hem: I'd put a comma after hare so it doesn't sound like he was also getting in on the act.
    • i feel like that makes the sentence too disjointed - i switched "safely" to "safe" which might make it seem smoother. -s
  • in the 11th century, shortly after the conquest of England (note 12): seems odd not to be precise that the conquest of England started in 1066, which is after all most of the way through the C11th.
    • reworded -s
  • Saints' cults were revived and Normanised: what doesNormanised mean, in this context?
    • unfortunately there is no separate article for Normanization (yet ;]) but similar to the Romanization of indigenous religions of the Roman Empire, it entailed changing of deities' names (or saints in this case), introducing traditions of the conquerors, building new temples/churches, etc. the source cited doesn't give a ton of detail on this process specific to Pennant Melangell, but i've added an efn with some extra context - i'm not super happy about having two efns so close together, but i feel that the paragraph would be kind of bloated if they were in the text, if that makes sense. -s
  • Before the construction of the church, no definitive evidence exists for a church existing at the site: as written, this is blindingly obvious, though I suspect it's not quite what is meant. Suggest adding "current church".
    • hahaha good point. fixed -s
  • Do we know why it has been suggested that a timber church may have existed? These things are not invisible, archaeologically, and given its extensive investigation you'd suspect something like postholes to have clued the investigators in.
    • several postholes were indeed identified, but i think it'd be a bit SYNTHy to connect that to speculation of a wooden church when the source doesn't do that directly. still, i've added a little bit. -s
  • 2 marks, slightly below average for the Diocese of St Asaph.: can we do any more to contextualise 2 marks (was that a lot?) Might be worth clarifying at this stage that the church is/was in the Diocese of St Asaph; we do in the following sentence, at the moment.
    • 2 marks doesn't really mean anything to me and i'm not sure how i'd even convert that currency, so i've just removed it. as for the diocese, i think it's clear as is and i'm not sure how to reword it.
  • Melangell's cult remained popular until the Reformation: I would attempt to put a date on the Reformation, if we can.
    • that would require a bit of a deep dive into the Reformation in Wales (something that surprisingly doesn't have an article) - i think the wikilink & immediate dating of 1535 should be sufficient for the reader, hopefully.
      • As we've phrased it (Melangell's cult remained popular until the Reformation; in 1535 the income from offerings at the shrine was comparable to that of other major cult centres in Wales), we're saying that 1535 is before the Reformation, which would certainly push the date of the latter back quite substantially from where most people would put it either in a European or an English context (that's the year that More and Fisher were executed). I'm willing to believe that it took a while for its effects to be felt in Wales, but we need to say so if that's the case. UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:48, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • i've already gone and grabbed another source for a single bit of requested context (about the Norman conquest) before, so i may as well do the same again here to get a more specific timeline for the Reformation in Wales - who knows, i may even write that whole article at some point ... sawyer * he/they * talk 22:20, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          also, a little bit of clarification - the Act of Union happened in 1536, which is when Wales was made formally part of the Kingdom of England, so 1535 was indeed the eve of the Reformation in Wales. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 22:26, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          alright, found a book that happens to mention Henry VIII sending his men to reform the Diocese of St Asaph in 1535! ... sawyer * he/they * talk 23:37, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • due to the suppression of saints' cults and pilgrimage: similarly, it would be good, if we can, to say who did this and when. Is this a Cromwellian thing, or more to do with Edward and Elizabeth?
    • the source more or less says exactly what the article says; the history of Pennant Melangell in this period is extremely foggy, and i don't think we could really get more specific about who and when as it relates to this church specifically. -s
      • nevermind - i've found a bit that i skipped over prior -s
  • The massive religious reforms: can we say anything about these, or give a link to an article with some more information?
    • i'd think the wikilink to English Reformation in the paragraph would be sufficient for context, as it would kind of WP:COATRACK the section to get into the whole ordeal. i did remove "massive" as it's a bit intense. -s
      • I think it would still be wise to add something very rough: in particular, that all three monarchs pushed English religion in a Protestant direction, including (among other things) suppressing the worship of saints and destroying much church decoration. UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:48, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        However, by the 1660s the value of the Pennant church once again sunk to below average for the diocese due to the suppression of saints' cults and pilgrimage. The religious reforms under the reigns of Henry VIII, Edward VI, and Elizabeth I brought major changes to the fabric of the church; the shrine was probably dismantled at this time and the grave chapel blocked off. i would hope this would be enough context? this is what it already says. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 23:31, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        Ah -- if those are all intended to be the same thing, a bit of reordering might solve the issue. As framed, those religious reforms are really presented as belonging to the 1660s or near enough: they're not obviously connected to those three monarchs who ruled nowhere near the 1660s. However, we could do something like

        The religious reforms under the reigns of Henry VIII, Edward VI, and Elizabeth I, which suppressed pilgrimage and the cult of saints, brought major changes to the fabric of the church. The shrine was probably dismantled at this time and the grave chapel blocked off. By the 1660s, the value of the Pennant church had once again sunk to below average for the diocese.

        UndercoverClassicist T·C 08:23, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        yeah i like that ordering better (couldn't quite put my finger on what was bugging me about that paragraph) - thanks! ... sawyer * he/they * talk 17:33, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • as well: I would cut this: as well as what?
    • done -s
  • the shrine was likely dismantled at this time: wiser editors than me have picked out "likely" in this context as an Americanism; "probably" might be more BrE. See also later it likely would have been threatened and which is likely much older
    • had no idea that was an Americanism - you've caught me! holy moly i use it a lot in this article. done -s
  • Picture captions that are not complete sentences (like A 1795 watercolour of St Melangell's Church by John Ingleby, showing the square cell-y-bedd at the east end should not end in a full stop.
    • fixed -s
  • The walls were plastered and seating was introduced into the church at some point from the late 16th century.: any reason not to put this in chronological order, before the C17th material that precedes it? By "from", do we mean "after", or "in the late C16th or later"? "From", to me, implies that it was a long process that started but didn't finish in the C16th.
    • it was at an unknown point in the late 16th century or afterwards, and it's not entirely chronological because the preceding bit is also quite chronologically uncertain - the shrine was dismantled at an unknown date at some point in that period, in the 16th or 17th century. -s
  • The current church tower was entirely built: I'm not sure we need entirely here. Similarly, later, in the apse was entirely rebuilt.
    • removed -s
  • Ralegh Radford might do with an introduction here: most readers, I think, will be expecting him to have been an architect.
    • done -s
  • Meifod parish priest Paul Davies' wife recovered from cancer: this is clunky. Suggest "Paul Davies, the parish priest of Meifod, bought a cottage near the church with his wife, following her recovery from cancer"
    • done -s
  • Cancer Help Centre: why the capitals?
    • it's capitalized in the source, not sure why -s
  • Archbishop Alwyn Rice Jones: archbishop of where? Suggest "Alwyn Rice Jones, the Archbishop of Wales. Might also be useful to note that he was simultaneously Bishop of St. Asaph.
    • done -s
  • The isolated, scenic location of the church was also a notable factor in attracting visitors, and played an important role: consider cutting notable and important as WP:PUFFERY.
    • done -s
  • visitors to the shrine come from diverse religious backgrounds: can we be more specific here? Are we saying that lots of non-Christians left prayers?
    • added some details -s
  • the remains of the medieval apse wall footings, which was semicircular: not quite grammatical here: suggest the footings of the medieval apse wall, which was...
    • good point; fixed -s
  • Initials, like R.B. Heaton, are usually followed by spaces: R. B. Heaton. British English would prefer the architect.
    • fixed -s
  • many of which are significantly weathered: strictly, significantly should mean that this signifies something: if we just mean "severely", "heavily" or "very", we should say that.
    • TIL; fixed -s
  • It is not known what the shrine originally looked like ... The steep gable design of Melangell's shrine: we seem to have contradicted ourselves here.
    • clarified -s
  • such as the 'willow' and 'half-pear': MOS:' disapproves of scare-quotes like this: the most MoS-aligned thing to do would be to use double quotes, or something like those known as "willow" and "half-pear".
    • went with regular double quotes -s
  • There's a bit of overlap at the moment between the "History" and the "Architecture" section; in many places we seem to be telling the story of demolitions, renovations and restorations twice. I'd suggest having a think about the best way to order and relate this information, and trying to do it only once.
    • i'll work on streamlining some of the repetition here - i can't really think of any way to reorganize the article that wouldn't be pretty clunky and incongruous with other church articles, so i'll just reword some stuff in the architecture section & move a couple sentences around; shouldn't take too long. -s
  • Strictly, Asen y gawres is the Giant's rib.
    Good eye -- I spotted the one mistake but not the other! UndercoverClassicist T·C 14:38, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • large whale rib of uncertain purpose and origin: Suggest reworking slightly: its origin is, at least on one level, pretty obvious.
    • switched "origin" for "provenance" as more precise -s
  • I'd give a date for the Victorian era.
    • i don't think that's entirely necessary, as the wikilink gives you the dates of the Victorian era in the first sentence -s
  • it was painted over with a Hanoverian coat of arms in the 18th century, and then plastered over.: as written, it sounds like it was plastered over as soon as the paint dried.
    • switched to "later" -s
  • An 1886 copy on wood was located on the altar: was located -- what happened to it, do we know?
    • unfortunately the source doesn't say -s
  • Welsh priest John Parker: I'd put a date on him. BrE would prefer The Welsh priest. We need a more subjective word than "noted" for a statement of opinion: simply "wrote"?
    • done -s
  • Iorwerth Drwyndwn.: introduce him.
    • done -s
  • Looking here, p. 321, it sounds like there's an alternative theory that the effigy is another Iorweth, possibly (or alternatively) a member of the Rhirid Flaidd family. The wolf connection would certainly be worth a note, I think. The same source has another suggestion for the female effigy.
    • Archaeologia Cambrensis is truly a never-ending source for this topic, as somehow i never found this bit of detail. however, i've never seen this claim anywhere else, and there's no author listed (not uncommon for 19th-century scholarship, but not ideal for citations) - i'll keep the tab open, but hold off on adding it just yet -s
      • I've been thinking on this a bit: if we've cited AC elsewhere, we've established that we consider it a reliable source, and so we can't really (under WP:DUEWEIGHT) say that we're going to ignore something published there simply because it isn't replicated elsewhere. If someone else had actually taken on that claim and demonstrated that it was false, that would be another matter, but at the moment there's a danger of trying to have our cake and eat it at the same time. UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:48, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        that's a good point; my issue here is that i use two 19th century sources (Pennant & Parker), and both are cited with attribution (except for the very straightforward description of the rood screen by Parker) since the context of when and by whom they were written is important. how would i attribute this little bit of the "miscellaneous notes" section? ... sawyer * he/they * talk 22:12, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        You don't need to use every bit of the citation template: something like "Mystery of Purple Custard Explosion", The New York Times, April 15, 1974, p. 1 is absolutely fine. Sometimes it is possible to find out the author of an unattributed source: in older periodicals or edited volumes, for example, it was usual practice only to attribute the author when it wasn't the editor, so I'd pull forward to the front matter and see if the editor is named: you can then either cite it as "J. Jones (ed.)" (using |editor=) or more boldly with Jones as the author. It would equally be fine, in the text, to say that In 18whatever, a contributor to the archaeological journal AC suggested that..." UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:05, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        fair enough o7 i'll get to work on that! ... sawyer * he/they * talk 17:49, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        added ... sawyer * he/they * talk 19:50, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • in which case the effigy would be a cult figure of Melangell: I think we need a probably here: it would be entirely possible for a human being to be depicted with the iconography of a saint.
    • done -s
  • contemporary to the building of the gate: contemporary with.
    • fixed -s
  • What's the logic as to which sources are included in the bibliography, and which are not?
    • sources which are used multiple times are put in the bibliography & referenced via sfns; everything only used once is just given a full citation in ref tags -s
  • Reference formatting is inconsistent as to title or sentence case. I'm also not sure I can immediately work out the ordering system in the bibliography: by date isn't wrong (though it is highly unusual), but how come Heaton and Britnell 1994 comes before Ridgway 1994, but Britnell and Watson 1994 comes after Parkinson 1994? Initials down here also need spacing.
    • chronologically is my personal preference for when there's a large range of time between sources, as in this case. as i'm sure you've noticed, a giant chunk of the sourcing comes from a single volume of Montgomeryshire Collections in 1994 - i've sorted the articles by how they are ordered in the volume originally, but i can order that chunk alphabetically if it's preferred. initial spacing done -s
      • done with the title v sentence case - i just switched them all to title case
  • Sources, in general, should have identifiers: usually that's an ISBN/OCLC/OL number for books and an ISSN for journals.
    • i'll dig into this & add them
  • Historia Divinae Monacellae should be italicised in the source title.
    • done -s

Over to you: let me know if anything is unclear, or if I've got the wrong end of any of these sticks. UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:13, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

wow I was not expecting such a nice review so quickly! i'll try to get all of this addressed today and tomorrow. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 17:35, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@UndercoverClassicist i've responded to everything! ball is back in your court (it might be easier to respond to my responses down here, so it's easier to follow) ... sawyer * he/they * talk 22:25, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
re: identifiers - i do not think Montgomeryshire Collections has an ISSN. it seems to be more or less exclusively digitized by the National Library of Wales, which has hdl identifiers for each volume, but that's it. Archaeologia Cambrensis, however, does have an ISSN but i can't find DOIs for articles from either. it's an unusual system, but the best i've got. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 08:33, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
re: repetition between the "architecture" and "history" sections, i'm really not seeing anything that would bother me as a reader - you need a little bit of context to properly describe the architecture, and you need to describe the various renovations, excavations, etc in the history section. there is a bit of repetition, but it's about as minimal as i could get without having disjointed and confusing prose. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 20:03, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A few things that I notice:
  • We give what was found under the apse in the architecture section, but not the archaeology section: this is backwards, if anything.
  • We give the date (1989) for the rebuilding of the cell-y-bedd in the architecture section, but not the history section (we only imply that it was between the 1980s and 1992)
  • File:Shrine of St. Monacella in Pennant Melangel Church, 1795.jpg -- a very nit-picky thing, but any chance of rotating this image slightly so that it's straight? The left edge is quite noticeably higher than the right.
UndercoverClassicist T·C 08:31, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • good point, moved
  • the reason for this is that those two parts are cited to different sources and were written in different phases - that said, i'll continue to tweak this a bit.
  • i wouldn't know the best way to do that, to be honest!
... sawyer * he/they * talk 21:53, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support: that's all I've got. A lovely article and such a great improvement from where you found it. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:42, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Generalissima

[edit]

Put me down for a source review! Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 17:46, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Lede adheres to LEADCITE. I don't see any things that would need cites, and I don't see anything that isn't discussed within the body. The only cites within the lede are two for a footnote, which is appropriate here.
  • Location and surroundings is fully cited.
  • History is fully cited.
  • Archaeological excavations is fully cited.
  • Shrine is fully cited.
  • Architecture is fully cited.
  • Churchyard is fully cited.
  • The SFNs are correctly and consistently formatted. There are a couple things with pages that don't have SFNs (namely, Morton 2009, Hurlock 2018, Gibson 2002, Williams 1993, Walker 1990, Jones 1954, and Edwards 2002). I would suggest converting these to SFNs for consistency's sake. Websites or other forms of pageless sources are fine to keep as longform citations.
  • Bibliography is consistently formatted. Everything has HDLs and ISSNs where appropriate. Author names are linked when possible. Good to go here.
  • As this is your first FA nomination, I will do a spotcheck. This might take a hot second though, so stand by. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 18:27, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    thanks for doing the source review! sfn conversions done, + Malim 2018, Crossley & Ridgway 1947, and Archaeologia Cambrensis 1877. i've also removed non-functioning archive links & unnecessary parameters, and added a couple of ID numbers that i had missed previously. i think it looks much cleaner now! ... sawyer * he/they * talk 19:47, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh heck yes, that looks perfect! Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 21:35, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I forgot to comment on this, but all of the sources are looking very nice. Mainly to Welsh history and religion journals, which is obviously appropriate here. There's a few 19th century sources, but they're used sparingly and almost always alongside a more modern source. Well done on that front.

Spot Check

  • Brittnell, 1994a: "Boundaries of the Parish of Pennant Melangell"
    • 6: Checks out, mentions Llangynog.
    • 7: Indeed.
    • 38: Confirms the dates here.
  • Pryce, 1994.
    • 11: Yep, gives the name origin.
    • 18: Summarizes the story of Melangell. Works good enough for me!
  • Evans, 1994.
    • 12: Checks out. Side note: There's space to include that gorgeous 1870s sketch of the church, right? I think that'd go good in the "restoration efforts" section, as its contemporary to the early restoration work.
      • i'd absolutely love to - however, i can't find a death date (nor really any information) for the artist. figured it out - added! -s
    • 13: Checks out as well, footnote in the article explains it nicely.
  • Keulemans & Burton 2006
    • 15: Indeed talks about pre-Christian uses of the site. Some of this context is however on page 105, so I'd change the cite to 105–106.
    • 40: Checks out.
    • 44: Checks out.
    • 45: Checks out, though you could merge this with the previous cite by changing the page numbers to "103–104, 106–107"
  • Parker, 1848
    • 77: Checks out.
    • 78: Quote checks out.
    • 79: This can be merged with the previous cite by switching it to 225–227; you only need to cite quotes at the end of the sentence, but it can be covering multiple quotes when doing that.
  • Britnell, 1994b
    • 16: Checks out, but I'd mention that tests indicated it was likely from the second half of the first millennium BCE, and that urn fragments were found. (Oh, I realize this is restated later, including by Gibson 2002. Might be good to bring just a little of that over here?)
    • 23: Yep. Briefly summarized on 94, and expanded on 70–72.
    • 37: Checks out.
    • 47: Checks out.
    • 48: Yep.
    • 50: Yep.
    • 51: Yep.
    • 52: Wow, yeah.
    • 53: Yep.
    • 54a: Yep.
    • 54b: Yep.
    • 55: Yep.
    • 56: Yep.
    • 57: Yep.
    • 58a: Yep.
    • 58b: Yep.
    • 65: Yep.
    • 66: Yep.
    • 88a: Yep.
    • 88b: Yep.
    • 89: Yes.
    • 90: Yea.
    • 91: Mhm.
    • 94: Checks out.
    • 98: Checks out.
    • 100a: Checks out - getting a pattern yet?
    • 100b: Also checks out.
  • That last one was a slog to get through, apologize for the delay. I made some minor formatting suggestions, but I wouldn't consider them obligatory, so I will say Support on both source review and spot check. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 05:34, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    i like your suggestions, and have done all of them! thanks for the source review :) ... sawyer * he/they * talk 05:54, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
  • Don't use fixed px size
  • File:St._Monacella,_or,_Pennant_Melangel_Church,_1795.jpg: when and where was this first published?
  • File:John_Parker_Pennant_Melangell_rood_screen_drawing.png needs a US tag

Comments from Gerda

[edit]

Thank you for a lovely article! I'll comment as a read, and return to the lead after the whole thing. Just for now: you may want to reduce repetitions of the words "church" and "shrine". Sometimes "it" would be not ambiguous, I think.

The infobox is fine. I'd like a larger image, but my way of cheating (St. Martin, Idstein) is perhaps not compatible with FA ambitions. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:38, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Medieval

  • "no definitive evidence exists for a church existing at the site", - less repetition perhaps?
    • reworded slightly -s
  • is there a link for Valuation of Churches for someone unfamiliar? - value in which respect?
    • the Valuation of Norwich unfortunately does not have an article to link, but i added the word "property" to give the correct sense - it was a recording of all the property values for tax purposes. -s
  • I wonder if you can first describe the changes to the building in the 15th century, and then the higher value?
    • there's not a ton more information about the renovations in the 15th century, as the information we have is based on physical evidence, rather than records. -s
      I didn't mean more information, just the order. -GA

Restoration

  • too man "also" for my taste in the first para
    • trimmed -s
  • I read "transferred" as a move of location, but understand that it means just to which parish the building belongs, - correct?
    • correct -s
  • I'd move the pic of the shine in the chancel to where that is mentioned.
    • that section of the article is a bit cramped for images, and the shrine being in the chancel is relevant to the paragraph where it talks about how it was moved there -s
      I tried, revert if you don't like -GA

Read until there, more to come. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:13, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Archeoloical ...

Images

Back to the lead

  • I'm mostly happy but would appreciate a hint at how close the building was to demolition, the cancer-retreat, and the pilgrimage beyond veneration of a particular person.
    • added a little bit -s

Again, thank you for an interesting article! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:38, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerda Arendt replied to everything - let me know what you think! and thank you for your review :) ... sawyer * he/they * talk 05:34, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the changes. I wonder if in History, you could mention the key things in chronological order, but order of importance is also fine. Support. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:36, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
i assume you meant the initial paragraph of the history section, in which case done! and thanks for the support! ... sawyer * he/they * talk 07:40, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Pbritti

[edit]

I'll provide a review. It's British Christian history and church architecture. I feel somewhat competent in these subject areas, so let's see what I can add! ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:52, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, just realized this was Sawyer's work! Looking forward any responses to my comments! ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:54, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lead:

  • The lead could do with a mention of the church's current denomination, the Church of Wales. I'd prefer this earlier than later in first paragraph. I don't think it's necessary to mention previous affiliations with the Catholic Church or Church of England in the lead.
    • good call - done -s
  • The church has a single nave and a square tower, and is built of multiple types of stone. On the east end is an apse, which contains Melangell's traditional grave. Consider leading with the statement on the stone construction to combine the building's arrangement without the brief aside on materials.
    • yeah i like that better - done -s
  • The churchyard contains thousands of graves, the majority unmarked, and several yew trees. Consider using em or en dashes rather than commas, as this looks like a list at first blush.
    • done -s

Location and surroundings:

  • As of 1994 should be followed by a comma, if memory serves.
  • Glebe is one of my favorite words. Thought I ought to mention that.
    • it's probably in my top 5 ecclesiastical terms, up there with "rood". -s
  • I feel like there's enough of a topical shift to start a new paragraph at Other historic sites nearby. This is up to you.
    • yeah that looks more even to me -s
  • At some unknown date, probably in the 19th century, the words "St Monacella's Bed" were carved into the stone. Maybe I'm not reading this well, but this feels like a bit of a non sequitur. Is this in reference to the aforementioned rock shelf?
    • it is referring to the rock shelf, but i'm not sure how to reword it. -s
  • Note B strikes me as important enough to warrant inclusion in the main body. Again, this is a subjective sentiment that you are welcome to ignore.
    • originally it was, after According to her hagiography, Melangell, but either PMC or UC suggested i move it to the section where the name "Monacella" is first mentioned. i think it would make the sentence kind of cluttered to put it into the prose. -s

Ok, the history section is much longer, so I'll add my comments on it separately. Looking good thus far! ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:10, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for reviewing this & glad to have another nerd about British church history on this article! i've responded to your comments so far. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 19:02, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent responses. Upon second glance, comments that you did not implement are acceptable as-is. More comments to follow. ~ Pbritti (talk) 13:12, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following sections are smaller and, since I'm editing on my phone right now, will be reviewed before the titanic history section.

Shrine:

  • Can an approximate date be provided on first mention of the shrine in this section?
    • i opted to omit it in the first sentence because it's been dismantled and reconstructed so many times - the following sentence explains that it's a reconstruction of the 12th-century original. -s
  • Per MOS:DATECOMMA, In 1958 should be followed by a comma.
    • done -s
  • At the risk of redundancy, I would again mention that the shrine's components were moved to the chancel after they were dismantled.
    • agreed & added -s
  • Limewash is presently linked on second mention rather than the first mention. I would swap the two.
    • good catch; the earlier paragraph was added later, which is why i didn't notice it. -s

Architecture:

  • The square tower is of the 19th century, with a pyramidal roof topped by a short timber belfry. This sentence has the eloquence often found in British academic writing from the last century, but it could be shortened. Consider "The 19th-century square tower has a pyramidal roof topped by a short timber belfry."
    • i do love flowery writing... done -s
  • I would consider a new paragraph starting at The original cell-y-bedd. A citation would have to be appended at the end of the preceding sentence. This is discretionary.
    • done -s
  • I recommend mentioning that John Parker is also an artist, as this qualifies him to comment on the artistic quality of the building.
    • good point, done -s
  • John Parker is linked both on first and second mention. I think it's ok to only link him once.
    • done -s
  • Per MOS:GEOCOMMA, names of parishes like St Pabo, Llanbabo and St Iestyn, Llaniestyn should have a second comma after the name of the place.
    • done -s
  • Is the location of the split in the female effigy known from the sources? If so, I'd consider adding it.
    • in the images in the article, it's roughly in the lower-shin-ankle area, but not mentioned in the text (nor is the cause of the break). -s

Ok, that's all I have time for right now. I apologize for the piecemeal nature of my comments. Again, excellent work. I must also add that your prose is clear, ushering the reader through the article without tedious rereading. ~ Pbritti (talk) 13:45, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

responded! ... sawyer * he/they * talk 17:42, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, Sawyer! I've been a bit caught up on other areas of the project, including my own FAC. I can add additional comments either Monday or Tuesday. Which is preferable for you? ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:26, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
either works for me, i'm not in a rush. tomorrow would probably be slightly preferable, as sooner = i can get everything done sooner. however, there's no pressure ... sawyer * he/they * talk 17:31, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

History:

  • If possible, an additional sentence of elaboration on the Bronze Age use of the site would be neat.
  • by the Celtic Christians of I'm inclined against a definite article here.

Seriously, the rest is very solid. I've reviewed your responses and accept that this article is suitable for support at this time. Congrats! You've earn this! ~ Pbritti (talk) 00:44, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • in the part cited, there's honestly not that many conclusions drawn other than "there was a burial mound at the site in the Bronze Age", and elsewhere in my sources it's mostly granular archaeological details rather than analysis. unfortunately i'm not sure there's much more to write about the actual Bronze Age history
  • done
thanks so much for the review & support! ... sawyer * he/they * talk 06:56, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment from TechnoSquirrel69

[edit]

I brought this up during the peer review, but why is "Pennant Melangell" bolded in the lead? —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 14:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i re-bolded it because as much as this article is specifically about the church, the sources discuss the church and the surrounding settlement almost interchangeably, as they are inextricably tied together and you can't discuss one without discussing the other. indeed St Melangell's Church is often simply called "Pennant Melangell church" or "Pennant church" in sources. MOS:BOLDLEAD indicates that widely-known alternative names should be bolded, which while "Pennant Melangell" isn't quite that, i'd argue that it fits the spirit here and is helpful to readers. let me know if you strongly disagree or whatever though, haha ... sawyer * he/they * talk 02:07, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's usual practice, when the article is also a redirect from a title that could conceivably (but probably won't) have its own page, to bold that redirect's title on first mention as if it were an alternative name. See for instance Murder of James Bulger, which bolds the names of the two killers and the victim, because that page is the main article for each of those people. UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:09, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Either of these rationales work for me as I don't mind it formatted either way; I was simply checking that the bold wasn't a mistake as I thought Sawyer had removed it during the PR. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 07:42, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
sounds good, thanks! ... sawyer * he/they * talk 07:47, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 13 June 2024 [24].

Existence

[edit]
Nominator(s): Phlsph7 (talk) 08:22, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Existence is the state of having reality. Often contrasted with essence, it is a wide and fundamental concept associated with various tricky problems, such as the status of imaginary entities like Santa Claus. Thanks to Of the universe for their GA review, to Jenhawk777, Bilorv, and Patrick Welsh for their peer reviews, and to Baffle gab1978 for their GOCE copy-edit of this level 4 vital article.

750h

[edit]
  • I have read through this article twice and have not seen any obvious problems. Expressing my support of this nomination. I love the examples used, such as "kangaroos live in Australia", which facilitate the reader’s experience. I’m happy to have been the GA reviewer of the Ethics article and hope to see it here sometime soon :-). 750h+ | Talk  04:13, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @750h+: Thanks a lot for the support! I'm working to get Ethics ready for a nomination and I'll let you know, hopefully after this one. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:47, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shapeyness

[edit]

Another great summary article on a massive topic like existence :) These are the only comments I have after reading through, I expect to support when they are cleared up but I might also make some more comments if I look through the source list. Shapeyness (talk) 15:22, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input, I'm happy to see that you haven't become tired of reviewing those wide-scope articles :) and your background on Quine should prove quite useful for this topic. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:12, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Willard Van Orman Quine (1908–2000) defends a different position by giving primacy to singular existence maybe it would be useful to say why, e.g. "arguing that general existence can also be expressed in terms of individual existence"
    Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:12, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to this view, a universal that has no instances in the spacio-temporal world does not exist optionally, this could be simplified by removing reference to the "spacio-temporal world" (if you decide to keep, should it be spatio-temporal?)
    I fixed the spelling but I left the term. I'm not sure how relevant the concern is but one universal could instantiate another universial without either of them existing in space and time. I don't think Aristotelians would be happy about that kind of existence so this way, we have our bases covered. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:12, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Right so this is actually a slightly more cautious wording, I didn't realise that at first. Shapeyness (talk) 11:00, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstract objects ... exist outside space and time the use of a spatial concept ("outside") here is unfortunate, although it gets the idea across pretty well. Maybe "do not exist with a location in space and time"/"do not have a location in space and time" would also work?
    Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:12, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the relationship between abstract and fictional objects - in the source this seems more of a passing comment or something to keep in mind rather than an important point in its own right, do you think it is due weight to include? Maybe it would be better to discuss fictional objects more holistically in their own subsection or in "Modes and degrees of existence" given fictional objects are generally thought to exist or to have being in a different way
    That was more of an intermediary solution since I thought that fictional objects should be mentioned but I didn't want to give them their own section. I added a subsection called "Others" to discuss them in more detail. I also used the opportunity to add some information on intentional inexistence. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:21, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Physical entities include objects of regular perception given the later reference to perceptions being mental objects, I see it being quite easy for a reader to get confused here by not realising the subtlety of the word choice (objects of perception, not perception itself). Also, idealists and indirect realists would argue the objects of perception are mental, so maybe best to reword.
    Good catch. The reference to perception was not essential here so I rephrased it. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:12, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • For instance, according to Gibson, a thing either exists or does not exist; this means there is no in-between alternative and that there are no degrees of existence This was very famously argued by Quine in "On What There Is". It is probably better to remove this sentence or put Quine here instead, or at the very least add a supporting secondary source here to demonstrate the importance of Gibson's argument
    Agreed, Quine would have been the better person to ascribe this view to. The main point of this phrase was not so much to talk about Gibson's or Quine's philosophy but to give the reader an idea about what this position means. I found a way to phrase the sentence differently that does not require attribution. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:12, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah that makes the most sense I think, Quine is already well covered elsewhere. Shapeyness (talk) 10:56, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the previous point, when Gibson is first mentioned he is cited there too, do the secondary sources mention him in regards to existence being an elementary concept?
    Vallicella discusses him but the essential point is the view itself and not that Gibson in particular defends it so I removed his name. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:36, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think keeping reference to Gibson is harmful if RSes think they are important enough to mention in this context, just wanted to check. Either way is fine though. Shapeyness (talk) 09:53, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770–1831) explored how being and nothing pass into one another in the process of becoming This is slightly confusing, although maybe it's because I don't know much about Hegel
    • Sorry, Phlsph7, I didn't get back to you on this before peer review ended. I was looking at the Rosen again, just because it is a source you chose, and found additional support for my suggestion about internal mediation on p. 93. But perhaps more appropriate for an article at this level would be something quite simply along the lines of "According to G. W. F. Hegel, there is no pure being or pure nothing, only becoming." This is enough to provide a little bit of the flavor of Hegel's thought to someone with no background in philosophy. It's also such a bare description of the opening of the logic that it would be supported by just about any secondary source that discusses that section. Cheers, Patrick (talk) 12:43, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I implemented your suggestion and adjusted the page numbers, though I'm not sure whether it solves Shapeyness's concern. For whoever is interested, there was already a lengthy discussion during the peer review on how or whether to mention Hegel. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:36, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @Patrick Welsh: would becoming (philosophy) redirect to the right concept, might be worth a link in that sentence if so. Shapeyness (talk) 09:55, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I haven't read Whitehead, who is the primary subject of that article, but it sounds as though he took some inspiration from Hegel but departed on some fundamentals (e.g., his Aristotelian commitments). A wikilink on that term would probably be confusing to readers.
      "Dialectic" is a term that I think means less than some some scholars admit. In this case, however, it might be useful as a modifier to distinguish Hegel's views from at least some other accounts of becoming. Something like only a dialectic of becoming. Hegelian dialectic is an okay section of Dialectic, and it links out to the relevant section of Hegel for anyone who wants a more integrated account.
      As I said in the peer review, however, while I think that it's entirely appropriate to mention Hegel in this article, I don't think it is necessary. If it's a problem, I wouldn't object to its removal.
      Cheers, Patrick (talk) 18:30, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eastern philosophy is given slightly less space than western philosophy in the history section, that may be justified but just checking
    There would be many ways to expand that section but if we strictly followed the weight given to these views in the overview sources, we would probably have to reduce the section rather than expand it. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:36, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is some sandwiching of text in the history section on my screen - choosing shorter images or using |upright for narrow images might help

Thanks for the responses so far! Comments on sources below. Shapeyness (talk) 15:29, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support promotion: this article covers everything I would expect, and checking against overview sources I can't see any major points that aren't covered. I think there is space for the Eastern philosophy section to be expanded some more without unbalancing the article or causing it to become overlong but it's not neglected as is. Overall, it is a well-written article that meets all the FA criteria. Shapeyness (talk) 14:47, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for the support and all the insightful suggestions. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:08, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prose and image review by Generalissima

[edit]

I don't know how you do it Phlsph, you are amazing at both prose and sourcing for these extremely ethereal concepts. The layout of this article makes sense, and you do a good job breaking up the topic in a way that someone who might not know very much about ontology can understand.

@Generalissima: Thanks a lot for doing this review and for your kind words! Phlsph7 (talk) 08:10, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lede is good; my only concern is that instantiated might be a bit too obscure a term for the lede, where generally we want to distill concepts down to a very easy to understand level.
    I've been struggling for a while to get this passage right, I hope the new version is better. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:10, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Much better! Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 17:06, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Definition and related terms is good, see no prose issues here.
  • Types of existing entities is also good.
  • Modes and degrees of existence, Theories of the nature of existence, History, In various disciplines are all good.

And then in regards for images:

  • I'm a bit confused by your linking of certain names in image captions and not others; is there a MoS guideline I have overlooked on this? Nothing on MOS:CAPTIONS seems to indicate it.
    I'm not aware of any guideline. It's probably best to follow consistency and just link all. I hope I didn't miss any this time. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:10, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Almost all pictures here are public domain due to their antiquity, and those that aren't are own work and CC licensed:
    • Existential quantifier.svg - Own work, good to go.
    • Avicenna lithograph - cropped.png and Thomas Aquinas by Carlo Crivelli.png - Public domain, good.
    • File:Bellerophon riding Pegasus and killing the Chimera, Roman mosaic, the Rolin Museum in Autun, France, 2nd to 3rd century AD.jpg - Public domain.
    • File:Bertrand Russell 1949.jpg - Creative commons.
    • File:Alexius Meinong 1900.jpg - Public domain.
    • "The School of Athens" by Raffaello Sanzio da Urbino (cropped).jpg - Public domain.
    • Anselm of Canterbury2.png - Public domain.
    • Franz Brentano in Vienna, 1875.png - Public domain.
    • Raja Ravi Varma - Sankaracharya - cropped.png - Public domain.
    • Head of Laozi marble Tang Dynasty (618-906 CE) Shaanxi Province China.jpg - Published under CC, statue itself obviously public domain.
  • All have alt-text.

And that's all for know. Happy to say I don't see anything else that needs fixing! Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 22:23, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support on image and prose review. The changes have resolved my only concerns here. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 17:08, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

Given how broad this topic is, I can't vouch much on the completeness of coverage. Does "Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy" have a publisher? Is it just my impression or are we using solely Western publishers? Spot-check upon request. Otherwise, nothing jumps out to me as problematic. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:02, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jo-Jo Eumerus and thanks for doing the source review! In their suggested citation style at [25], the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy does not mention a publisher. Concerning non-Western publishers, the problem is similar to the one we encountered in other philosophy articles where Western publishers dominate the field of high-quality academic English sources. I added several sources by non-Western publishers to the section "Eastern philosophy" to have at least all the main claims there covered by a non-Western source. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:08, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Does the article pass the source review? Phlsph7 (talk) 15:13, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if there is African philosophy? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:14, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just added a short paragraph in response to voorts's review, see my comments below. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:21, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Do you have the impression that your main concerns have been addressed? Phlsph7 (talk) 07:14, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, with the caveat about completeness. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:28, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

voorts

[edit]

Ceci n'est pas une critique. Review to come. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:47, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello voorts and thanks for reviewing this nomination. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:06, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More to come. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:20, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • According to this view, existence is more fundamental than regular properties because without it, objects cannot instantiate any properties. If existence is a second-order property, then aren't regular (first-order) properties more fundamental? I'm also not sure how that follows from the previous sentence.
    The basic idea is that a thing can't have properties if it does not exist. According to Nelson 2022, "instantiating any property whatsoever presupposes existence and so existence is not a further property over and above a thing’s genuine properties", meaning that regular properties "conceptually presuppose" existence. Strictly speaking, Nelson 2022 presents this as an argument against first-order theories and only uses this later to motivate second-order theories so I adjusted our formulation accordingly. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:44, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • In addition to Eastern and Western philosophy, is there anything to add about Indigenous American philosophy and African philosophy?
    Done. They are not covered by the overview sources that I'm aware of so we need to keep this part brief to avoid WP:UNDUE. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:46, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Are there any specific philosophers in those traditions that can be discussed? Additionally, I think that feminist philosophy and Afro-pessimism should probably be included in the "In various disciplines" section. Finally, are there any other philosophical traditions that you can think of that ought to be covered here? voorts (talk/contributions) 21:53, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    These traditions don't have much of a written history and the sources cited mostly talk about general positions. We could try to find some contemporary representatives, but, as far as I'm aware, they are not particularly well-known.
    In deciding which philosophical traditions or theories to mention to fulfill the comprehensiveness criterion, I usually rely on overview sources, as recently discussed at Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates/archive93#How_to_assess_comprehensiveness_of_wide-scope_articles. My impression is that we have them covered as it is.
    I found a way to include feminism in the paragraph on existentialism. I'm not sure what to do about Afro-pessimism. If you can point me to an overview source that explicitly makes this connection then I can have a look. However, we have to be careful about continually expanding this article with minor topics since this would probably not result in overall improvements to the article. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:59, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not weighing in on this nomination (although I do wish some action were taken on my PR suggestion that the status of social institutions – such as money and the nation state – deserves attention in the article).
    Since it has come up again, however, I'll just offer that I would support reopening the general discussion linked above—perhaps in a more binding format.
    Even high-quality tertiary sources are often written by non-experts in the general field—and even those entries by experts are reviewed by the editor(s), rather than subject-matter experts not in the position of having directly solicited the submission (from people that they usually know personally/professionally).
    To be clear, such sources are way, way, way better than bare-minimum RS. It is my newbie opinion, however, that what they do, or do not, include should never count as the final word in a FA nomination, especially in cases concerning non-Western or otherwise underrepresented groups.
    Cheers, Patrick (talk) 18:56, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your input. Given that the discussion was about the inclusion of Afro-pessimism, I assume that your elaborations were intended as an argument in favor of it since here is not the right place to restart a recently-closed general discussion of FA criteria and Wikipedia policies. I'm not in priniple against including Afro-pessimism, but I haven't had luck in finding reliable sources for this and I don't want to claim in the article that there is an important connection if we can't verify it.
    By the way, I followed your suggestion and expanded the list of examples of social kinds in the section "Others" with "money" and "nation state". Phlsph7 (talk) 16:02, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I commented only because a conversation in which I took part was invoked as if it established a consensus that I fail to see. Since the issue has come up in multiple nominations without (as far as I can see) being resolved, it seems like it might be worth pursuing further in a more general forum.
    As to Afro-pessimism, I agree with you that the onus is on the editor making the suggestion to show that there is a relevant literature that is not being represented.
    The mention in Others of money and the nation state is not really responsive to my suggestion. My recollection is that the PR had been open for several weeks and was closed out before we had a chance to discuss. If you are still interested, I would be happy to expand on the talk page once the FAC process is complete.
    Cheers, Patrick (talk) 18:47, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the paragraph on existentialism, you should at least cite the major existentialists (e.g., Kierkegaard, Sartre, de Beauvoir, Nietzsche), since this is a broad-concept article and readers would likely be looking for those names.
    Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:54, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's all for now. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:42, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One more comment. Per ELNO #1, the references in further reading (except for Aristotle) should be either cited in the article or moved to the talk page using {{refideas}}. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:47, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I decided to remove all of them since the article is not short on good sources. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:29, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One more minor point:
  • The last sentence of the last paragraph of the lead should be reworked as the first sentence to follow the structure of the article (history comes before various disciplines).
    Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:11, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, support on 1a, 1c-e, 2, and 4; weak support on comprehensiveness. I still need to think through this question of what types of sources should be used to satisfy comprehensiveness w/r/t broad concept articles, but I agree that Afro-pessimism probably doesn't need to be in there at this point. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:55, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I have a current FAC at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Addie Viola Smith/archive1, if you have time to take a look (it would also be a pretty easy source review). voorts (talk/contributions) 23:00, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot for the support. I'll see what I can do about that source review. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:11, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Query for the coordinators

[edit]

@FAC coordinators: I wanted to check whether this nomination is ready to be closed. It is 32 days old, has image and source reviews, and 4 supports. Phlsph7 (talk) 06:45, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Big topic! I would prefer to see another comprehensive review. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:15, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, my peer review was conducted with the content-comprehensiveness criterion of FAC foremost in mind, and – in contrast to the equally general knowledge nomination – I found few causes for concern.
It is still my judgment that such a general article on existence should more directly address the status of social institutions. In particular, to whatever extent language shapes our basic sense of reality, how is this not discussed? It has certainly been overstated, but I do not think it can be, on that account, overlooked. More generally, we overwhelmingly live in the domain of a socially established "second nature", which is a concept with a philosophical pedigree dating back to Aristotle. I don't recall this getting much attention in my readings of the pre-FAC version of the article. What I read a few times in the course of doing the PR did not do justice to my satisfaction to this, in my considered judgment, crucial dimension of existence.
(Edit: my other suggestions, you will see were largely adopted.)
I'm willing to read the current version, however, and elaborate a little more on what I think is missing (assuming it's still missing) so that my review can be, as much as possible, assessed by non-philosophers. Perhaps it is fringe in a way that I simply do not see!
My concern is only to not again become involved in the kind of unproductive meta-debates that threw the knowledge nomination off the rails. During that review and subsequent conversation, multiple editors mentioned that the concerns I raised should have been addressed in PR, and I've tried to take the cue and weigh in there instead. But if another content-based review of this article might help avoid a second nomination not likely to attract additional reviewers, I'd be happy to go over it again. If I ask for something unreasonable, however, other reviewers and silent watchers need to please speak up. I have no desire to hold the status of this or any other article hostage. Patrick (talk) 23:27, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to see what you have to say regarding the current version of the article. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:38, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your expression of interest! In view of recent history, however, I am going to wait for input from FAC coordinators. Cheers, Patrick (talk) 02:14, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I slightly expanded the current discussion of social kinds/institutions and mentioned the theory that language influences/determines how humans perceive the world. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:38, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I somehow misread this as a suggestion to restart the whole nomination process, which seemed to me not a great idea. (Sorry, all!)
Wanting a fresh perspective on the current nomination process makes much better sense. A solicitation at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Philosophy might yield a new set of eyes.
In any case, it's not likely I would have anything to add to my comments already visible to !voting participants.
Cheers, Patrick (talk) 20:55, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the additions, @Phlsph7:. I think they improve the article, even just down near the bottom. I gave it another read and, as expected, have little more to add, with only one or two points that could be a content issue:
  • In the lead, shouldn't the essence of an entity are its essential features or qualities be the essence of an entity is its essential...? This reads to me as wrong, and I'm pretty sure it's ungrammatical.
    Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:02, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merriam-Webster (2024). "Definition of Existence". Merriam-Webster Dictionary. is not a high-quality source supporting According to some idealists, this may apply to all of reality. The other two, however, should be fine on their own.
    This source was mainly added for the first part of that passage: Existence is commonly associated with mind-independent reality.... I moved it to cover only that part. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:02, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kierkegaard and Nietzsche predate the term/movement "existentialism", and Camus did not accept the label for himself.
    They are commonly categorized as existentialists. The names of Kierkegaard and Nietzsche were explicitly requested above so I kept them but I removed Camus. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:02, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should there be a discussion of Aristotle's concept of entelechy? It was important for Leibniz and a lot of late modern German thought, where it was often elaborated in organic metaphors. Put differently, does the article discuss the existence of "real potentialities", such as that of an (actually existing) acorn to become an oak? The acorn not an oak, but it still has that potential, which a tulip bulb, for instance, does not.
This comes up briefly in "Modes and degrees of existence", but it's associated only with Platonic forms. And then an argument against it gets more lines of exposition than the original claim. I would just suggest this position deserves a little bit more of a hearing. (I wasn't reading the article with this specifically in mind, so maybe the issue is already addressed and I just missed it.)
The contrast between potentiality and actuality is mentioned in the discussion of Aristotle in the history section. I added a footnote to expand the explanation and use the acorn-oak example. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:34, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some people coming here are probably expecting to find discussion of what is the most fundamental physical unit, e.g., quarks, strings, etc. Should something be done to throw them more of a life-line?
    Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:15, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Besides this, I do not have any further to add. I'm happy to join those who are already supporting a pass on prose. How to address FA comprehensiveness of the treatment of such an extraordinarily general phenomenon, however, remains unclear to me. Coordinators, however, are welcome to take into consideration that I have no specific content-based objections apart from the minor issues mentioned immediately above.
(Oh, and feel free, anyone, to relocate this comment if it makes more sense elsewhere on the page.)
Cheers, Patrick (talk) 18:51, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your review and the support on prose. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:15, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ian Rose: thanks for having a look at this nomination and clarifying the issue. Jenhawk777 was involved in the peer review and they said they would consider doing an FA review as well but they were not sure whether this is acceptable given that they already did the peer review. My gut tells me that it shouldn't be a problem but I thought it best to confirm with you before getting started. Phlsph7 (talk) 18:00, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@FAC coordinators: I Jenhawk777 would very much like to participate in this FAC, but I have already participated in its peer review and made contributions there, so I need to know if it is copacetic for me to do so here? Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:35, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
By all means. FrB.TG (talk) 04:12, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jenhawk777, it would be great if you could review. As FrB.TG notes, your having opined at PR is not an obstacle to this; IMO it would be an advantage. Nor would having edited the article by way of, say, a copy edit or clarifying the sourcing. It is helpful if this is declared if it amounts to a significant proportion of the article, but usually this sort of detailed advance knowledge of an article is considered a plus for a reviewer at FAC. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:54, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome. I am pleased. Thank you so much for answering. I will get to that this evening. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:08, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jenhawk777

[edit]

I haven't seen a source review in these excellent previous reviews of content, so I am going to make a stab at a random check on those.Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:56, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]
Beginning with #1, it's good.Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:56, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On #9, I could only access Van Inwagen. He's sufficient to support the sentence, so you might want to remove the other two.
#10 all three are good
#15; I didn't pursue this one all the way, but Robinson in Reason, Faith and History did not have pages 7 and 139 available for preview, and a word search for the quote using perceived did not come back to either of those pages.

OOps! Sorry, I have been interrupted by RL. I will be back. I promise! Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:29, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I found the relevant passage from Robinson 2008, p. 139: We could also draw on a distinction between a thick and a thin concept of existence. The thin concept is the logical property that everything existent shares. A thick concept would be one that provided a metaphysical analysis of what it is to exist. What this is, and even whether there is such, will depend on substantive metaphysical truth. For example, according to Berkeley, esse est percipi vel percipere. This is not presented as a contingent truth, but as the correct philosophical perspective on what existence is. If he is right, it could not have been otherwise. According to Plotinus, being is what emanates from the One in its act of self-understanding. In both cases (and I do not wish to imply that they cannot be reconciled), a correct analysis of the source of existence throws light on the nature of existence for all existent things. This is not just a feature of idealist or theistic metaphysics. If certain sorts of arguments correctly showed that everything was spatial curvature, or spatio-temporally located causes – or even water – then they would show what the real as opposed to nominal essence of existence was. We could conceive it might be otherwise, but it could not. The "7" belonged to the chapter, which is unfortunately difficult to distinguish with the short footnote citation. The chapter is already given in the full citation template so I removed it from the short footnote citation. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:48, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well done. I love quotes, but there is no way around the fact that they are often problematic. Since you have multiple refs for relatively accepted concepts, I think that's entirely sufficient.Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:06, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for the interruption. Unexpected company dropped by, and darned if they don't expect me to pay attention to them! So - beginning again.
  • First, I want to whine a little about over citation in this article. Having multiple references for every, single, citation makes it much more difficult for any interested party to actually check sources. Other editors have fussed at me about this before as well. They admonished me to pick the best ONE, and go with it, unless the content being discussed is controversial, or they actually reference different concepts, in which case, they should be placed accordingly. This article has multiples repeatedly. It's not a plus. It's actually a hindrance. Source checking is tedious enough without having to check five of them at every one. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:56, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Apologies for the frustration with the references, I'll see what I can do about it. From previous reviews, my impression is that different reviewers have different philosophies about the use of references. For some, it's sufficient if the references of a passage confirm the main facts while others want also minor details and examples to be covered, which often requires the addition of extra references. For philosophy-related articles, reviewers sometimes challenge views that seem uncontroversial, which can be mitigated by having additional sources. If in doubt, I usually try to err on the side of caution by having too many rather than to few references to ensure WP:V. Source variety has the advantage that people who cannot access one specific source are able to use one of the alternatives. In an attempt to reach a middle ground, I removed several citations. We are not yet close to the one-reference-per-passage principle but I hope it's better now. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:36, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Believe me, I not only understand completely, I also sympathize. I edit articles on religion almost exclusively, and the only topic I can think of that might be considered more inherently contentious is politics. Everything gets challenged - and often in conflicting ways - one editor wants to remove what another wants to add, and so on. In places, multiple references are unavoidable, but when multiple refs are all saying the same thing, it is legitimate to see them as unnecessary. You are a marvelous writer and philosopher, and you have done an excellent job here. Do what you can. I accept the compromise. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:32, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your kind words. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:15, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was actually up to #20 in this section. The link to the archived version you cited of Platter's Divine Simplicity and the Triune Identity would not open for me, the google books version had no page numbers, and the Internet Archive didn't have the book at all. How did you access it? I am okay with you simply removing it if you like. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:56, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The preview function for Platter 2021 works for me. It could be that the preview depends on one's geolocation. The source explains how Aquinas distinguishes essense and existence. I removed it since the passage is already covered by the remaining references. I have access to most of the sources so feel free to ask me if you have problems accessing one of them.
I don't think that reviewers are expected to check every single reference, which would be a tremendous task for lengthy articles. They usually perform a spotcheck of a few selected references to see whether they support the claims they are used for. First-time nominators have to pass a spotcheck but spotchecks are not compulsory for every nomination. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:38, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A spot-check is all I am doing. Perhaps location is the issue, but removal solves the problem, so thank you. Jenhawk777 (talk) 15:55, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also looked at #21 from this section. Why no capitalization or explanation for the question of Being here where it's first mentioned? Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:56, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I found a way to mention the "question of being". Some translations of Heidegger capitalize being while others don't. If you want, we could capitalize it. But it might be confusing for readers not familiar with Heidegger since the term being is usually not capitalized outside the Heideggerian context. I'm not sure if it's a good idea to dive deeper into Heidegger's philosophy since we might have to deal with some terminological issues if we do. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:54, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The reference capitalizes it, so that's why I asked, but it's appropriate either way. I like the added explanation here, and agree it's important not to go down the rabbit hole with him. Jenhawk777 (talk) 15:59, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Types of existing entities
[edit]
Remove this sentence - Different types of existing entities are discussed in academic literature. - it's not necessary. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:56, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:57, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Singular and general
[edit]
#24 I really liked Hofweber's way of describing the problem you mention here as having two parts: "what the stuff of reality is made out of" and "what the most general features and relations of these things are". Is there a way to include this to better clarify what's being discussed?
Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:46, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's super easy for non-philosophers to get completely lost discussing philosophy. Simplifying complex concepts for non-specialists is the goal of WP. The use of specialized terms - "instantiate" "spatio-temporal" "universals" and "particulars" - are terms that philosophers understand that are not automatically understood by others. It looks to me, very much, like all of the above reviewers are people with some grounding in philosophy, so they are familiar with these questions, and didn't call you on it, but what about those not familiar - those sophomores we write for? Simplification is a gift and a skill, and you have it, but it isn't consistently applied in this article. I find that a serious issue. What's the point of an article that no one who doesn't already know all of this could understand? Stanford, whom you reference in more than one case, is dependably good at simplification, yet that is not often included here. As I said in peer review, I would like to see simplification of the complex more consistently throughout this article. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:56, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I managed to remove the word "spatio-temporal" from the article. I moved the footnote explaining "instantiate" to the first occurrence. In priniple, the term could probably be removed from the article by replacing it with the word "exemplify". However, this would create problems since it is used in some quotes in our article, which would need to be removed as well. I added corresponding footnotes for the terms "particular" and "universal". The word "particular" could possibly be replaced with "individual" though I'm not sure that this makes much of a difference. I don't think that something similar is feasable for the word "universal". I'm not sure whether removing all the key technical terms of this topic from the article would have a negative impact on comprehensiveness. Which "Stanford" are you referring to? Phlsph7 (talk) 12:24, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is excellent, and I thank you for your efforts. Philosophers invented those terms for good reasons, and replacing them with sentence long definitions causes repeated awkwardness and corresponding struggle for us editors. Nevertheless, a sophomore is a sophomore, and talking - or writing - over their heads is just a waste of time and space. No pun intended. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:39, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy Jenhawk777 (talk) 15:55, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • In pursuit of simplicity, about half of paragraph three belongs in paragraph two, and vice versa. Keep that idea of simplification at the front of your mind here, and you can probably cut a good chunk of this out entirely. Concise is always, always better. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:56, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Which parts of the 2nd and the 3rd paragraph are you referring to? Their topics are slightly different. The topic of the 2nd paragraph is whether singular existence is a special case of general existence or the other way round. The 3rd paragraph does not state that one is a special case of the other. It discusses the question of whether there is general existence without singular existence. Even if the answer is no, this does not mean that general existence is a special case of singular existence. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:34, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There are always alternatives to organization, but yours is fine just the way it is. Ignore this one. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:41, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I love this. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:35, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
#25 I was unable to run down Prior. The archived ref you have opens to Liebnitz. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:56, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From Prior 2006, p. 493: Philosophical discussion of the notion of existence ... First, there is the problem of what we are to say about the existence of fictitious objects, such as centaurs, dragons, and Pegasus; second, there is the problem of what we are to say about the existence of abstract objects, such as qualities, relations, and numbers. I removed the unhelpful link. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:05, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well done. Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:00, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would remove all redlinks - Henry S. Leonard - in an FA that are not refs to non-English WP's.
Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:08, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are simply so many refs, I am going to skip over most of them. I have found some problems in at least one ref in nearly every citation I checked, but they are small things that are easily corrected or deleted, so don't fret, just fix or delete.
Concrete and abstract
[edit]
They exist in space and time, and influence each other; they have causal powers and are affected by other concrete objects. Simplify causal powers by defining it - something along the lines of: "They exist in space and time, and influence each other. They are caused by and are able to cause effects on other concrete objects." An example wouldn't hurt. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:56, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:08, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Still needs simplifying/replacing or at least defining. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:08, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to further simplify your suggested passage. It currently reads: They exist in space and time. They have effects on each other, like when a rock falls on a plant and damages it. I'm not sure that there is much more in terms of simplification that can be done. We could simplify the 2nd sentence by splitting it in two: They exist in space and time. They have effects on each other. This happens when a rock falls on a plant and damages it. To my ears, having a series of this type of short and simplistic sentences sounds like bad prose. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:42, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Short sentences may be bad prose, but at least it is understandable prose. I prefer long complex sentences myself, but in about one out of every three reviews, someone will tell me to split them. Your fix is perfect. This section is readable and understandable. It is phenomenal. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:46, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The second paragraph in this section is really good.
#34, for Faulkner and Gregersen p.298, I followed your link, but it wasn't there. It had no image available, so I couldn't verify. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:56, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From Faulkner & Gregersen 2017, p. 298: According to Platonists, abstract objects exist but not anywhere in the physical world or in people's minds. The preview works for me, so, as mentioned above, this could be caused by geolocation. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:17, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what the problem is, but I am having repeated problems with the archived links. I can access most of the linked citations using other methods, but not the links themselves. Nothing on simplifying jargon? Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Technical language says Do not use specialised vocabulary in contexts where more widely understood alternatives will do. I did mention that on the PR. Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:10, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For me, the regular links to google books preview the pages (at least some pages). The archived links to google books work but I can't preview the pages. I'll see what I can do about the simplifications. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:11, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm betting it's my security software giving me grief. Jenhawk777 (talk) 15:56, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. About Realists, the article doesn't mention Plato, which is fine, he was a Realist, but this source specifically refers to Platonists and not Realists in general. Maybe just adding "Realists such as Plato accept the idea..." to better reflect the source.
I can't get to Prior, again. Is he a reference for "abstract objects have independent existence" or for "opinions about abstract objects are divided"? Can you get that for me? Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:03, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I implemented the suggestion. From Prior 2006, pp. 498–499: Some of these linguistic suggestions were taken very seriously by Plato and others have been taken seriously by other writers, and it is now common to describe as Platonism the view that abstract objects “exist” in a perfectly literal sense as part of the “furniture of the universe” alongside tables and chairs ... The view that there is no necessity to attribute existence in any sense to anything but concrete individuals is generally called nominalism. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:03, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Independent existence it is. Good ref. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:48, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Possible, contingent, and necessary
[edit]
Begin the second paragraph with your second sentence: "It is an open question..."
This paragraph mixes these ideas. That makes it harder for the non-specialist to follow. Take the first sentence (Most entities...) and the third sentence, (According to one view, ...) and move them - either to close the second paragraph, let them stand as a paragraph between the two you have, or let them open paragraph three. Three paragraphs for three concepts is easy to follow. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:56, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:07, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • #44 Pruss & Rasmussen specifically argue for the necessity of God. That's a good reference for sentence #3 and paragraph four, however, it says on page 2 quite specifically, we take no sides on what sorts of things can be causes; we leave it open, for instance, whether numbers, properties ... and other so called 'abstract' entities may have causal powers... I'm afraid I think your sentence that has them saying ... all abstract objects have necessary existence. misrepresents their actual view. Find a different source or delete the sentence.
  • I see this remains unchanged. Perhaps I am mistaken, but if so, and you intend to leave it as is, please find me the exact location for the statement you attribute to them - ... all abstract objects have necessary existence. - since I found one that seemingly contradicts it. Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:06, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It was my impression that the quote given below supports the sentence. But there is not much point in fighting over it so I added a second source, which says x is an abstract entity x necessarily exists. It shouldn't be too difficult to find more sources if that is still an issue. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:57, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The statement itself is not the issue, since clearly some philosophers do think that. It's that the source does not support it. The quote you reference Some philosophers think that the divide between concrete and abstract things coincides with the divide between contingent and necessary things. cannot possibly be summarized as ... all abstract objects have necessary existence. And even if language could somehow be twisted into that absolute statement rather than a comparison between two categories, it still would not support the attribution, since this is actually a discussion of Krausses' views and not the author's. A different reference that makes the claim - or a restatement - will do just fine. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:57, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you think that the 2nd source, Cowling 2017, pp. 82–83, is sufficient to support this claim? Phlsph7 (talk) 11:42, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes - if you change "According to one view..." to "Nominalists view..." Link nominalists, and no more is necessary. That said, removing Pruss & Rasmussen is still needed. I have looked through most of their book trying to find something for you to support this claim. Perhaps you can find something I missed, but it isn't page 4. One source is sufficient. I'd go with that. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:33, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I moved the reference to Pruss & Rasmussen. I used a slightly different formulation since Cowling 2017 does not generalize this view to all nominalists. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:28, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not their view. According to them, this is a few of some philosophers. From Pruss & Rasmussen 2018, p. 4: Some philosophers think that the divide between concrete and abstract things coincides with the divide between contingent and necessary things. This is also more or less what we say. I can look for more sources if you think that it is controversial that some philosophers believe that. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:18, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The entire book is about proving that there is such a thing as a necessary concrete being able to cause events (p.2). In working toward this goal, they do not take a position on what kinds of things can be causes, including whether or not abstract concepts can be or are necessary themselves. This means they take no position on whether abstract concepts have necessity. They don't need to. They are in pursuit of a concrete necessary being not an abstract one. You are correct that page 4 is part of the discussion of other views, but that does not automatically make it theirs. Theirs is stated on page 2. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:14, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They include some good simplifications you might could use: "There was a time before items of our ordinary existence existed" and they have a list of them as examples of contingent items as things that may or may not exist.(Page 1) "A necessary thing exists no matter what" ... "a necessary thing cannot be assembled or disassembled" (Page 1) it is "anything capable of causation" (Page 2). Good accessible definitions there.

Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:56, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:29, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've been at this for a few hours now and I am getting frustrated and tired, so I am going to take a break. I will be back. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:56, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Physical and mental
[edit]
The first paragraph in this section is brilliant. I don't want to look at any of the sources here lest I find a problem.
The second paragraph is also good, but I wonder that materialists and dualists are defined while 'Philosophy of the Mind' - currently a hot topic in philosophy - is not. Arguments here stretch along a spectrum between a purely causal sense that reduces mind to matter with no ontological discontinuity at one end, to a purely definitional sense at the other end that points out the impossibility of communicating subjective internal feelings of pain, color, taste, etc. by talking about molecules - where in the brain does a burned finger manifest? - and make it obvious there is ontological discontinuity. Qualia, consciousness, intentionality and causal power - going into detail is probably another rabbit hole - which you are good at avoiding - but perhaps at least a sentence on the issues? Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:58, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The term "philosophy of mind" seems to be quite self-explanatory. If you want, we can add a definition like "Philosophy of mind is the branch of philosophy that studies the nature of mental phenomena and how they are related to the physical world". Some might consider this superfluous.
I'm not sure if I understand your second point. Currently, we just present the main views without going into arguments for and against them. You seem to suggest that we should discuss the arguments as well. This could make the section quite lenghy. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:42, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, it is only self-explanatory to those with familiarity, however, further discussion would add length, which I am reluctant to do. So, what to do?
The explanation already here begins with Idealists... but what kind of idealist? Plato, Leibniz, Berkeley, Kant, Hegel? Marx? Doesn't Idealists reject this view and state that mind is the ultimate foundation of existence ... assume the existence of an ultimate mind? That doesn't seem reflective of Hegel or Berkeley or Marx. This would, therefore, need to be broken down and that would add all kinds of length.
I prefer your superfluous sentence. Remove the sentence that begins with Idealists... and work in a better definition - something along the lines of "Philosophy of mind studies the human mind as something that requires more than a simply material explanation." You could even add that this is the 'mind-body' problem, and that would segue nicely into the problem of dualism and Descartes.
Yet, this remains the foundation of all scientific knowledge. Such a dilemma! My second point was just discussion of the interesting issues, not really a point. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:18, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I kept the sentence about idealism but weakened its claim. By the way, Marx is usually not categorized as an idealist and philosophy of mind does not generally assume that the human mind "requires more than a simply material explanation" (materialism is one position in philosophy of mind). Phlsph7 (talk) 17:14, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Marx was a follower of Hegel's ideology early in his life, so he was an idealist who later became a materialist. Many still refer to him as an idealist as he kept some aspects of it in his later works making him a bit of both. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:05, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're correct that materialism is one position in philosophy of mind, however, what you have here as materialism is a "hard materialism" or monism - "only physical entities exist on the most-fundamental level" - therefore some construction of its opposing views is necessary, but characterizing that using all idealists is just wrong.
Contemporary debate is generally between material monism and dualism. But Wasserman in (“Materialism and Mentality.” available on JSTOR) asks "How could people claim conscious awareness of something unless it is assumed that the conscious awareness 'causes' the claim to be made?" That question can be summarized as the issue of mind as something more than simple physicalism can explain. Conscious states are irreducible to physical states. That is something more.
Idealism: New Essays in Metaphysics by Goldschmidt and Pearce also refers to "irreducible mentality".
  • Perhaps my simplification is an over-simplification. As you will. But this is not a good sentence as it stands, even with your redo, as it does not reflect the sources as evidenced below, and does not give a good description of the current issues - imo. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:05, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Idealists reject this view and state that mind is the ultimate foundation of existence while physical entities have a derivative form of existence, for instance, as mental representations or products of consciousness. I can't find the first half of this in Kelly, though it could be used to support the second half of the sentence. That is solely on page 88, however, not 87, and it is solely about Berkeley, not idealism in general.
Goldschmidt and Pearce do open with "idealists" in general, but in the last sentence of the first paragraph, it says different idealistic theories attribute very different sorts of priority to the mental which contradicts the claim being made for all idealists. They go on to describe Berkeley's view in a similar manner to your description: minds alone are fundamental and everything else depends upon them but again, that is only Berkeley.
Darvill is a dictionary of Archaeology, and doesn't seem like a good reference. It makes incorrect statements such as phenomena and events exist only in so far as they are perceived as ideas. No one actually claims the objects or events have no objective existence, just that we are unable to perceive what that might be. All we can know is subjective. The next sentence the mental or cognitive world is more important is also inaccurate. "Importance" is not the issue for any idealist.
Smart is the Brittanica reference on materialism and makes only one mention of Hegel as an idealist.
None of these are sufficient. This needs fixing. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:29, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As it stands, this statement qualifies as OR. You do see that, right? I'm giving you all the room you need to fix it too. Take advantage of that. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:35, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I made some adjustments to the sourcing. Do you think this solves the problem? Phlsph7 (talk) 11:38, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The problem remains. You make a claim for "Idealists" with no source that says this "group" makes the statements you attribute to them. If no reliable source has combined the material in this way, it is original research. Berendzen is a great reference - but still doesn't say "Idealists..." That needs to be dropped entirely. If it were me, I would also remove all four of the original refs. How about something along these lines: "Idealism, a minority view in contemporary philosophy (Berendzen p.2), rejects matter as ultimate and views the mind as the most basic reality."(Sprigge) That's sufficient and simple, and reflects the sources. I have to say, I really like the sentences that open and close this section. Make these changes and this section is done. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:25, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I implemented your suggestion. I replaced Berendzen p.2 with another source since I couldn't find the supporting passage there. I'm not sure about your initial concern that a general claim about "idealism" in a source cannot support a claim about "idealists" (as a generic term) in an article. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:09, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP says that precise analysis must have been published by a reliable source concerning the topic before it can be published on Wikipedia.
Allow me to quote from the Stanford article on Idealism: Optimists who believe that, in the long run, good will prevail are often called “idealists”. This is not because such people are thought to be devoted to a philosophical doctrine... Even within philosophy, the terms “idealism” and “idealist” are used in different ways, which often makes their meaning dependent on the context... Then it goes on to say: all forms of idealism ...have in common the view that... which is a source for making a common reference to idealism in general - but not idealists.
You acknowledge here that you have taken claims about idealism and changed it to idealists, which imo, is not a generic term and amounts to OR. But perhaps you are right, perhaps I am being overly conservative in interpreting WP's rules. This is an FA candidate, and it's my understanding they are strict about these things, but it might be wise to ask. @FAC coordinators: can you please give me instruction on this? Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:00, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here is probably not the best place to deep dive into this topic since the relevant passage is not part of the article anymore and the FAC coordinators are not official authorities on general content and policy disputes. We could continue this discussion on your talk page or you could ask at Wikipedia:Teahouse or Wikipedia:Help desk. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:20, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I like the change you made, and of course you are right, this is now moot. I thought the coordinators would give me guidance on FAC requirements, that's all. This is done now. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:16, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Others
[edit]

This section is also excellent. I checked all of #55. I think I, personally, would remove the APA, but the others are good. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:58, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Once again I am interrupted. I apologize. You know that, overall, my opinion is, this is an excellent article. I do not consider myself finished however. I will be back. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:58, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:44, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Modes and degrees of existence
[edit]
#60 and 61, I love this IEP article. It's a great synopsis, and it is accurately portrayed here.
Good discussion of Inwagen. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:19, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Theories of the nature of existence
[edit]
I love this section. #69 and #70 are good. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:19, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Second-order theories
[edit]
The first paragraph is going to lose most readers. Actually, this whole section is problematic, except for the last paragraph, which is clear and easy to follow. IMO, explaining philosophy to sophomores is as hard as explaining quantum physics to second graders. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:19, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you might consider restating A key reason against characterizing existence as a property of individuals is that existence is in important ways different from regular properties like being a building and being 443.2 meters tall: regular properties express what an object is like but existence does not as "A key reason against characterizing existence as a property of individuals is that existence differs from regular properties. Regular properties, like being a building 443.2 meters tall, express what an object is like but do not directly describe whether or not that building exists." Santa Claus can be described, but that does not provide anything on his existence. Dropping the last half of the next sentence ... because without it, objects cannot instantiate any properties. would simplify and clarify as well.
#74 is good. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:19, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, this topic is difficult but it gets a lot of attention in the overview sources so we can't really avoid it. I implemented your suggestions. I didn't remove the last half of the sentence but reformulated it instead. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:26, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Always smart to make use of what a reviewer gives you. I'd say this is excellent and done now. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:38, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First-order theories
[edit]

This section is an extremely difficult one, and you maneuver through it quite well. Since there is a good and complete discussion that follows, how about cutting down There are two types of first-order theories; according to Meinongianism, existence is a property of some but not all entities, which implies there are nonexistent entities; according to universalism, existence is a universal property exemplified by every entity into "There are two types of first-order theories: Meinongianism and universalism." Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:19, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:27, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Meinongianism
[edit]

Perhaps moving that nice and simple description into the first sentence here: "Meinongianism, which describes existence as a property of some, but not all entities, was first formulated by Alexius Meinong."

I'm going to have to quit for a while, but I will return. I love this article. You have done amazing work with complex topics. Don't be troubled by me raking you over the coals. It will add substantive weight to my ongoing and unwavering opinion that this is indeed one of WP's best articles. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:19, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:30, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Universalism
[edit]

All good. Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:34, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

History
[edit]

I am not doing this section. It is not comprehensive, and making it so would lengthen it enough to make it a separate article - which it should be. History doesn't add anything of real necessary value to this particular article. It should be split off into another FA for you. Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:34, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The opinions about the value of history in philosophy differ widely. Most overview sources on existence discuss the historical dimension of this concept at least to some extent, so I think we should follow their lead by at least covering the most important developments. For example, Prior 2006 has different sections dedicated to different historical periods and Nelson 2022 dedicates the majority of their lead section to this issue. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:44, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As you will. I won't hold it against you. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:40, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In various disciplines
[edit]
Formal logic
[edit]

All good. Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:34, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Epistemology, philosophy of mind, and philosophy of language
[edit]

Either the title needs to be changed to represent what's actually discussed here, or the discussion, which is mostly about perception, does. If the change concerning philosophy of mind is made up in section "Physical and Mental" then it doesn't need to be here, and epistemology isn't really discussed at all.

The last sentence of the first paragraph (the one about perception) belongs to the epistemology of perception (see the discussion of this problem at Epistemological Problems of Perception#2.1 Varieties of Direct Presence). We could move the contents of this subsection into the subsection "Others" if you prefer. This way, we avoid a title. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:48, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I like this idea. Avoiding a title is a time-honored approach. Yes, that sentence: In relation to perception, the problem of reference questions whether and to what extent perceptual impressions put the perceiver in contact with reality by presenting existing objects rather than illusions. really, really needs simplifying. Since you mention epistemology, then don't explain the connection, that connection should probably be made for your readers. Perhaps removing the title will eliminate this requirement. You can decide, but do remember that your readers won't know what you know.
Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:26, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and speaking of titles, you have three sections titled the same: "Others". That is problematic for WP. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:43, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This would be a problem if these subsections all belonged to the same main section but I don't think it's an issue since they belong to different main sections. The links from the table of contents to the different subsections work as expected. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:26, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP MOS says For technical reasons, section headings should: Be unique within a page, so that section links lead to the right place. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:11, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Thanks for looking up the guideline. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:23, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Others
[edit]

I am down to the last section, but I seem to have gotten far enough ahead of your responses that I should probably not give you more right now. I'll wait on you. I don't want to give my final opinion until everything is resolved. Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:34, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The first sentence of the first paragraph is unnecessary. You don't need to state what you go on to explain.
I left it since it helps make it clear to readers why these topics are discussed in an article on existence. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:27, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I recommend splitting the first paragraph into two beginning at "A similar problem concerns ..."
Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:27, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are several awkwardly long and over-complicated sentences in the section on existentialism, which I grant you is difficult to explain with any simplicity. I like the list of common characteristics in the Stanford article that does simplify things some. You've worked a couple of them in toward the end, but perhaps a mention of the others in that second sentence? Instead of "One of its key ideas..." try "Among its key ideas including (any not otherwise mentioned) is existence precedes..." and so on.
Done. I'm not sure that we need a more comprehensive discussion of the other ideas of existentialism since the main connection here is the concept of existence. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:37, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't suppose you'd be willing to cut the last paragraph to only the first sentence would you? The discussion is inadequate (i.e. you mention the problem of evil without mentioning Evolutionary theodicy), but an adequate discussion seems like a rabbit-hole. Perhaps avoiding the whole thing? Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:00, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion was explicitly requested during the peer review. I tried to restrict it to the most central points, meaning that many details were left out. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:37, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Phlsph7 All changes made here are good ones. I am also willing to accept what you have opted not to change as well. I don't agree, but that's just a personal opinion, so I will let that go and declare this section done. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:16, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusion

[edit]
  • Support. I have been through this article multiple times, in depth, and have randomly checked both sources and content from top to bottom. There were very few necessary changes, and they have been done. I probably know this article as well as the original editor now, and it is my considered opinion that it meets FA requirements. It is extremely well written. It simplifies complex ideas in a well-organized and easily accessible fashion. It is comprehensive and well-researched, reflecting contemporary views on this topic. It is neutral and compliant with WP policy - even the most conservative interpretation of those policies. Therefore, in my opinion, this is a top notch article that deserves FA status. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:41, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your support, I appreciate all the time and effort you have poured into this review. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:20, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 10 June 2024 [26].

Blackrocks Brewery

[edit]
Nominator(s): Ed [talk] [OMT] 04:14, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blackrocks is a small craft brewery in Marquette, Michigan, US, located on the south shore of Lake Superior. Over the last 14 years it has grown from a (remarkably) small operation in a former residential home to being Michigan's ninth-largest brewer.

This article is a change of pace for me, as all of my previous FAs are related to warships. It has undergone a GAN by An anonymous username, not my real name and a pre-FAC review from Mike Christie. Thanks for your thoughts! Ed [talk] [OMT] 04:14, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I don't have anything to add to the comments I made on the talk page. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:54, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Comments

[edit]
  • There's a few statements with "as of" dates, almost all of which are in the present tense, no matter what year they refer to e.g. "As of 2019, 51K IPA is Blackrocks' most popular beer" - 2019 was five years ago, so should this be in the past tense....? I note that you do have "As of 2021, Blackrocks was the ninth-largest brewery" in the past tense
  • "made it the second largest brewery [...] and raised them" - subject changes from being singular to plural mid-sentence
  • That's all I got - nice work! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:28, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:08, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

[edit]

Recusing to review.

  • Link taproom.
  • "location is located" is a little clumsy.
"Blackrocks Brewery's customer-facing location is located".
  • "That soon became a common occurrence, and the two soon expanded". "soon ... soon ..." A tweak perhaps?
  • "an upper patio space followed later in 2022." later in 2022? What opened earlier in 2022?
  • "a local 50K ski marathon plus an additional 1K that would be needed". Kilometer needs writing out in full in both cases.
  • "It was one of the first beers they ever canned"> Delete "ever".
  • "one of the best new breweries in the state of Michigan". Out of how many?
  • "Blackrocks produced about 11,000 barrels of beer". What would this be in more familiar units?

Nice. I feel like a beer now. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:54, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ed, nudge. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:33, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: Thanks for the review! All but the last item is complete. Barrel (unit) is a unit of measurement that for US beer specifically converts to 120 liters, 31 gallons, or 26 imperial gallons. To my actual surprise, {{convert}} can handle this conversion, but converting all five of those listings individually will look ... messy. An alternative is converting them in a separate sentence, but there would be no reference for it. I assume that falls under WP:CALC, but I wanted to run that solution by you first (or see if you had a better idea!).
I have some experience of barrels, firkins, butts, tuns etc. In the context of microbreweries even. A suggestion: "Blackrocks' first one-barrel brewing system", after "one-barrel" insert a footnote stating what that is in US gallons, imperial gallons, and litres. "which allowed the brewery to expand production to 4,500 barrels per year" → 'which allowed the brewery to expand production to 4,500 barrels, 140,000 US gallons, per year'. IMO that would be sufficient for a reader, although it would smack of IAR. How does that sound? Yes, WP:CALC applies, but surely it is not difficult to find a source? If pressed, I have used Rodger, N.A.M. (2004). The Safeguard of the Sea. London: Penguin. ISBN 978-0-14-029724-9. pages xix–xx at FAC for similar conversions. Let me know if you would like a copy.
@Gog the Mild: My apologies -- by the way you phrased that, I thought the explanation would be helpful. I went looking for a beer-specific reference, and got this. The Encyclopedia of Beer would look better, but they typo'd the conversion to 177 liters. The article has been updated. Ed [talk] [OMT] 20:57, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also note that for the 50K/1K bullet, I didn't convert 50 or 1 kilometers to miles because the output looked more confusing than helpful to me. It's the name that's important for the purposes of this article, and not the actual distance. I assume you thought of this already, given that you only asked for the unit to be spelled out, but I figured I'd list the point just in case. Ed [talk] [OMT] 03:39, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You assume correctly.
  • "Blackrocks Brewery's customer-facing location is located in two former residential homes". "... location is located ..." is a little clumsy. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:30, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "That was up from 9,000 US beer barrels (1,100,000 L; 280,000 US gal) barrels of beer in 2020". ?
  • "7,500 US beer barrels (880,000 L; 230,000 US gal) barrels sold in 2018". Is this a typo?
  • The last sentence is now almost unreadable. I am not sure we really need the repeated conversions; and I am sure that we don't need to be be repeatedly told that the barrels are "US beer barrels". Gog the Mild (talk) 21:53, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

I take that "Magnaghi, Russell (2015). Upper Peninsula Beer: A History of Brewing Above the Bridge. Charleston, SC: American Palate/The History Press." is a reliable source? I see their name mentioned sometimes - are they this guy? I kinda wonder if #27 has due weight concerns, solar panels on roofs aren't exactly a novel thing. What's "vinepair.com"? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:09, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Thanks for looking at this! 1) Magnaghi is a well-known historian of the region. I actually had a local history class with him back in the day. There's more info about him in this pdf. 2) I've removed the solar panel mention and source. 3) VinePair is a drinks-focused digital publication out of New York that's been around for about a decade. I found several citations to their unique name in Google Books, so I treated them as reliable. Ed [talk] [OMT] 03:10, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I guess. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:36, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
SC

Just a few comments from me:

  • “location is located“ is a bit jarring; “premises are located” is one possibility, but there are others.
  • “37 feet (11 m) by 28 feet (8.5 m)” is a cumbersome beast. “37-by-28-foot (11.3 m × 8.5 m)” (using {{convert|37x28|ft|adj=on}}) would be easier on the eye.
  • With all the conversions, the final paragraph takes a bit of work to read what is only a limited amount of text. Maybe dropping those conversions into a footnote would make it easier to read?

All very minor stuff in what is otherwise an excellent article. - SchroCat (talk) 09:09, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, SchroCat! I ended up dropping "located" and I think the sentence works great without it. I also used the convert trick (cheers for that). I'm discussing the conversions with Gog above, and expect that they'll stay dropped now. Ed [talk] [OMT] 03:00, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 10 June 2024 [27].

Mission: Impossible – Fallout

[edit]
Nominator(s): Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:43, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Mission: Impossible – Fallout. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:43, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from LegalSmeagolian

"relatively brief" - is not the case, article is potentially overly detailed. Additionally just because you liked a film does not mean the article meets the FA criteria. LegalSmeagolian (talk) LegalSmeagolian (talk) 20:14, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So what was the purpose of this comment when you clicked publish? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:36, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To highlight the size of the article and the fact that it was not relatively brief, which you must agree with to some extent as you edited your nomination to be more accurate towards the length of the article. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 21:37, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No I don't agree, I removed it because it was meant to be a joke and it's attracted unnecessary comments like this. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:40, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by TompaDompa

[edit]

Without committing to a full review, I have to agree that roughly 8,000 words is not relatively brief. It's at the upper end of what might be appropriate for most well-covered topics. I think it's a pretty good length to aim for when writing about topics where the literature is extensive—Assassination of John F. Kennedy is about that length, for instance. Rarely, some topics may warrant lengthier treatments. WP:SIZERULE says roughly the same thing, as it turns out. TompaDompa (talk) 21:18, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP: Size is a guide. When discussing popular culture topics the size goes up and with every. single. nomination. 1000 of those words are thematic analysis which I have to include, don't choose to, and am forced to make reasonable coverage thereof. Hence the actual content is 7000 words but even if it was 8000 there would be no justification for splitting the article because it's all within scope and this isn't Geocities. As always, I appreciate your boundless support Tompa, it isn't killing my passion for this process at all. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:27, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said, the current length of this article is about what I would aim for if I were writing an article on a topic about which there is (fairly) extensive literature. I don't know if this is such a topic, not having taken a close look at either the article or the sources (at least not yet), but it very well might be. Generally speaking, 1,000 words of thematic analysis by no means seems excessive to me; it obviously depends on the work in question and the coverage in the sources, but in many cases an even greater (absolute or relative) length would be appropriate. TompaDompa (talk) 22:15, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, makes sense Darkwarriorblake (talk) 15:01, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On the images, I think there are definitely better alternatives for at least Rebecca Ferguson and Henry Cavill. Ferguson's face is partly obscured by her hair in File:Rebecca Ferguson in Paris 2018.jpg—something like File:Rebecca Ferguson in 2018 (2).jpg, even if the resolution is low, would be better (she is much more recognizable in that image, at least). For Cavill, File:Henry Cavill (48418063617) (cropped)(1).jpg has him looking very far away from the camera—something like File:Henry Cavill (48417913146) (cropped).jpg, which is much closer to head-on, would be better. The image of Vanessa Kirby is likewise not a particularly good one in terms of angle and lighting, though there do not seem to be any great alternatives at Commons. The headshot used at Rotten Tomatoes is much better, as is this image at IMDb which seems to be from an outright photoshoot, but I'm guessing those aren't free. TompaDompa (talk) 19:45, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've replaced the Ferguson one, I don't particularly see much difference between the current and proposed Cavill ones but I know the proposed one has him facing out of the article which is frowned upon from a MOS perspective. The Kirby one from RT appears to actually be from the Fallout premiere according to google image search but it is professionally taken so while I can't see the copyright it's unlikely to be free, same with the IMDb one unfortunately. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:06, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Draken Bowser

[edit]

I don't immediately balk at the length, but I'll do what I can to help you cut it down to standard. I'll start off by providing my assessment on the production section, hopefully some of the suggestions can also help in polishing other sections.

  • I'm concerned with the citation stacking. Three I'd consider borderline, but often fine. Four to five stacked citations could with few exceptions be considered overkill. If several reliable sources agree there is no need to cite them all. If citing up to five sources are necessary to piece together the preceding sentence, the text is probably trying too hard.
  • The text talks a lot about the sensibilities and motivations of the involved. Maybe this is just a personal sentiment, but I occasionally find it a bit jarring to state this in prose (until things have moved further into the past), I much prefer the use of quotes. My skittishness is not universal, sentences like this is perfectly fine: "Cruise was particularly interested in resolving the long-running narrative between Ethan and his wife Julia.."
    • For example: "McQuarrie's main interest was in better exploring Ethan's emotions and motivations. He felt that the previous films made the character effectively a cipher on which the audience could project thoughts and motivations without depicting the character's true thoughts and feelings. For Fallout, McQuarrie wanted Ethan to be vulnerable and more relatable, exploring his fears such as the threat of nuclear annihilation, so audiences could establish a more emotional connection to the character." This is an occasion where I'd appreciate anchoring his motivations to a quote at some point during the paragraph.
  • "..ideas they wanted to explore through the narrative." or story.
  • "Fans often asked Cruise about Julia's fate and he wanted to provide them with closure, for Ethan and Julia which could also serve as Fallout's primary emotional narrative arc.
  • "Abandoning this plot helped other scenes come together, such as the England-based sequences." "McQuarrie described his four main women characters — Alanna, Erica, Ilsa, and Julia — as independent and not requiring Ethan's protection." I suggest cutting these as superfluous.
  • "A dispute over Cruise's pay stalled production in August 2016." "Although the dispute was resolved by September, it further delayed filming from January 2017 by several months." This can be rewritten into one sentence.
  • "The helicopter weighed 14 t (14,000 kg) while the helipad was only rated to hold four so the pilot hovered the craft imperceptibly above the pad's surface." In my estimation this is an interesting tidbit, but still trivia.
  • Filming: there are no technical details on the cameras used, although I'll have give you props for including details on lighting, which is easily overlooked. :)

I'll hold here for now. Cheers, and thanks for taking Dredd to FA-status. That's a boss movie. Draken Bowser (talk) 21:49, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just letting you know I've seen this, I've had the good fortune of spending the extended weekend in perpetual pain from migraines, I will get to this as soon as it passes. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:01, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, ain't no hurry. Get well soon though! Draken Bowser (talk) 22:58, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Funny thing, I lost my original print out and made another one. I was surprised to learn that the movie was released in 2015 (I swear I saw it a few years ago with my mates, time sure flies..), halfway through the plot-section I realized my mistake. The good news is I was able to do some light c/e-work on Rogue Nation.

Now for Fallout.

Lead

  • "McQuarrie's return marked the first time that anyone would direct more than one film in the series." Feels a bit clunky, is it ok to call him a "returning director" in English?
  • "..by the interesting filming locations the production identified and allowing.."

Plot

  • "..Ilsa explains that MI6 assigned her to kill Lane to prevent foreign governments interrogating him and prove her loyalty after working undercover as a Syndicate agent." Could use a comma or two.
  • "Walker is also unable to kill Ethan.."

Stunts and effects

  • "For the pursuit sequence through Paris after Ethan recovers Lane, Ethan's and Walker's escape truck becomes lodged in an alley, and they kick out the windscreen to escape; the scene had to be refilmed as Cavill's initial kick was powerful enough to knock it well away from the vehicle." To me this is trivia, re-shoots happen all the time. Ultimately it didn't affect the end result or impact the production.

Post production

  • "Hamilton suggested adding sound effects, but McQuarrie wanted the score to further convince the audience that the events were happening." Perhaps I'm just being dumb here, but how would sound effects run contrary to realism?

Box office

  • The final list in the third paragraph is not in order.

Release

  • "..the proceedings, and making Fallout.."

Thematic analysis

  • For me these kinds of sections offer the writer a lot of poetic license, since there is no obvious standard for balancing prose with quotes. Only stacking quotes is probably wrong. Only writing prose makes the section read like it's entirely in wikivoice, offering a few quotes would remind the reader that we are restating the views of prominent experts. How many quotes would be required for this? No idea, poetic licence.
  • Fake news: why the first two thematic sections are included is obvious. This one confounds me a bit. Is it really unusual for news anchors to perform in movies like this in the US? Actual news anchors have been used to add realism to Swedish movies for at least a couple of decades. I understand reliable sources said all those things, but I'm still uncertain whether the coverage is extensive enough to make the information due when compared to coverage of themes in Fallout as a whole.

Legacy

  • "..Fallout is often ranked as the best or second-best film." If Fallout is beaten by the same movie in most of the polls it should be spelled out, otherwise leave it as it is.

References

  • The harvnb/sfn-anchors of Jinde, Lamb and Purse are broken.

Other than my concerns over refbombing, we're good. Draken Bowser (talk) 15:28, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Draken Bowser, I think I've done all of these now. I haven't removed the helicopter information because unlike kicking out the window I think it's a very interesting technical aspect of the film while yeah kicking out the window is not very important. With the ranking, it's almost always number 1 and if it's not it's always different films so there isn't a consistent challenger. Regarding themes, on all 3 of my previous nominations I have been criticized for using direct quotes so while I get where you're coming from if I start introducing quotes someone else will probably just tell me to take them out. Rest assured I have done my best to be faithful to the texts since I hate having to re-read sources, especially thematic ones that can be 30 pages of waffle with one page of interesting information. As for the fake news, I don't think it's always super common but there were several sources that focused on this aspect and I think in terms of contemporary media it came along at the same time fake news became a more prominent theme in real life which may be why it got more attention in analytical sources, I especially think it's a growing trend still. If several sources cover it it's more difficult for me to ignore that when tasked with comprehensiveness whereas if it's one fringe theory it's easier to ignore. Sorry for taking so long btw, still not feeling great.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:16, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
EDIT: Oh and I added some camera technical details per your mention. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:17, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good work, especially finding a decent source for "cameras".
Ok, I can buy into the "having to fake realness" aspect of the helicopter scene.
Yeah, I suppose "fake news" is zeitgeist, but the section still feels a bit forced to me, maybe that is clouding my judgement. The Vanity fair and Esquire articles make the case for such a section. I don't think that using Lamb here makes sense though. It's about the mustache Caville had to grow for Fallout, sure. But the fake news aspect is the retouching done for Justice League, which also seems to be used more as an example of what the technology can do (no direct connection made between Fallout and fake news).
I'm still clueless on the "post-production" question. Could you ELI5? Draken Bowser (talk) 21:02, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh missed that one, let me try to rewrite it. The gist is that McQuarrie wanted to use the score to evoke whatever feelings necessary in the audience that would convince them the scene was real rather than hypothetical, and he thought sound effects would lessen the effect since previous MI films have similar hypothetical scenes but it's obvious they are hypothetical. I'll re-read the source and try to give a better explanation. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:07, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've just removed it, the actual explanation is too convoluted to properly parse and I don't think it's super important in retrospect as we've got hte main point of it. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:20, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks for the explanation. I think it's time to pass the torch. I still want Lamb removed, but I'm willing to agree to disagree on the section as a whole. Either way, the article seems to meet the criteria as far as I can tell. Support A final note on length: for many (most?) movies we don't have the kind of overarching sources discussed on the FAC-talk page, which might help us decide on appropriate length. This should result in a lot more leeway than usual. After the few tiny trims we agreed on, I'm not sure that theres even anything I'd want removed, so the size does not bother me. Thanks for making the effort to address or contend with my concerns. Draken Bowser (talk) 05:33, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Removed Lamb, thanks for the support Draken. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:33, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Igordebraga

[edit]
Support I understand pushing straight for FA even though it would possibly pass the GA with ease (though both are taking quite long to review nowadays), and it's weird to see so many stacked refs (it's understandable regarding opinionated parts such as the ones on reception, but on Production, seems more fit for more complex sentences like the one regarding Cruise's rehabiliation, the ones in Development could backed up by one or two sources alone). Otherwise, can't deny this type of work deserves a promotion. igordebraga ≠ 19:15, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Igordebraga! Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:45, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Airship

[edit]

The reception section seems rather problematic, with excessive references and poor organisation.

  • "Richard Roeper and Stephanie Zacharek, among others, praised Fallout as one of, if not the best films in the franchise." why are Roeper and Zacharek specifically highlighted?
    • Per WP:DAILYEXPRESS, the Daily Express is considered "generally unreliable".
  • A sentence on "an evolved continuity" feels out of place between two sentences saying "best film in franchise" and "best spy film ever made"—you can place it after.
    • Also, "believed"? Does he not believe it anymore? Why not just "wrote"?
  • I've changed it
    • Why is Jolin cited at the end of a sentence about Tallerico and Ehrlich's thoughts?
  • Why are Maltin and Travers singled out in the following sentences? And why are fifteen citations necessary, all placed in a block at the end of the two sentences so you can't tell what they're actually citing? Textbook WP:CITEKILL. Take the first (Nashawaty): the only part of the preceding sentences he appears to support is "The action sequences were praised".
  • Per above, I'm not going to list every reviewer cited and if I have citations that say the same thing it saves me trouble when people determine one of them is no longer reliable or one is beyond saving due to link rot. It also heads off the recent issues where reviewers claim there aren't enough sources for a statement or the sources aren't good enough to make such a claim but good enough otherwise.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:38, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, why are there four citations for a sentence which cites the views of only Kinnard and Phillips?
  • Per above, I can add "among others" every time or just include additional references that back up the same sentiment. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:38, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please do, but make sure that the "others" or additional references are backing up the same sentiment and are not just in the same vague ballpark.
  • Once again, six citations for the four critics "Ann Hornaday, Roeper, Phillips, and Slate's Sam Adams"?
    • And no, they don't all "[compliment] the narrative for its intriguing ideas, moral dilemmas, and complex twists, while criticizing the seemingly improvisational nature of some scenes and "thought-provoking" ideas that are posited and ignored, such as the villains' plans to bomb holy cities. Roeper (the first citation and only one I had the time to check) does none of that, as far as I can see: he does mention "a dizzying array of twists", but notes that "some you can see coming right down the aisle of your multiplex"—not quite the same as "complimenting the narrative for its complex twists".
  • This seems like a matter of perspective, someone saying a "dizzying array of twists" is a compliment as I read it, some of them being predictable doesn't undermine their quality. Again the summary style is how I've been instructed to do this multiple times. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:38, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • "someone saying a "dizzying array of twists" is a compliment as I read it, some of them being predictable doesn't undermine their quality" but the quality of the twists isn't brought up in the article, their complexity is. This is not "summary style", which has a very distinct meaning on WP; this is attributing to a critic several opinions he hasn't espoused. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:56, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These are extensive problems with a small section of the article; as I don't want to enter a WP:FIXLOOP, I'll note a weak oppose and stand ready to strike it should the nominator feel that all similar issues have been fixed. Perhaps GA/PR would have been better than a straight FA nom?

No, GA/PR would not have been better, you've raised relatively minor issues, not extensive problems, that are exclusive to this section and are per instructions I've received multiple times. It's not an extensive problem for me to remove a few citations. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:38, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to take text-source integrity seriously, especially at FAC. A selection of responses above. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:56, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Right I've reworked the section. The discussion is in my previous FACs, I'm not sure which one and I don't have the time to search for it, it's moot now regardless. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:55, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
AirshipJungleman29 Darkwarriorblake (talk) 13:11, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
AirshipJungleman29 Sorry, have you seen this? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 15:58, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, sorry, the improvements look good, will do a read-through of the article shortly. One thing: why are notes w & x separate? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:00, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. W is for "action genre" I believe and X for "spy genre", I split them up to reduce the amount of refs in the note and make it easier to tell one from the other. I've used a lot of refs because the last 2 nominations were derailed because it was determined these were extraordinary claims without sufficient backing. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:07, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I don't have time to do a full review. Many apologies. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:22, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, thank you Darkwarriorblake (talk) 12:27, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source and image review

[edit]

Images seem well-placed and pertinent. Why do so many Flickr links 403? File:Mission Impossible - Fallout Cast at the Screening (42922591624).jpg might warrant a description. What's the copyright status of File:Vanessa Kirby in Paris, 2018.png? Most of the sources seem to be major magazines, entertainment websites and news articles. Source formatting seems pretty consistent as well. #186 needs to say what website/portal it is. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:21, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Jo-Jo Eumerus, I added a description and fixed the ref. I replaced the image of Kirby as I didn't realize it had been screencapped from a Vimeo video with a CC 3.0 license but I'm not sure if the person posting it would have the authority to do that? He seems to be the videographer but I'm not clear on who would own the copyright if he was hired for the event so I've just replaced it.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 17:50, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jo-Jo, any more to come on this? Gog the Mild (talk) 17:45, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Jo-Jo ? Gog the Mild (talk) 14:37, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing to add from my side, other than a caveat that this isn't a topic where I am finely familiar with source reliability. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:06, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note

[edit]

The nomination has been open for roughly nine weeks and still doesn't have a strong consensus to promote. Unless that changes in the next few days, it is liable to be archived. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 14:06, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can't do much about participation since I'm not allowed to canvas but surely it'd take up more time being renominated than it would waiting for another reviewer? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:14, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
DWB, to mildly tweak my standard advice on this, you are allowed to place a polite neutrally phrased request on the talk pages of a few of the more frequent reviewers. Or on the talk pages of relevant Wikiprojects. Or of editors you know are interested in the topic of the nomination. Or who have contributed at PR, or assessed at GAN, or edited the article. @FAC coordinators: for correction or nuancing from any of my colleagues. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:44, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the advice Gog, hopefully with the two supports I had, getting the oppose withdrawn, the new support and potential new review I will be set at least for this one now! Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:10, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A FAC nomination needs a bare minimum of three general supports for a coordinator to consider that a consensus to promotie has been reached. Note, I am not saying that three supports would be sufficient to promote any give article including this one, just that it will not even be considered with fewer. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:35, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PresN

[edit]

Overall note: the writing here is solid, so I'm mostly focusing on structural changes and not copyediting. It's also very lengthy- kind of a paean to an otherwise thoughtless action movie sequel; ideally it would be about half the length, but I find this kind of thing pretty charming, so no complaints here.

  • "The ensemble cast comprises" - comprises means "is made up of", so unless there are no other actors in the film "includes" is a better word.
  • At first, I thought the plot section was confusing, but on closer read it's actually just a pile of nonsense. I completely believe that the director started shooting without bothering to have an actual script first for their incredibly expensive film and made up the details as they went. The idea that the 58-year-old Cruise is an over-the-top action hero is nowhere near the least believable thing about this. He could be 80 and I'd still find it more believable than half of these plot points, including "the CIA director thinks their best multi-decade agent is a terrorist mastermind because some rando told them so" and "the grand plan to crash the modern world order is to kill a bunch of people in the poor parts of South Asia and leave all of the first world alone."
  • "However, Cruise specifically wanted McQuarrie to lead the sequel." - reads oddly and "specifically" doesn't add anything; swapping to "Cruise, however, wanted McQuarrie to lead the sequel." would be better.
  • So, there's a bit of a problem- McQuarrie wanted to explore Ethan's motivations. (minor aside- you refer to the character as "Ethan" instead of "Hunt", which is atypical, but I guess that's how he's referred to in sources?). So McQuarrie included a long section of Ethan pretending to be the villain. But... it was mostly all cut. So then in the lede, where you say "He intended for Fallout to better explore Ethan's character and emotions, believing previous entries had left him primarily a cipher for audiences, and test the limits of Ethan's abilities, morality, and personal relationships.", that's technically true in that he "intended" to do that... but he didn't. Ethan pretends to be a bad guy for just a bit as a ruse, and then immediately doesn't kill Lane in an action sequence. So it seems oversold in the lede.
  • "He wanted the audience to experience what would happen if the antagonist actually won and how Ethan would feel in response." - again, he may have wanted to, but as far as I can tell it's the bog standard 3rd-act "oh no the villain has won" followed by the triumph of the hero, so written like this it seems to say that he wanted to so he tried to... but he really didn't actually try to in the film as created. Literally none of the villain's (nonsensical) goals are accomplished.
  • You emphasize it in the lede, so I was surprised to find the "the original script was only 33 pages" bit buried five paragraphs into the "writing" section. The idea that the writer didn't... really even start to write an actual script until a couple months after shooting was supposed to start seems pretty critical to the "writing" process of the movie, especially when it caused a delay in filming of 2 months on a "rapid turnaround" project.
  • Okay, confused again. Writing para 5 says that "something about the script", presumably its absence, caused a delay of filming from November to January. But then the next para, Casting 1, says that negotiations over Cruise's salary, although sorted out by September, caused the delay. You actually even cite them to the same references. So... I'm guessing they both contributed, but saying first one "caused" it and then the other did, is off.
  • "The filmmakers had determined that killing Lane was not the right choice for Rogue Nation as they already had future ideas for him." - the narrative of the article has McQuarrie calling all the shots, so if it was his idea you should just say so (did not check the source, the vague wording just jumped at me)
  • "because Hardy considered it impractical to" - you don't introduce who Rob Hardy is for a couple paragraphs
  • "McQuarrie realized that the contrast" - feel free to ignore, but I think "decided" is a better verb here
  • "He only wanted the scene of Ethan waking up following the nightmare to appear cold" - ah, the problem of writing for a general audience: no such scene is described in the article (so you need to give a bit of context, or move it, or cut it)
  • "For the camp scenes, Julia was scripted to have a baby, but McQuarrie opted to remove this only two days before her scenes were filmed." - this is in "Filming", but seems more like a Writing thing maybe? Since they didn't film it?
  • "the camera ran out of film" - this film cost $180 million. They spent weeks (months?) filming the HALO jump, and he couldn't be bothered to do a second take of the ending scene of the film? I'm not saying he was wrong, but McQuarrie really had a clear vision on the relative importance of the plot vs cool action scenes to the film, didn't he.
  • "the HALO jump" - confusing, because you don't explain what this is until the next paragraph, and nothing in Plot ever said there was a halo jump in the movie.
  • "McQuarrie considered the theatrical cut to be the director's cut" - the phrasing is a little jargony; consider "to be the definitive version of the film" or similar.
  • "Paramount also debuted the first 360-degree virtual reality experience of the jump on Oculus VR" - marketing language; "debuted" is nonsense, it's also the only VR version of the jump, and all VR "experiences" are 360 degrees. "Paramount published a virtual reality version of the jump on Oculus VR...".
  • Very, very minor point- there's a lot of reference groups out of number order, like [47][48][35]. There's a script that can fix it, though I don't recall what it is, but consider just sorting it out by hand.
  • This is not the first film article I've read, and I know what movie people are like, but I feel the need to point out that the first 3 paragraphs of Box office are a pile of dense trivia. I know people care about all of these little details about sales, but I wish they wouldn't.
  • "In another scene, Ethan sacrifices his cover as Lark to save a police officer from execution, showcasing his moral compass in every action and encounter." - "showcasing his moral compass in every action and encounter"? Editorializing.
  • " leveraging Cruise's public image as a cinema star with a conscience and steadfast convictions." - that's not what the source says. It says that the action-hero characters he plays have a conscience and steadfast convictions. It's only a small difference, but the way its written here is a weird way to describe the actual person.
  • Para 3 of Morality and sacrifice is just restating things you already said earlier in the article. If you're going to restate them, it needs to be much shorter.
  • Actually, while I don't have as much of a detailed breakdown, the whole Thematic analysis is overly wordy. Most of the article is wordy because you're including a ton of details, but this section, mostly the Morality and sacrifice subsection, feels like you're taking a lot of words to say things you've already said earlier in fewer words but without adding more information. Consider if you could use less than four paragraphs to say "Ethan tries to save people without regard to his own health and happiness, and feels bad when saving individuals puts others at risk."
Working, thanks PresN! Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:22, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The ensemble cast comprises" - comprises means "is made up of", so unless there are no other actors in the film "includes" is a better word.
  • At first, I thought the plot section was confusing, but on closer read it's actually just a pile of nonsense. I completely believe that the director started shooting without bothering to have an actual script first for their incredibly expensive film and made up the details as they went. The idea that the 58-year-old Cruise is an over-the-top action hero is nowhere near the least believable thing about this. He could be 80 and I'd still find it more believable than half of these plot points, including "the CIA director thinks their best multi-decade agent is a terrorist mastermind because some rando told them so" and "the grand plan to crash the modern world order is to kill a bunch of people in the poor parts of South Asia and leave all of the first world alone."
    • Have you not seen Fallout? I do recommend it, yeah there are some scenes that go nowhere because of the improvisational way they do things but it really is a great action film. But yes, the script comes second to cool backdrops and scenes. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:49, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "However, Cruise specifically wanted McQuarrie to lead the sequel." - reads oddly and "specifically" doesn't add anything; swapping to "Cruise, however, wanted McQuarrie to lead the sequel." would be better.
  • So, there's a bit of a problem- McQuarrie wanted to explore Ethan's motivations. (minor aside- you refer to the character as "Ethan" instead of "Hunt", which is atypical, but I guess that's how he's referred to in sources?). So McQuarrie included a long section of Ethan pretending to be the villain. But... it was mostly all cut. So then in the lede, where you say "He intended for Fallout to better explore Ethan's character and emotions, believing previous entries had left him primarily a cipher for audiences, and test the limits of Ethan's abilities, morality, and personal relationships.", that's technically true in that he "intended" to do that... but he didn't. Ethan pretends to be a bad guy for just a bit as a ruse, and then immediately doesn't kill Lane in an action sequence. So it seems oversold in the lede.
    • Him pretending to be a bad guy is most of the ...first act, some of the second. They don't go as dark as they apparently intended but the sentence from the lede remains accurate as Fallout does explore him as a character, his relationships, and gives him moral challenges from beginning to end. Him being assumed to be a bad guy is also present through acts 1 and 2, while the 3rd act is more his limits and relationships. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:49, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He wanted the audience to experience what would happen if the antagonist actually won and how Ethan would feel in response." - again, he may have wanted to, but as far as I can tell it's the bog standard 3rd-act "oh no the villain has won" followed by the triumph of the hero, so written like this it seems to say that he wanted to so he tried to... but he really didn't actually try to in the film as created. Literally none of the villain's (nonsensical) goals are accomplished.
  • You emphasize it in the lede, so I was surprised to find the "the original script was only 33 pages" bit buried five paragraphs into the "writing" section. The idea that the writer didn't... really even start to write an actual script until a couple months after shooting was supposed to start seems pretty critical to the "writing" process of the movie, especially when it caused a delay in filming of 2 months on a "rapid turnaround" project.
  • Okay, confused again. Writing para 5 says that "something about the script", presumably its absence, caused a delay of filming from November to January. But then the next para, Casting 1, says that negotiations over Cruise's salary, although sorted out by September, caused the delay. You actually even cite them to the same references. So... I'm guessing they both contributed, but saying first one "caused" it and then the other did, is off.
    • Ok so this is in reference to the two above points. The script issues took place in July 26 and delayed filming from November 2016 to January 2017. The Cruise pay dispute I have clarified stalled "pre-production" which added additional delays but they are separate delays. I don't know when the script was actually finished but I put it at the end since I'm talking about the finished script being 33 pages long. If they had script issues just before filming was meant to begin I would guess a script was there but either not complete, not viable, or just not interesting and needed reworking but sadly the issues mentioned are vague. The mention of Cruise's pay dispute does say that it created an "additional" delay and doesn't claim to be the same delay as the script issues. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:21, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The filmmakers had determined that killing Lane was not the right choice for Rogue Nation as they already had future ideas for him." - the narrative of the article has McQuarrie calling all the shots, so if it was his idea you should just say so (did not check the source, the vague wording just jumped at me)
  • "because Hardy considered it impractical to" - you don't introduce who Rob Hardy is for a couple paragraphs
  • "McQuarrie realized that the contrast" - feel free to ignore, but I think "decided" is a better verb here
  • "He only wanted the scene of Ethan waking up following the nightmare to appear cold" - ah, the problem of writing for a general audience: no such scene is described in the article (so you need to give a bit of context, or move it, or cut it)
  • "For the camp scenes, Julia was scripted to have a baby, but McQuarrie opted to remove this only two days before her scenes were filmed." - this is in "Filming", but seems more like a Writing thing maybe? Since they didn't film it?
    • I like to keep things chronological if possible and I think this speaks, as you mention above, to the rapidly changing, improvisational nature of filming which unfortunately led to Rebecca Ferguson leaving after the next sequel, and caused Jeremy Renner to leave as well. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:49, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the camera ran out of film" - this film cost $180 million. They spent weeks (months?) filming the HALO jump, and he couldn't be bothered to do a second take of the ending scene of the film? I'm not saying he was wrong, but McQuarrie really had a clear vision on the relative importance of the plot vs cool action scenes to the film, didn't he.
  • "the HALO jump" - confusing, because you don't explain what this is until the next paragraph, and nothing in Plot ever said there was a halo jump in the movie.
    • I've reworked this, I didn't consider the HALO jump important enough to mention in the plot since it is just ultimately a method of transportation to a destination (Obviously more interesting to watch in the film) but I've added a very brief mention to provide more context. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:49, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "McQuarrie considered the theatrical cut to be the director's cut" - the phrasing is a little jargony; consider "to be the definitive version of the film" or similar.
  • "Paramount also debuted the first 360-degree virtual reality experience of the jump on Oculus VR" - marketing language; "debuted" is nonsense, it's also the only VR version of the jump, and all VR "experiences" are 360 degrees. "Paramount published a virtual reality version of the jump on Oculus VR...".
  • Very, very minor point- there's a lot of reference groups out of number order, like [47][48][35]. There's a script that can fix it, though I don't recall what it is, but consider just sorting it out by hand.
  • This is not the first film article I've read, and I know what movie people are like, but I feel the need to point out that the first 3 paragraphs of Box office are a pile of dense trivia. I know people care about all of these little details about sales, but I wish they wouldn't.
  • "In another scene, Ethan sacrifices his cover as Lark to save a police officer from execution, showcasing his moral compass in every action and encounter." - "showcasing his moral compass in every action and encounter"? Editorializing.
  • " leveraging Cruise's public image as a cinema star with a conscience and steadfast convictions." - that's not what the source says. It says that the action-hero characters he plays have a conscience and steadfast convictions. It's only a small difference, but the way its written here is a weird way to describe the actual person.
    • I'm not sure what you mean, the quote is "As far as Hunt’s IMF boss (Alec Baldwin) is concerned, that’s an asset. But it also fits with Cruise’s image as a moralistic matinee idol, a figure whose unrelenting perfectionism ensures that he’ll save the day, even with one second to spare. We elect movie stars the way we do world leaders, buying tickets instead of casting ballots, and the reason Cruise has remained on top for more consecutive terms than Vladimir Putin is that he represents a kind of best-case American: homecoming-king hunky, a hero with a conscience, unwavering in his convictions." That's explicitly about Cruise's public image, it's blending it with Ethan's character but it strictly mentioned Cruise by name twice in applying those descriptors to his image and how he portrays himself in public media. The text in the article is clear that this is talking about his public image and not him. I have reworded and culled some of this per request though. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:49, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Para 3 of Morality and sacrifice is just restating things you already said earlier in the article. If you're going to restate them, it needs to be much shorter.
  • Actually, while I don't have as much of a detailed breakdown, the whole Thematic analysis is overly wordy. Most of the article is wordy because you're including a ton of details, but this section, mostly the Morality and sacrifice subsection, feels like you're taking a lot of words to say things you've already said earlier in fewer words but without adding more information. Consider if you could use less than four paragraphs to say "Ethan tries to save people without regard to his own health and happiness, and feels bad when saving individuals puts others at risk."

Support, I feel my points were addressed. --PresN 15:50, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NegativeMP1

[edit]

Soon. λ NegativeMP1 03:23, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't able to find anything, most things that I could've picked up on were already addressed above. The article is overall really good and I wasn't left wanting more information, and so it seems complete. Support. λ NegativeMP1 20:59, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by FrB.TG

[edit]

Recusing to review soon. FrB.TG (talk) 18:12, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi FrB.TG, have you had a chance to look yet? Thanks! Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:49, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tomorrow 100% :) FrB.TG (talk) 21:35, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As a big fan of the film series, I'm grateful to you for bringing it to FAC.

  • Given my knowledge of the film series, I went ahead and made several changes myself instead of suggesting them here so I don't have a whole lot of concerns anymore. My changes were mostly copyedits for brevity (I reduced the word count from 7,780 to 7,706) and MoS adjustments. Please check here to see if I messed something up or accidentally changed the meaning of something. Feel free to revert what you don't consider an improvement.
  • "Comparing the seven films in the Mission: Impossible franchise, Fallout is often ranked as the best or second-best film." The way this sentence is structured, it sounds like Fallout itself is doing the comparing. The phrase "Comparing the seven films in the Mission: Impossible franchise" is a participial phrase that seems to modify Fallout, suggesting that "Fallout" is performing the action of comparing. However, since Fallout is a film and cannot compare, this creates confusion.
  • Regarding the same sentence above, which one is considered the best by those who deems this film the second-best? I would be interested to know this (my personal favorite among the series is Mission: Impossible – Dead Reckoning Part One, which I still can't believe underperformed commercially).

I expect to support once my point above is addressed. FrB.TG (talk) 18:44, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing FrB.TG. There isn't a consistent film that appears above Fallout, Fallout is almost always number 1 and then alternately behind Rogue Nation, Dead Reckoning, and Ghost Protocol, most often Dead Reckoning and Ghost Protocol (twice each in the 13 sources used). I've made a slight rewording here, is that any better? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:07, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support with a note that I made several copy-edits. FrB.TG (talk) 19:18, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
<3 thanks FrB.TG!
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 June 2024 [28].

Addie Viola Smith

[edit]
Nominator(s): voorts (talk/contributions) 00:23, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article, written for WIR #302, is about Addie Viola Smith, the first woman to serve as a Foreign Service officer under the United States Department of Commerce who eventually worked her way up to trade commissioner in Shanghai and consul at the Consulate General of the United States, Shanghai. Smith was also involved with international feminist activism (with a colonialist and imperialist perspective), often working with her life partner, Eleanor Mary Hinder. Thanks to KJP1 for a thorough GA review. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:23, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Nick-D

[edit]

This is an interesting article. I have the following comments:

  • Link Department of Labor in the lead
    • Done.
  • "who appealed to Herbert Hoover, the Secretary of Commerce " - Hoover should be linked
    • Done.
  • Who rejected Smith's first attempt to be promoted to trade commissioner?
    • Unclear from the source.
  • "native Chinese women" - is 'native' needed here? It's a pretty yucky term these days.
    • The sources cited used native, I suppose to clarify non-Western Chinese women, but I agree it's unnecessary.
  • Smith's ADB entry noted that she and Hinder spent most of the 1950s living in New York and travelled frequently for the UN; this is missing from the article.
    • Added.
  • Eleanor Mary Hinder is red linked twice
    • Removed second instance outside of lede.
  • There's a likely-PD photo of Smith in 1929 here. Searching in the National Library of Australia's Trove service returns lots of other stories mentioning Smith, though they're generally pretty lightweight looking.
    • Thanks. Most of the photographs from these old newspapers are not great quality; I'll investigate its PD status.
  • It might also be worth including that Smith prepared Hinder's papers to be deposited at the State Library of New South Wales - [29]
    • Done.
  • Likewise, the ADB entries note that Smith and Hinder's home in Sydney was acquired from one of Hinder's cousins. It seems that the sources are dancing around acknowledging that they were likely 'out' to Hinder's family who appear to have accepted them as a couple given this and Smith's connections with the family after Hinder's death. This seems also worth noting given that this kind of thing was unfortunately uncommon at the time. Nick-D (talk) 08:17, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I haven't seen any sources stating that they were explicitly out to Hinder's family, so I'm not sure how I would frame this without it being OR.
      • I'm suggesting here that you note the various close links like the ADB, etc, entries do which illustrate that they openly lived together (for instance, I just saw a news story on Trove from 1940 that noted that they shared a house in Shanghai together as 'friends'). Nick-D (talk) 01:34, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nick-D: Replied above. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:50, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Those changes look good, and I'm pleased to support this nomination. Please see my comment above. Nick-D (talk) 01:35, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Comments

[edit]
  • "She was the first woman Foreign Service officer" - I think maybe "She was the first female Foreign Service officer" would read more elegantly
    • Done.
  • "Smith studied business administration" - I think changing this to "She studied business administration" would avoid any possible confusion about which Smith is being referred to
    • Done.
  • "the Assistant Director of the Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce O. P. Hopkins, denied her application" => "the Assistant Director of the Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce, O. P. Hopkins, denied her application"
    • Done.
  • That's all I got!

-- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:08, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ChrisTheDude: Done. Thank you, voorts (talk/contributions) 22:22, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass

[edit]

Comments soon. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:17, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing looks overall good: there are no unreferenced claims in the body of the article and I didn't spot any unreliable sources. WP:EARWIG picks up one potential case of copyvios with https://oac.cdlib.org/findaid/ark:/13030/c8057psg/entire_text/, but this seems to be mainly because of stock phrases like "assistant chief of the Women's Division of the United States Employment Service", "chief of the Information Division of the United States Training and Dilution Service", and "representative of the International Federation of Women Lawyers". To be on the side of caution, maybe our sentence "She studied business administration at Heald's Business College in San Francisco, graduating in 1908" should be rephrased.

A few spot checks:

  • The station launched on February 19, 1939.[18] supported by Krysko 2011, p. 90
  • She was the first woman to serve as a Foreign Service officer under the Bureau.[6] supported by Krysko 2011, p. 92
  • Addie Viola Smith was born in Stockton, California, on November 14, 1893, to Rufus Roy Smith, a publisher, and Addie Gabriela Smith (née Brown) supported by Barker 2006
  • where they were "devoted to each other, shar[ing] a house[ ] and creat[ing] a garden".[33] supported by Barker 2006
  • During her time as a clerk, Smith requested permission to sit for a civil service examination so that she could obtain a promotion to assistant trade commissioner.[8] supported by Epstein 2008, p. 708
  • Throughout her career, Smith prioritized building roads as a means of increasing the import of American automobiles to China.[14] supported by Epstein 2008, pp. 704–705

There are a few cases were a citation can be removed because it is already in the scope of an identical second citation

  • As trade commissioner, Smith was responsible for reporting on Chinese industry, infrastructure, and trade opportunities to the Department of Commerce; advising American business interests; serving as a liaison between American and Chinese businesses; implementing U.S. trade policy; and promoting the expansion of American trade in China.[14] Throughout her career, Smith prioritized building roads as a means of increasing the import of American automobiles to China.[14] remove the first citation to [14]
  • In 1949, Smith left China and moved to Bangkok, where she worked for the United States Economic Cooperation Administration and the United Nations Economic Commission for Asia and the Far East.[20] From 1952 to 1964, Smith was the representative of the International Federation of Women Lawyers to the United Nations in New York.[20] remove the first citation to [20]
  • where they were "devoted to each other, shar[ing] a house[ ] and creat[ing] a garden".[33] During the 1950s, Smith and Hinder spent much of their time living in New York, traveling often for Smith's work with the United Nations.[33] remove the first citation to [33]

A few other observations

  • Epstein 2008, p. 708–709. replace "p" with "pp"
  • Epstein 2008, p. 709–710. replace "p" with "pp"
  • The Australian Dictionary of Biography lacks an identifier (ISBN or OCLC)

As a side note: during the source review, I came upon some books written by Addie Viola Smith, see [30]. I'm not sure whether her activities as an author should be mentioned in the text. Epstein 2008 p. 704 mentions her book Motor Roads in China. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:21, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All of the above done. I'm citing the online version of the Australian Dictionary of Biography, so I'm not sure an identifier would be appropriate. Regarding Smith's writing, I'll think of how to incorporate that. Motor Roads in China, and most of the things on Google Books, appear to be government reports written in her capacity as trade commissioner. She did write a few law journal articles. Maybe I'll add a bibliography to the article. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:05, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PInging @Phlsph7. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:05, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. If there are no differences between the printed and the online version, I would add the print ISBN, but it probably doesn't matter much either way. You could let the other sources decide whether her work as an author is important enough to be discussed. The mention in Epstein 2008 p. 704 seems to be more of a side note but maybe other sources have more on that. Phlsph7 (talk) 06:55, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's not much in the way of a discussion of her as an author as far as I have seen. I'll take a look at the print versions for ADB. It seems like they update posts periodically online so I'm not sure that there's a categorical match between one print version and the online version. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:44, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Phlsph7: Just to note, I've added a few more cites. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:07, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping. I see that some newspapers and magazines were added. The China Press is probably not ideal for politics but it's only used in the article for factual information about Smith so it should be fine. I didn't spot problems with the other additions. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:40, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

[edit]

Recusing to review.

  • The lead is relatively long for a short article. Suggest trimming it. (By about 40%.) In addition, per MOS:LEADLENGTH, the lead should consist of one or, at most, two paragraphs.
    • I've trimmed the lead. Let me know if you want me to try to cut more.
Good job. I have trimmed a couple of factoids which I don't think are important enough for the lead and lightly copy edited, and put this version on the FAC talk page. See what you think, I don't insist on all of it.
  • "Thereafter, Smith served in several roles in the United States government." Do we have a date for when thereafter started?
    • Removed from lead.
  • "The government official Hilda Muhlhauser Richards also intervened". Is it known what Richards' government position was?
    • Clarified.
  • "Smith and Hinder were memorialized by their friends with two stone seats". Is it known when?
    • I'm not sure. Do you know any editors who can go to Caringbah, find the seats, and take a picture of them so that we can verify the date they were placed?
That's a thought, a photo of them would make a nice extra. Ian Rose, you anywhere near southern Sydney, or know anyone who is? But don't worry about it. I have just checked three sources and none of them give a date, so I strongly suspect it's not known. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:59, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A fine article. Not a lot to pick at. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:58, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: Done. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:00, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just possible tweaks to the lead to discuss. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:59, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Copied your version over. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:46, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MSincccc

[edit]

I would be leaving comments shortly. MSincccc (talk) 05:20, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • ...was an American attorney and the first female Foreign Service officer in the United States Foreign Service under the Department of Commerce. She served as the United States trade commissioner to Shanghai from 1928 to 1949 and was the first woman to hold the position of assistant trade commissioner.
The two mentions of her being "the first" have been streamlined to improve flow.
I think her highest role in the Foreign Service should be in the first sentence, so I'm not making this change.
  • While working for the United States Department of Labor, she attended the Washington College of Law part-time, earning her Bachelor of Laws in 1920.
    • Done.
  • Both were memorialized by their friends with two stone seats at the E.G. Waterhouse National Camellia Gardens in Caringbah. More preferable. Rest of the lead is fine. Regards.
    • Done.
MSincccc (talk) 05:32, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • After an initial rejection, Smith sought help from Clara Burdette,... "Smith" could be replaced with "she" here as her name appears in the sentences before and after this one.
    • Done.
  • who appealed to Herbert Hoover, then the Secretary of Commerce and a personal friend
    • Done.
  • She also served as the registrar of the Chinese Trade Act of 1922. Same as above so as to avoid repeating "Smith" in consecutive sentences when it is understood that she's beem referred to.
    • Done.
  • Throughout her career, she prioritized building roads as a means of increasing the import of American automobiles to China. Same reason.
    • Done.
  • From 1952 to 1964, she was the representative of the International Federation of Women Lawyers to the United Nations in New York. If she was one of the representatives, you could also change "the" used before "representative" to an "a".
    • Done.
  • ...she and other Western expatriates viewed their role as engaging in dialogue with Chinese women and "sincerely endeavor[ing] to reflect the best of American ideals and traditions".
    • Done.
  • After Hinder was denied American citizenship
    • Not done. United States is clearer than American.
  • As executrix of Hinder's estate, she compiled and annotated Hinder's papers for contribution to the Mitchell Library.
    • Done.
  • You could replace "Smith and Hinder" with "Both" as was previously suggested by me for the lead.
    • Done.
Nothing more to add here. A fine article in terms of its prose once the above suggestions are addressed. Looking forward to your response @Voorts:. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 05:57, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MSincccc: replied above. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:51, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Voorts The article is fine then. Support. MSincccc (talk) 16:55, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
MyCat

I'm impressed by what you've done with surprisingly few sources. Will review soon! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 00:16, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I got, this is an excellent article! Wonderful work MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 11:00, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bracket with space indicates missing punctuation. I didn't WL registrar because she wasn't that kind of a registrar. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:58, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support then, wonderful job MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 12:02, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - Pass

[edit]

Both images are well captioned and have good alt text. UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:01, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 9 June 2024 [31].

Shigi Qutuqu

[edit]
Nominator(s): ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:25, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Compared to his contemporaries in the early Mongol Empire, Shigi Qutuqu stands out perhaps most for his lack of military ability—he was in command during the most serious reverse of the early Mongol conquests. Nevertheless, he had a long and productive career, serving in numerous judicial and administrative roles in China and surviving the power struggles of the 1240s and 50s until his death at 80+.

That was my nomination statement for the last FAC, which was quickly archived when IRL issues arose. This article was reviewed for GA just under a year ago by Aza24; if successful, this nomination will be used in the WikiCup. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:25, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by Generalissima

[edit]

Marking myself down for this one! Would you like a spot check?

Thanks Generalissima; I think only the source review is necessary, but if you're willing to do a spot-check I wouldn't say no. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:14, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Generalissima do you still intend to comment? No worries if not. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk)
Generalissima, if you don't intend to comment, could you please mark yourself down as such? Thanks, ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:38, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
AirshipJungleman29 I do intend to comment. I will do so today. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 17:44, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'm so sorry I wasn't able to get around to this until now.

  • WP:LEDECITE is properly followed; the one cite in the lede seems to support the Mongolian spelling and/or approximate dates, both of which make sense to cite here.
  • Early life: All statements are cited. I don't see anything controversial that would need a cite.
  • Under Genghis Khan: Much the same. Don't see any issues here.
  • Under Ögedei Khan: Ditto.
  • Legacy: Ditto. All's good in terms of stuff being cited. The footnotes, too, are all cited.
  • Formatting for the sfns is consistent. I like how you formatted the sfn on the Secret History.
  • The sources are consistently formatted. ISBNs are provided and consistently written with hyphens. JSTOR #s are provided when possible.
  • Locations are a bit messy. For one, you don't need the location when the name of the institution has its location: so no Cambridge: on Cambridge University Press nor Edinburgh on Edinburgh University Press. Additionally, the wikilinks within the locations of the publishers are stated as unnecessary within the template — I don't think these are strictly necessary to remove, but I think it would be considered good form for them to be applied consistently, and I'd weigh on the side of delinking here.
  • Sources are high quality academic sources, and seem to accurately cover the totality of this obscure figure's life. Out of due diligence, I did some digging for any additional sources, and could only find Atwood's "Informants and Sources for the "Secret History of the Mongols"" in Vol. 29 of Mongolian Studies (2007); however, I assume this is essentially rephrased in his later translation of the Secret History. The only major work that seems to discuss him at length that isn't used is The Mongol World (Taylor & Francis, 2022); I have no accesses to this work, but it might be worth taking a look at for future articles.

@AirshipJungleman29: Overall, this is in good shape. I think it just needs those minor location consistency fixes mentioned. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 06:25, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Generalissima. I have access to The Mongol World, and it doesn't contain anything further. I link locations only when they aren't covered by MOS:OVERLINK—in this case, that is only Abingdon and Wiesbaden. Is that ok? Also, I think including the location even when the publisher name includes it is fairly normal—for example The Mongol World does so. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:11, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Generalissima, just checking if you saw the above? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:26, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@AirshipJungleman29: Oops, I didn't. Thank you for checking The Mongol World to assauge my concerns — and yeah, both of these are fair points. I'm good to Support here on the source review. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 14:30, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tim O'Doherty

[edit]

Marker for now. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 15:53, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tim do you still intend to comment? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:35, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll have a look later tonight or tomorrow afternoon. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:04, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Went through it now, and only came up with two comments, both in the same paragraph. It's nicely written, seems comprehensive and can't see why it shouldn't get the gold star.

  • "Medieval historians credit him with judicial integrity and administrative quality, while modern historians ascribe a good part of the success of Ögedei's fiscal reforms to Shigi Qutuqu's actions and policies" - do modern historians say that the medieval view of integrity and administrative quality is wrong, and/or that Shigi Qutuqu's actions and policies are more important, or do they say that as well as having judicial integrity and administrative quality he was also good at fiscal reform? If it's the former then "while" seems OK, but if it's the latter I'd go with "and" to clear it up a bit.
    • The latter, so changed.
  • "The Song dynasty ambassador Xu Ting termed Shigi Qutuqu's financial excesses "dreadful"" - Sorry if I'm being a thicko here, but do any of the preceding bits fall under the umbrella of "financial excess"? I can't see it. If not, (and again apologies if I'm misinterpreting things) does the source say anything about what was excessive? If there's nothing, I'd rephrase to something along the lines of "Financial excesses under Shigi Qutuqu were called "dreadful" by the Song dynasty ambassador Xu Ting, while [...]".
    • I have rephrased the sentence and given an example of the financial excesses.

Again, great article, no reason to clog things up over two minor points. Support. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 18:50, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from PMC

[edit]

Also a marker for now, poke me if I don't get to it within a week. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:30, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Suggest footnoting or briefly contextualizing "Kurultai" in the lead as the average reader won't know this word and will have to stop and go look it up. Something like "chiefs' council" would be enough inline, or the "lit" template you use later
    • Good call, I think the kurultai reference is too specific, so changed to "in the years after the empire's foundation". Better?
  • "He was however..." this sentence has "defeat" twice, suggest swapping for a synonym
  • Might want to clarify that Ögedei was Genghis Khan's immediate successor
  • "praise his qualities of" could be cut to "praise his"
    • All done.
  • "reigns of Güyük and Möngke" any reason why not "reigns of Güyük Khan and Möngke Khan"?
    • Sounds a bit odd to repeat the regnal title—I wouldn't say "John Tinniswood has lived through the reigns of King George V, King Edward VIII, King George VI, Queen Elizabeth II, and King Charles III", I'd say "J.T. has lived through the reigns of George V, Edward VIII, George VI, Elizabeth II, and Charles III".
      • Right, I see what you mean.
  • Is it worth establishing, perhaps in a footnote, when approximately the Secret History and the Jami' were written? I think noting how close or far these were from the actual events could be useful the the reader
    • Done.
  • "The raid on Naratu..." suggest reordering this sentence (or maybe adding a short sentence before it) to first say that the account is implausible. Right now you're arguing the case before saying what you're arguing, which can be less smooth for the reader
    • Good call.
  • "improbable because all of Hoelun's full-blooded children were adults" - implying she wouldn't adopt new kids because she was done with child-raising? Can this be made more explicit?
    • Since the implication you received was partially incorrect, it clearly does need to be rephrased—the focus is on the age difference between the prospective adopted siblings.
  • Overall, good clear handling of two very different historical accounts
  • As with the Secret History and the Jami', it might be worth having a touch of chronological context for Shengwu and History of Yuan
  • Year for Battle of Parwan
    • Both done
  • "more laconically by the Mongol chronicles" I'm sorry, I can't help picturing a series of irritated Mongol scribes angrily scrawling "They won. Anyway" and then slamming the scroll shut
    • As I recall, it's something like "okay, so we were defeated, sure, but right after we completetely thrashed them, so it DOESN'T MATTER"
  • This article's a little short on images - no worries if not, but what about an image of Ogedei under the section about his rule, since there's room?
    • Added.
  • "fiscal reforms to Shigi Qutuqu's implementation of the census and other reforms" - two "reforms" here. Possible to write around?
    • Tightened.
  • "dismisses his loss at Parwan in one sentence" oh my god they actually did though

That's all I got. Very interesting little article! I really enjoy your prose, it's clear and to-the-point but never becomes dry. Great work. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:38, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]

Comments by Matarisvan

[edit]
  • Is foundling appropriate here? I am not quite sure about what the MOS suggests, perhaps "young Shigi" would be better here?
    • I am not sure why it would be inappropriate—it seems to be a proper English word, according to online dictionaries.
  • Can silk be used instead of silken?
    • That is I believe more accurate. Done.
  • Consider linking to Mongol army on first use?
    • Done.
  • What is the rationale for linking to the Jin dynasty page in two consecutive sections?
    • Error, removed.
  • "Having survived the new khagan Möngke": consider rephrasing this to "Having survived Möngke, the new khagan" to avoid SEAOFBLUE?
    • It is clear that they are not the same link because one is italicised and the other isn't.
  • Consider linking, in the biblio, to Vasily Bartold, Munshiram Manoharlal, Kim Ho-dong, Bulletin of the SOAS?
    • Thanks for spotting those four.
  • Can we add this paper by Atwood [32] and its comments to the SHM authorship question? Atwood notes that Shigi couldn't have known about Genghis' early life at the level of detail in the SHM.
    • This took a bit of time to investigate; I have rewritten the respective sentence in the article but I haven't used this source, instead using Atwood's comments in his ultra-recent edition of the SHM.
  • Another paper I found by JA Boyle: he cites Nasawi who says Shigi was sent to attack Nishapur along with Tolun Cherbi. Boyle also cites Juzjani who says Shigi along with Sa'di and Uklan had fought in Ghor and Khorasan. Link to the paper: [33].
    • A good catch; I have added the detail to the article.
  • Would you be open to citing this paper by William Hung on SHM authorship: [34]? It mentions Shigi only twice and has very little to say, so I can understand if you do not wish to, it is not a deal breaker.
    • On account of age, I think not.
  • There seems to be a lot of research into Shigi in German, I cannot ascertain now if it is useful due to time constraints in translating entire papers. If you can read German, Weiers and Ratchnevsky have done substantial work on this, though they spell Shigi as Sigi, which makes most of their work not show up if you search using the former word. There also seem to be similar works written in French.
    • I am aware—during the 90s and 00s, much important scholarship was done by German-speaking historians in the West. However, German is not quite the lingua franca that English is, so that situation has changed in the past decade and a half; I think general comprehensivity can be achieved without relying on foreign-language scholarship.
  • Are the incidents in these papers of any value: [35]? I am not quite sure as they are anecdotal.
    • This is already covered in the article.
  • Hi AirshipJungleman29, any thoughts on the other four points? They would expand comprehensiveness somewhat, wdyt? Matarisvan (talk) 15:55, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Kusma

[edit]

Intending to review this one. —Kusma (talk) 14:41, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Do we know his Mongol script name? zhwiki says it is ᠰᠢᠭᠢᠬᠤᠲᠤᠭ and they also give the VPMC transliteration "sikiqutug".
    • Although I lack an RS, the script looks plausible so I've added it to the article.
  • According to the Japanese Wikipedia article, the Jami' al-tawarikh has other versions of his name ( قوتوقو نويان Qūtūqū Nūyān)
    • "Noyan" just means "commander".
  • "the Secret History of the Mongols, which alters and augments his position in early Mongol society." I do not quite understand "alters and augments" here; do we know anything about his position in early Mongol society before the Secret History?
    • Yes—see article.
      • My point (which I am not making very well) is that "The Secret History alters his position in Mongol history" seems to indicate that there was a pre-Secret History historiography where Shigi Qutuqu was described differently. However, the Secret History appears to be the oldest of the primary sources we have?
        • Yes, it's the oldest of the primary sources, but it's not older than the events described within; the sentence is meant to say that the SH makes out that his historical position was higher than it actually was. Is there a better way of putting it?
          • I think instead of "alters and augments" or " modifies and enhances" it would be simpler to just state that the Secret History has a very positive view of Shigi Qutuqu, or something of that kind. How do the sources put this?
  • Shouldn't "Hoelun" be "Hö'elün"?
    • Certainly should be; changed.
  • "Rashid al-Din's account of Shigi Qutuqu's adoption takes place more than a decade earlier." the adoption takes place earlier, not the account?
    • Good catch, changed.
  • "subsequent appointments, when he may have replaced Belgutei" who is "he" here?
    • Specified Shigi Qutuqu.
  • Can you give a hint where the Khawarazmian Empire was located? The lead at least says "western campaign" to give some very rough orientation
    • Done, and for the Jin dynasty too.
  • "fall of Kaifeng" for "siege of Kaifeng" is a bit weird as we are looking at this from the Mongol POV
    • I'm not sure what's weird, it seems natural to me. Could you explain?
      • Well, the Mongols besieged Kaifeng and captured it, so from their POV, it is a "capture", not a "fall", which is what it looks like if you are pro-Kaifeng. But no big deal either way.
  • MOS:DATERANGE advises against "1235–6" and "1203–57".
    • Fixed the first; I'm not sure where the second came from, so removed.
  • I am not educated enough to know the word corvée. Can this be glossed per MOS:NOFORCELINK?
    • It's a fairly complicated topic that's tangential to the topic, so does a simple pipe of "corvée labour" give enough indication?
  • Do people "make ... irregularities"?
    • I'll be honest, I can't think of a word that works better.
  • The link for Shihihutug University is dead (amazingly, we don't seem to have an article about this university in any language??)
    • They've revamped their website, so I've found a new link.
  • It would be great to know more about modern Mongol impressions of Shigi Qutuqu; the fact that they named their law university after him seems to indicate he is still among the most revered law people. But I appreciate that this is really hard to find out more about.
    • Yes, I don't quite know where I would start looking.

A fine article overall. —Kusma (talk) 09:05, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Airship ? Gog the Mild (talk) 12:08, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry @Kusma and Gog the Mild: had health issues. Reply above. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:15, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Happy now, supporting. —Kusma (talk) 16:26, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MSincccc

[edit]
  • "First decades" could be changed to "early decades" for clarity.
    • Don't really see the increased clarity, but done.
  • "empire's founder Temüjin (later Genghis Khan)" could be changed to "empire's founder, Temüjin (later known as Genghis Khan)," for grammatical correctness and better readability.
    • Good call, done sort of.
  • "played an important role" could be changed to "played a significant role".
    • I prefer "important" to "significant"—the latter in this context seems more low-key than the facts.
  • He may also have been a major source for the "Secret History of the Mongols," which modifies and enhances his role in early Mongol society. A more concise version.
  • "chronological difficulties rule this account out" could be changed to "chronological inconsistencies make this account unlikely" for precision.
  • The word "however" at the beginning of the last sentence could be omitted for a smoother flow.
    • All done.
  • The Secret History exaggerates his role in the years after the empire's foundation, but Shigi Qutuqu was nevertheless appointed to several high-ranking legal positions. Rephrased version after combining the two sentences.
    • This appears to already be in the article?
  • "He was however the commander" could be changed to "However, he was the commander" so as to correctly place the adverb.
    • I thought you preferred removing the "however" (see above)?
  • "Genghis's successor" could be specified in apposition to "Ögedei Khan" for clarity.
    • In article.
  • "executed a census" could be changed to "conducted a census" for a more precise language.
    • Excellent thought, I wasn't that happy with "executed".
  • A comma could be added after "1235–1236".
    • I don't think that's necessary
  • You could replace "fiscal policies soon after" with "fiscal policies shortly thereafter" for a smoother flow.
    • I've removed "soon after", it seemed slightly obvious/tautological.
  • You could add the following phrase-Having survived the power struggles during the reigns of Güyük and Möngke- at the beginning of the final sentence to improve the narrative flow and provide context for his death.
    • ...that is also there?

I have read upto the lead. Will let you know of any further suggestions later, if any. Regards —MSincccc (talk) 05:42, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • According to the Secret History of the Mongols, after the Mongol leader Temüjin (later known as Genghis Khan) led a raid against a Tatar camp named Naratu Šitü’en, his plundering troops discovered a boy abandoned in the camp. He was recognised as being of aristocratic descent because he wore a gold nose ring and a silk jerkin lined with sable.
    • Assuming you only wished to divide the sentence, done.
  • However, this account is difficult to believe.
    • Not done, don't see the need.
  • The raid on Naratu Šitü’en can be precisely dated to a campaign that Temüjin fought in alliance with the Kereit chieftain Toghrul and the Chinese Jin dynasty in May–June 1196. However, Shigi Qutuqu was already prominent in Mongol society by 1206, which is unlikely if he were a small child a decade earlier, as it would make him significantly younger than his adoptive siblings. This depiction may have been intended to position Shigi Qutuqu as a more senior member of Mongol society by portraying him as a noble at birth and later as Temüjin's adopted brother.
    • Not done: there is no link between being significantly younger than his siblings and his prominence in Mongol society—what is important for the latter is his age.
  • According to Rashid al-Din's account, Shigi Qutuqu's adoption occurred more than a decade earlier. He records that when Temüjin and his wife Börte were still childless, they found a young boy and raised him as their son. If accurate, this incident would have taken place in the early 1180s, as Börte's eldest son, Jochi, was born in 1184 at the earliest. Rashid al-Din's explanation, which draws upon natural relationships, is considered more plausible by modern historians such as Paul Ratchnevsky and Christopher Atwood. The comfort Shigi Qutuqu's adoption brought to Börte, who may have been distressed due to her difficulties conceiving, sufficiently explains the honour and attention subsequently paid to him. This also clarifies a scene reported after Börte's death, where Shigi Qutuqu beats his hands upon her grave, crying out "O, sayin eke minu!" (lit. "Oh, my good mother!"
    • Partly done; some changes seem optimal, other unneeded.
  • Rashid al-Din transmits two incidents from Shigi Qutuqu's childhood. In one, he managed to subdue a herd of gazelles during a winter blizzard. In another, he played a role in saving Tolui, Temüjin's youngest legitimate son, from a Tayici'ut bandit. Around 1204, Temüjin appointed the Uighur scribe Tatar Tong'a as a tutor for his sons. Shigi Qutuqu adapted very well to this new role, recording his adoptive father's judgements and decrees alongside his tutor.
    • Not sure what the changes are here.
MSincccc (talk) 08:53, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Among these commanders, Muqali and Bo'orchu were honoured above all others, receiving legal protection and command of wings of the Mongol army.
    • Partly done.
  • Genghis Khan's response, as recorded in the Secret History,...
    • Good call.
  • by documenting all legal details,...
    • Done.
  • ...,who was appointed Minister of State.
    • Nice concision.
  • Ratchnevsky suggests that the Secret History, seeking to demonstrate Genghis Khan's susceptibility to external influence,...
    • Not done—Ratchnevsky's suggestion is not that the SH demonstrates Genghis was susceptible to external influence, but that he was open to be influenced at all.
  • He probably did not compile these records personally but supervised scribes who were also taught by Tatar Tong'a.
    • Partly done.
This completes my list of suggestions. The article is well-written, and I would be pleased to support this nomination once my previous suggestions are addressed. I also look forward to hearing from you @AirshipJungleman29:. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 10:18, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@AirshipJungleman29: Looking forward to your response to my suggestions above . A fine article whose FAC I would like to support once I have received your response to the above. MSincccc (talk) 17:36, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comments MSincccc and apologies for the delay—I was suffering from health issues. Responses above. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:38, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing more to add here. Support. MSincccc (talk) 04:40, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comments

[edit]
  • Could we have a JSTOR reference for Boyle.
  • No page range for Ratchnevsky (1993)?
    • Added both.
  • "appointed to several high-ranking legal positions; he served in this capacity ". Referring to several positions with a singular "this capacity" rings oddly.
  • "While some found his decrees and judgements oppressive and biased, other sources praise his honesty and judicial integrity." The past tense "found" suggests you are referring to contemporaries. Is that so? If it is, could "praise" take a similar tense. And perhaps to even work the word 'contemporary' in, to prevent any confusion. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:41, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 9 June 2024 [36].

Pantheon ad Lucem

[edit]
Nominator(s): ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:33, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I return to you with another of McQueen's lesser works, the restrained (and frequently misspelled) Pantheon ad Lucem. Like his later collection Neptune, it drew on Ancient Greece with a side of science fiction. McQueen pulled back on the runway shenanigans for Pantheon to focus on design. Critics expected bombast, and reception was consequently mixed; one reviewer complained that the exaggerated hourglass dresses that finished the show made the models look like "Scandinavian- designed salt and pepper shakers." In retrospect, the collection suffers for its placement between two of his absolute bangers - Deliverance and It's Only a Game. Nevertheless, it should be remembered for its beautiful draped garments and artful use of fabric. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:33, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]
  • "Inspired by ideas of rebirth, Ancient Greek garments" - "ancient" doesn't need a capital mid-sentence
    • Oop, I always forget that
  • In the "concept" section, you don't need to say all of "Pantheon ad Lucem[a] (Autumn/Winter 2004) is the twenty-fourth collection by British designer Alexander McQueen for his eponymous fashion house." as you already introduced him and his house in the previous section. Shorten to "Pantheon ad Lucem[a] (Autumn/Winter 2004) was McQueen's twenty-fourth collection for his eponymous fashion house." And move the link to Alexander McQueen (fashion house) to the point where you mentioned it in the previous section.
    • Fixed
  • "historicism was typical for McQueen." - historicism was already linked above, no need to link again. I also see Doctor Who, Domenico De Sole and eveningwear linked multiple times. Check for overlinking generally
    • Rm and fixed sentence a bit, as well as trimming the wording of the second De Sole mention. Eveningwear link fixed but I left the second Dr Who link as it's a different section and far enough away
  • "Booth Moore for the Los Angeles Times felt designers in general " => "Booth Moore for the Los Angeles Times felt that designers in general "
  • "that he didn't know" => "that he did not know"
    • Both above revised
  • Note a isn't a complete sentence so it doesn't need a full stop
    • Fixed
  • That's what I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:50, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:25, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47

[edit]
  • I would recommend adding WP:ALT text for File:McQueen, Musée des beaux-arts - 36 (cropped to Pantheon).jpg.
    • Done
  • I have a question about this part, (at the Grande halle de la Villette, Paris). Would it be more beneficial to say something like (at the Grande halle de la Villette in Paris) to clarify in the prose that this is a building in Paris? I have not really seen buildings presented this way when discussed with their cities.
  • For this part, (In contrast to his usually-bombastic presentations, the show), I think it would read better if you say McQueen's instead of his. Something about starting with the pronoun in a new paragraph reads a bit off at least to me.
    • Above both done
  • It might be helpful to make the quote box in the "Background" section a bit thicker to avoid any potential interference with the following section depending on how readers access and view the article.
    • Upped from 25 to 30%
  • The second paragraph of the "Background" section has multiple sentences in a row starting with a year or a set of years. If possible, I'd try to change at least one instance of this to avoid the prose from appearing like a listing of dates and events. I could just be over-thinking this though so feel free to disagree as it is rather minor.
    • I made a couple tries at writing around this but I couldn't find anything I liked. If this one isn't a sticking point for you, I think I'm going to leave it as is.

These are my comments for the lead and "Background" section. Apologies for doing a more piece-meal approach to this one. I unfortunately do not have the time today to thoroughly read and review the full article, but I wanted to at least get started. I do not see anything major, and my comments are mostly nitpicks. Aoba47 (talk) 21:58, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New rule, no more apologies between friends :)
  • As noted above, the "ancient" in this part, (from the loosely draped style of Ancient Greek garments), does not need to be capitalized. I did not see any other instances, but it may be worth double-checking to just make sure.
    • Oops, fixed
  • I would attribute the following sentence: (These items may also have been influenced by Tunisian designer Azzedine Alaïa.) Since it is discussing something that may be an influence, I would clarify in the prose who made this interpretation.
    • Done
  • I have a clarification question about this part, (and eyes slanted artificially with invisible tape). Did any critics discuss these slanted eyes in the context of Asian stereotypes (i.e. people making fun of Asians by pulling back their eyes)?
    • No one mentioned this. My guess is that because of the styling, it wasn't taken as referencing Asian people.
  • Apologies in advance for the silly question, but is it "eveningwear" or "evening wear"? I thought it was two words, but you would have more knowledge in this field and I actually do not think I have ever seen it written down before.
    • SchroCat says it's two words in British English, and he's my north star in that department, so I've tweaked that

That should be everything. Once all my comments have been addressed, I will read through the article a few more times to make sure I have not missed anything. It was a fun and engaging read. Best of luck with the FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 15:48, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SC
Lead
  • The OED has "eveningwear" as two words, not one (also repeated a few times in the body)
    • Corrected throughout
  • Estonian model Tiiu Kuik: Does her nationality matter?
    • I guess not
Concept
  • You give the incorrect translations, but not the correct one...
    • Interestingly and annoyingly, I've never found anyone who tries to account for which of the several senses of "Pantheon" McQueen is going for here. It's entirely possible he was just sticking cool-sounding foreign words together and didn't have a particular meaning in mind. I could add the various possible translations into the footnote if you think that's useful.
      • I think it translates as "pantheon to light" (which would also explain the styling of the runway). UndercoverClassicist would be able to confirm or correct the point as necessary. I think the correct translation is more important than the mistranslations, as far as the article text goes, and would counsel for keeping it in the body, but your call. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:58, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the intended meaning is "to light" (in the sense of "a monument to heroism"), it's not great Latin: ad like this should really mean "towards".
Probably the most intuitive translation of the words as written is "Pantheon towards the light" (Latin doesn't have a word for 'the', so it's added to nouns as needed in English), but I must admit that doesn't make much sense to me.
I suspect he was going for "Pantheon" in the sense of a temple rather than the usual sense of a collection of gods? UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:01, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm hesitant to assume a translation, because it's impossible to know what sense of the word pantheon McQueen was going for and it's not clear from context. The real problem is that no sources directly address the discrepancy. The closest thing I have to anyone acknowledging it is Fairer & Wilcox saying that the title "included the Latin for 'towards the light'" (my emphasis). Most other sources uncritically say something like "Pantheon ad Lucem, translated as 'towards the light'" and don't comment further. I assume they're thinking something like "oh, this Latin phrase has three words and the English translation has three words, that checks out", not considering that translation isn't always a one to one situation. So we have a situation where I think we can fairly say "many people are not translating this fully" but not one where we can go so far as to say "and here's the full translation". ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:52, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Production details
  • 'Alternately, they can be seen as "the base of a hovering starship"': As this is an opinion, it's probably best to attribute it directly to the writer
    • Done
  • "famously": probably best to delete this one
    • Done
  • "makeup" is hyphenated in BrEng
    • fixed

Catwalk

  • Estonian model Tiiu Kuik: Again, does her nationality matter?
    • Removed
Negative
  • "Scandinavian- designed": is there meant to be a space there?
    • Oh, nope, removed

That's my lot. Another very enjoyable read, for which I thank you. - SchroCat (talk) 10:08, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from JennyOz

[edit]

Hello PMC, an enjoyable and evocative article. I have a few comments and questions...

top

  • order needs tweaking to - short des / italic title / good / eng and date
    • Done

Concept and creative process

  • who specialised in bias-cut dresses cut to loosely drape and wrap around the body - avoid 2x cut? Something like 'who specialised in dresses bias-cut to loosely drape and wrap'
    • switched "cut to" to "meant to"
  • including tweed suits and fur coats - link tweed
    • Done
  • Look 54 echoed the gaping neckline in a design with elements of Tudor period clothing - that article has a link to the clothes they wore which illustrates the neckline. Swap link?
    • Swapped link, but to the main article, not right to the gallery
  • made from real feathers - why "real"?
    • As opposed to artificial feathers
  • delaying the collection's production.[1] McQueen called the orchid dresses "pivotal" to the collection's presentation.[1] Because of the production issues with the orchid prints, the collection was delayed - repetition "delaying the collection's" and "collection was delayed". Maybe change last sentence to 'Because of the production issues with the orchid prints, the collection was delayed and did not leave the production facility in Italy until nearly two days before the show.'
    • God, what an ugly string of sentences that was. I've revised entirely to cut the redundancy.

Runway show

  • at the Grande halle de la Villette, Paris - in Paris
    • Fixed
  • PPR president Francois-Henri Pinault, PPR chairman Serge Weinberg, - could remove second PPR
    • Done
  • Alternately, author Judith Watt - For "Alternately" a better word might be 'Alternatively' ie (another choice) as opposed to 'taking turns'?
    • Removed entirely, the sentence works without it
  • Also sprach Zarathustra - the fanfare's name is "Sunrise" per Also sprach Zarathustra#Structure. Do refs not mention its name?
    • Not the ones I'm using to ref its appearance in the show. I could get an outside ref for the name and put it in the text, but it doesn't seem that important
  • used in Stanley Kubrick's 1968 film 2001: A Space Odyssey. - remove (film) from pipe per twice above
    • Oop yea
  • The 1980 Kate Bush song - link Bush?
    • Done
  • "Orchid" shoulder-piece that accompanied the final look - "accompanied" sounds to me as a minor accessory whereas looking at its photos at V&A it's a spectacular part of the whole. Would "that featured in the final look" be too strong?
    • No, that's better
  • wore an evening gown in light grey tulle - hyphen light-grey, link Tulle (netting)?
    • I don't think the color gets hyphenated? SchroCat, any BrEng input here? Tulle linked though.

Reception Positive

  • Michael Fink, a market director for Saks Fifth Avenue, told WWD that he - WWD is not explained until section Retrospective - move full name and link up to here?
    • Oop yup, consequence of revamping
  • be similarly figure-hugging.[52] Similarly, in her review - 2x similarly a bit close?
    • Fixed
  • financial backers at Gucci Group that - twice above it is Gucci group
    • Made capitlized consistently

Negative

  • Booth felt many designs were - Moore felt
    • Aargh I thought I got all of those

Retrospective

  • 12th-highest pageviews at Style.com for the - article doesn't use italics?
    • Per MOS:WEBITALIC, it should be if it's basically a work of journalism (I'm paraphrasing), which Style.com was
  • McQueen told Harper's Bazaar in August 2004 that was unsure - missing 'he' after "that"
    • Fixed
  • journalist Dana Thomas omits - link her?

Analysis and legacy

  • One dress and one pair of boots from Pantheon appeared in the 2022 exhibition Lee Alexander McQueen: Mind, Mythos, Muse. - the dress in the top image was in a separate staging ie 2023 but was it the same dress?
    • Yeah, it was.
  • Curators described it as an example - what does "it" refer to here? Pantheon or their exhibition?
    • It's either that specific dress or the whole collection, but I don't have the Mythos book back until tomorrow, so I'll have to wait to check
      • It was that particular dress and another not from Pantheon and not pictured in this article.
  • The orchid shoulder-piece sold for $43,750 - format per others ie "Orchid" shoulder-piece ?
    • Done

Misc consistency

  • adverbial hyphens - "usually-bombastic", "highly-structured", "heavily-decorated", "strongly-positive", "commercially-viable" v most without eg "tightly curled hair", "heavily beaded", etc
    • de-hyphenated
  • science fiction hyphens - "science fiction films" (x3) and "science fiction show" v "science-fiction elements" (x2) and "science-fiction roots"
    • de-hyphenated

Quote boxes

  • (interesting current discussion at VPP) - did you consider adding coloured backgrounds?
    • If it's all the same to you, I don't like colored backgrounds for quote boxes

Visual Editor quirks?

  • Maybe not specifically an FA compliance issue but I am trying to understand what VE does...
Unnecessarily piped links - eg [[Fashion show|fashion shows]] and [[Star Trek|''Star Trek'']] and [[Wig|wigs]] - are these a quirk of Visual Editor? There are about 14 of these. They render and link okay of course but look strange in edit mode especially when many other links don't have the duplication.
And this: (2022)''.'' italics on a full stop? Why does VE do that?
    • Yes, they're a VE quirk. Someone usually shows up and fixes them with a script, so I rarely bother fixing it manually especially as it doesn't make a difference in the rendered page.

References - duplicates (maybe this a VE thing too?)

  • Refs 1 and 57 Armstrong, Lisa
  • Refs 24 and 48 Limnander, Armand
  • Refs 25 and 54 Todd, Stephen
  • Refs 26 and 27 and 47 Friedman, Vanessa
    • Yeah, I think it's a VE thing; now fixed

Category

  • Category:March 2004 events in France
    • Added

Hoping something of value above, JennyOz (talk) 06:29, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • JennyOz thank you, I appreciate your thorough read-throughs. All done except two things - "light-grey" and will have to double check the Mythos book once I grab it tomorrow. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:40, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • That all looks brilliant thanks! I've made a clarifying comment above re hyphenating colours but I'm happy to s'port either way. (Hey, when I saw that headpiece at The Met Gala earlier this month, I said to myself "Ah! I recognise that, Widows, thanks to PMC!") JennyOz (talk) 05:28, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

a few comments from sawyer777

[edit]
  • is there a publishing location for Thomas 2015?
    • Yes and I darn well don't know why I keep losing it when I do ref dumps, lol
  • Curators described the dress as an example of how McQueen's "proficiency in piecing" – assembling an item from multiple cuts of fabric – "translates into garments that generate sinuous movement around the body". sounds clunky to me - is there a better way to convey what piecing means?
    • Not reaaaaaally? It feels awkward to explain it first then go with the quote. I could remove the explanation, but if you don't know what piecing is, it's kind of meaningless praise. I could do a footnote I guess?
  • i removed the first one i noticed but there are quite a few repetitive citations, e.g. refs 30 & 1 in the last paragraph of the "concept & creative process" section; it'd be good to go through and trim/condense the unnecessary ones.
    • I tend to leave dupe cites in place because I'm a little hamster and I constantly rearrange things and if I don't dangle refs off every sentence, I lose track of them in moving stuff around
  • "orchid" is linked in the body but not the leade.
    • Done

that's all for now! ... sawyer * he/they * talk 07:01, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sawyer777 I've responded to all, cheers :) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:05, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
great! i agree that the piecing bit is tricky - if only there was an article about the technique to link to. i can't think of any better way to word it myself, and a footnote seems like it'd be too much. the duplicate ref thing definitely makes sense and is no skin off my back, just something that caught my eye. neither of those particularly bother me. looking at the rest of the comments on here, happy to support. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 03:47, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I could do an entry in the glossary of sewing terms, if I can find the sourcing. Thanks for your comments and your support! ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:59, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
good idea with the glossary! ... sawyer * he/they * talk 04:00, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And done! ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:01, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source and image review

[edit]

While I am somewhat iffy on The Independent lately, it seems like the author is good enough. Is "Homer, Karen (2023). Little Book of Alexander McQueen: The Story of the Iconic Brand. London: Welbeck Publishing Group. ISBN 978-1-80279-270-6" a reliable source?

  • Welbeck Publishing Group appears to be a reputable publisher, and Karen Homer is a fashion journalist who has written other books about fashion.

I don't think we need an external link that is already used as a source.

  • Normally I wouldn't, but it's consistent with other articles in the series having an easily-accessible link to the official video of the show

File:Star Wars and the Power of Costume July 2018 13 (Princess Leia's white gown from Episode IV).jpg might need a template about the costume's copyright status.

Only two images seem to have ALT text.

With File:Grande halle de la Villette, Paris 12 March 2016.jpg I kinda wonder about the variety of EXIFs that the Flickr uploader has used. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:19, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review, Jo-Jo Eumerus, I've replied above. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:44, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comments

[edit]
  • Bibliography: The first item, why is Alexander McQueen not given as 'McQueen, Alexander' as all the other authors are?
    • Alexander McQueen the person isn't the "author" of the video, some unknown videographer is. The "Alexander McQueen" at the beginning is part of the whole title of the video, which is "Alexander McQueen | Women's Spring/Summer 2004 | Runway Show". The "Alexander McQueen" linked in the "Publisher" field is the brand, which published the video on its channel.
  • "For the show's finale, model Tiiu Kuik wore a grey evening gown with an exaggerated hourglass silhouette, styled with a shoulder-piece decorated with silver orchids, walking to the spotlit centre of the stage to the sound of a flatlining heart monitor." The grammar doesn't work. You have "Tiiu Kuik wore a grey evening gown ... walking to the spotlit centre". Gog the Mild (talk) 19:30, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by FrB.TG via FACBot (talk) 8 June 2024 [37].

Shovel Knight Showdown

[edit]
Nominator(s): The Night Watch (talk) 19:22, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a video game that was the last add-on to Shovel Knight. After my last FAC was archived, I've decided to revisit the Shovel Knight franchise to see if there is room for a Featured article somewhere. So let's start small with the last of the expansions, an interesting party game that was not as impactful as TowerFall or Smash Bros., but is still worth a quick visit. What the article lacks in prose size I believe it makes up with comprehensiveness. I look forward to your comments. The Night Watch (talk) 19:22, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Skyshifter

[edit]

Will comment soon. Skyshiftertalk 22:53, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox and lead

  • The infobox says the genre is "platform", but the lead begins with "is a fighting game".
Fixed
Linked to Artificial intelligence in video games
  • Could add the year of release after the games cited, i.e. Mega Man 7 (1995).
Done
  • "The game received average reviews on release" — as the Switch version received "generally favorable reviews" according to Metacritic, "favorable to average reviews" could be an option here.
I chose "average reviews" to avoid the problem around WP:VG/MIXED, which says that we should avoid summarizing reviews with the terms "mixed to positive" or "mixed to negative", which probably includes "favorable to average reviews" as well, though I can change it to just "mixed" if you think that would be more appropriate.

Skyshiftertalk 23:17, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Skyshifter follow-up ping. The Night Watch (talk) 15:03, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apply the suggestion of adding the year of release after the games throughout the article.

Gameplay

  • Ok

Development and release

Done
  • "Chester's Choice allows the player ..." I feel like this specific sentence should be in Gameplay
Moved
Done
  • "release date on April 9, 2019"; "on" → "of"; currently this could be interpreted as the delay being announced on April 9, 2019
Done
  • "on December 10, 2019" the year can be removed, as it was just mentioned
Done

Reception

  • Add the OpenCritic assessment to the prose. I'd also change the 38% in the table to "38% recommend" as in OneShot, but this is optional.'
Done
  • You should introduce the reviews' authors, e.g. "Zachary Miller of Nintendo World Report"...
I prefer list only the outlet rather than every one of the authors as I find having both titles can be difficult to parse. This style has been used in some other FAs such as Katana Zero, Donkey Kong Country etc.
Done
Done
  • "but said that the had a narrative" — missing word here I believe
added
  • "A few reviewers called the boss battle a highlight" → "A few reviewers highlighted the boss battle"
Done
  • You use "reviewers" multiple times in this section, but "critics" one single time. I recommend changing some instances of "reviewers" to "critics".
Changed a few to "critics"

References (formatting)

  • There's a formatting error on ref 12
Think I fixed it
  • Add italics to the game's name on ref 16
Done
Done

Skyshiftertalk 17:48, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Skyshifter follow up notification. Thanks for the review. The Night Watch (talk) 19:40, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support Skyshiftertalk 20:14, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47

[edit]
Reworded
  • I do not thin "originally" is needed in this part, (Yacht Club Games originally envisioned Showdown), as I believe that it could be understood with "envisioned" that these plans changed along the way.
Cut that word
  • This part, (while the single-player mode received a negative response, many reviewers criticizing its difficulty balancing) reads a little off to me. I understand the meaning, but it may be better to make these negative critiques into their own sentence.
Split into its own sentence
  • Apologies in advance if this is obvious, but should the platforms be mentioned in the lead? I was just curious as I can see it in the infobox and the article itself, but it is not present in the lead.
I added the platforms to the lead
  • I would add WP:ALT text to the infobox image as well as the screenshot.
Done
  • I do have a comment about this sentence: (The plot of the mode takes place after the narrative of Shovel Knight: Specter of Torment, where Specter Knight's friends attempt to defeat the Enchantress by imprisoning her in a magic mirror.) I originally read this as meaning the magic mirror plot happened in Spector of Torment, but only later realized that is not the case. I would adjust it to something like (Set after the events of Shovel Knight: Specter of Torment, the plot of the mode is about Specter Knight's friends attempting to defeat the Enchantress by imprisoning her in a magic mirror.)
Done
  • I have a comment for this part, (calling it "somewhere between Smash Bros.") I was initially confused by the quote as it felt incomplete (i.e. between Smash Bros. and what?). I looked at the source and the quote is accurate, but I am wondering if perhaps paraphrasing it would avoid such confusion. Maybe something like (comparing it to Smash Bros.) or (saying it is similar to Smash Bros.)
Changed to "compared to Smash Bros"
  • Was there any reason given for the delay in the release date?
They delayed it so that they could refine the game, added a sentence clarifying.
  • I have a clarification question about this sentence: (Other reviewers considered some characters too powerful.) Did either of these two sources provide examples of this? I was just curious if there was a way to briefly expand upon this.
Nintendo World Report said that large characters like Polar Knight could be too powerful, though I rephrased it to more clearly state that the reviewers had trouble with the balancing.
  • I have a question about this part, (added that the minigames in the campaign). Apologies if I had missed this in an earlier section. What are these "minigames"? I was under the impression that the campaign was mostly fighting á la Mortal Kombat.
They were parts of the campaign that the player needed to progress, such as a section where the player had to shoot targets that moved around the screen. Should I include their existence in Gameplay?
If possible, I would include them in the "Gameplay" section to clarify this part and to give readers a more complete understanding of the campaign mode. Aoba47 (talk) 16:23, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would italicize the game title (and any other game titles) in citation titles per WP:CONFORMTITLE.
Italicized

I hope that this review is helpful. Once everything has been addressed, I will read through the article again to make sure I have not missed anything. Best of luck with this FAC. Aoba47 (talk) 16:15, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Finished with adding the minigame portion, I believe that I have addressed your comments @Aoba47. Thanks again for your review! The Night Watch (talk) 05:10, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for addressing everything. I support this FAC based on the prose. Aoba47 (talk) 13:21, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Draken Bowser

[edit]

Short and to the point, which is reassuring since it's a DLC. This could be stated a bit more clearly though. The lead introduces the game as an "add-on", and I'm not sure the article elaborates on this at any point.

Lead

  • "where players battle one another to collect the most gems that appear on a stage, to a free for all setting where players engage in a battle to the death." -- shorter, which would make the lead perhaps a bit too short and allow for a slight expansion.
Done. I think the lead is a bit brief but not too short, I've seen some shorter ones like with OneShot for example.
  • I'd prefer including the DLC acronym here as well.
Done

Gameplay

  • "a unique type of movement" -- does this refer to a broader "movement set" or a unique "movement ability/skill"?
movement ability/skill. Would there be a better way to phrase this?
In that case I'd use either "movement ability" or "movement skill". /DB
changed to "movement skill"
  • "range" -- like the GA-reviewer I don't think this is the best way to introduce these characters
Changed to "include", though maybe another way to say this would be better. Thoughts?
That works. /DB

Development and release

  • "its original planned release date" -- I don't think both are required.
Done

Regards. Draken Bowser (talk) 09:27, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Draken Bowser follow-up notification. Thanks for the review. The Night Watch (talk) 15:50, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pledging. Cheers. Draken Bowser (talk) 22:43, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

[edit]

Recusing to review.

  • The first sentence of the lead needs to state that it is a video game. As does the opening sentence of the main article.
A fighting game is a type of video game, which is consistent with how other video game FAs are introduced such as Tunic being mentioned as an action-adventure game, Katana Zero being mentioned as a platform game, and The Longing being introduced as a point-and-click adventure game.
Wikipedia is not a reliable source, so you can't point at other articles. Kung fu is a fighting game. Fencing is a fighting game. MOS:FIRST states "The first sentence should introduce the topic, and tell the nonspecialist reader what or who the subject is, and often when or where. It should be in plain English." Emphasis added.
Fair enough, done.
  • References: article titles (those in quote marks) are a mix of sentence case and title case. They should be consistent. (How they appear in their originals is irrelevant.)
Changed to title case, tell me if I missed any.
Done
  • "Players take control of twenty characters". Twenty characters each?
Each player has twenty fighter characters to choose from, but they can only battle each other with one character at a time.
Could the text reflect this.
Changed it up some. Does the new iteration work?
Neat.
  • "Completing this mode with each fighter". That's with each of the 20 fighters?
Yes, that's correct
  • "a small minigame similar to modes in Mega Man 7". What is a "mode"?
Linked to "game mode"
  • "Playable characters include Shovel Knight, who attacks with a shovel or magic wand, to Specter Knight, a fast character that can wall jump, to Plague Knight ..." You can't say "include ... to". Maybe "include" → 'range from'?
Done
  • "collecting them causes a helpful effect." Maybe 'collecting them has a helpful effect'?
Done
  • "or a magnet that can be used to push back other players." Just checking that you have this right, as magnets more commonly attract.
That's right, the fact that the magnet can push back players is probably a design joke made by the creators.
  • "such as a modifier that prevents items from appearing, to another that causes bombs to fall randomly around the level." "such as a ... to another ..." is not grammatical. 'such as a modifier that prevents items from appearing, or another that causes bombs to fall randomly around the level' would be.
Done, good catch
  • "Showdown features a single-player story mode. Set after the narrative of Shovel Knight: Specter of Torment (2017), the plot of the mode is about ..." As this is an in-universe description, I don't think it needs "(2017)".
Done
  • "Story mode features three separate difficulty options". Suggest deleting "separate".
Done
  • "As part of the Kickstarter crowdfunding campaign for Shovel Knight back in 2013". Delete "back".
Done
  • "first attempt at making a multiplayer experience." Suggest 'first attempt at creating a multiplayer experience.'
Done
  • "due to its reliance on multiplayer." This may just be me, but this reads as if it has a word missing off the end.
It's correct, the reviewer said that the game was not as good as the rest of the franchise because you need other people to enjoy it. I paraphrased something along those lines
Fair nuff.
  • "Nintendo World Report said that smaller fighters would be at a disadvantage". What makes a fighter "smaller"?
Smaller in size generally. If you look at the image in the article, Polar Knight (the burly viking character with the white beard and snow shovel) is a large character while Goldarmor (the knight with the sword and shield that is attacking Polar Knight) is a small character.
  • "USgamer said that the single-player gameplay was inferior to multiplayer by design, but said that it had a narrative ..." "said that ... said that ...", could one be varied. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:01, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to "opined"
A nice little article. A pair of come backs above. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:26, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image and source review

[edit]

Images seem well placed, licenced and rationale-d. I see all the sources are on WP:VGSOURCES and seem to have consistent formatting, but I have to wonder who writes/edits Nintendo Life, IGN, GameRevolution and VentureBeat? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:49, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • IGN is one of the most prominent review outlets for video games and news, it's owned by Ziff Davis. There's a wide variety of contributors there but the articles cited in the article are written by one of their senior editors. Their editorial standards page is here.
  • Nintendo Life is part of Gamer Network which owns several other reliable outlets such as Eurogamer, VG247, and USgamer. Apparently some of their staff was shared with Push Square and their reviews have been included in multiple featured articles.
  • GameRevolution had staff that judged at E3, the largest video game trade show before it was shut down last year. The website has been cited by peer-reviewed sources and books according to WP:VG/S.
  • VentureBeat has been cited by The New York Times and has a staff page here. An ethics statement is listed here as well.
Jo-Jo Eumerus any other questions you have? The Night Watch (talk) 15:27, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's all. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:40, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment

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) 8 June 2024 [38].

John F. Kennedy document hoax

[edit]
Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 13:54, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An interesting little stir was created in the mid-1990s when it was claimed that a new cache of documents had been uncovered that contained salacious details about the private life of the former US president John F Kennedy. The documents, it was claimed, showed he'd been married before his nuptials to Jackie, that he did a deal with a mafia boss to win his senate seat, and that he bribed the FBI's J Edgar Hoover to keep quiet about his (Kennedy's) sex life. The one drawback is they were forgeries – and not very good ones either. Cue much wailing, gnashing of teeth, law suits, embarrassment and criminal charges. This has gone through a full rewrite recently and then been given a thorough going over by Wehwalt and Ssilvers to remove any lingering Britishness in the writing, for which they both have my thanks. All further comments are most welcome. - SchroCat (talk) 13:54, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support I made edits and comments when the article was in draft.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:35, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support I too commented informally while the article was in draft, and on rereading for FAC I find nothing to add. As far as I can see the article is comprehensive, balanced and well sourced; and it is surprisingly well illustrated. Meets the FA criteria in my view. Tim riley talk 16:19, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks to you both for your earlier comments and assistance - it was much appreciated. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:56, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

[edit]
  • "Cusack Jr was the lawyer for the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of New York, who was appointed as a guardian of the estate of Gladys Pearl Baker, Monroe's mother, in the 1970s." This is confusing as grammatically "who" appears to refer to the archdiocese. I would delete "the lawyer for the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of New York, who was" as not important for the lead.
  • "a written signature had removed a tiny part of a line typed by using a modern plastic typewriter ribbon". I do not understand what a signature removing part of a line means,
  • "Cusack Jr. was also the personal counsel to Cardinal John O'Connor.[13] In the 1970s, a surrogate court judge appointed Cusack Jr. as a guardian of the estate of Gladys Pearl Baker, Monroe's mother. This is the only known connection he had to either Monroe or Kennedy.[14] Cusack Jr. died on October 28, 1985, aged 66. [13] Cardinal O'Connor officiated at his funeral." Putting Cusack/Baker/Kennedy in the middle of Cusack/O'Connor implies a connection between the church and the guardianship. I think the two sentences about Cusack/Baker/Kennedy should be moved to a separate paragraph and the church comments cut down as tangential background.
    I went with keeping them in the same para in the end, although separating them. A separate para was less than a line and just looked lost and stubby. I've kept the church info in for the moment as I think it's good background on the father as a responsible, trusted and upright lawyer, in comparison to his son. I can be persuaded to trim it down if necessary though! - SchroCat (talk) 07:56, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "audited one of its courses". What does this mean?
    What form the audit took I don't know (ie. audited financially or whether it was a standards audit), as unfortunately the sources do not make it clear. - SchroCat (talk) 07:56, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Guys, in the US, when we say that someone "audited" a course, we merely mean that they attended the class sessions, but did not credit as part of their degree program a grade for classwork. It is done for one's personal educational interest and because one admires the professor or has heard that the course is of high quality. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:06, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "They also purportedly showed that to keep Kennedy bribed J. Edgar Hoover, the Director of the FBI, to keep quiet about Kennedy's sexual activities." The grammar gets lost here.
  • "archives at Cusack & Stiles concerning a transfer of land from the Kennedy family to the New York Archdiocese". Does this qualify the statement that the guardianship was Cusack senior's only connection to Kennedy?
    I've tweaked the first bit slightly to show it was JFK, rather than the Kennedy family. - SchroCat (talk)
  • Presumably Cusack could not repay in full but is it known whether he paid part or was pursued through the courts to pay?
    There's nothing in the sources, unfortunately. - SchroCat (talk) 07:56, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • An interesting article - one of a number of cases which show how gullible people can be if they think they have got a scoop. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:44, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Dudley, Many thanks for these. Shades of the Hitler Diaries, with everyone over-excited about the possibilities without doing some basic checks first! I hope I've done justice to your comments, which are all done, except where commented on. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:56, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks Dudley: it's much appreciated. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:09, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Forged_Kennedy_document.jpg could use a stronger FUR and a different tag

Comments

[edit]
  • "Hersh began including information about the documents into his book" => "Hersh began including information about the documents in his book"
  • "It was during the checks of the documents by NBC television network" => "It was during the checks of the documents by the NBC television network"
  • "His marriage notice in The New York Times stated he graduated" => "His marriage notice in The New York Times stated that he graduated"
  • "The documents Cusack forged supposedly showed Kennedy had" => "The documents Cusack forged supposedly showed that Kennedy had"
  • "Cusack showed the some of the documents" => "Cusack showed some of the documents"
  • That's it :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:52, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:54, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

From Tim O'Doherty

[edit]

Marker, ping if I've not started ~10 days from now. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 15:21, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. A few points (might be slightly out of order, did two passes):

  • according to Kennedy's biographer Richard Reeves, she had previously told people both of the affair, and that she wanted to marry the president - MOS:JOB would have this be "the President". Additionally, (keeping in mind this article is in American English) is the comma before "and" needed?
    I think so. I wouldn't have put it in if it were BrEng, but I think it's needed in AmEng. Happy if a passing AmEng speaker corrects it though! - SchroCat (talk) 17:50, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the comma is not wanted. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:30, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • She later told a confident - confidant?
  • In addition, as of 2024, Hersh has won - is "in addition" needed? "As of 2024, Hersh has won ..."
    I've added to it, rather than removed. If we go with "As of ... then the list doesn't include the Pulitzer, so we need something to link the Pulitzer to the other awards. - SchroCat (talk) 17:50, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you need to repeat "pulitzer". How about "As of 2024, Hersh has also won..."? -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:30, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • testified before the United States Senate subcommittee on Education in 1963 - "US Senate" or just "Senate"?
  • Cardinal O'Connor officiated at his funeral. - is "Cardinal" unnecessary or American English? [insert British wisecrack here]
  • fix the 1960 US presidential election - can we drop "US"?
  • an early, secret first marriage - does the source say how early this "marriage" was?
  • In November 1993 Cusack, Reznikoff and Cloud - comma after 1993 (for the Yanks)?
  • as "a sort of vigorous 9-year-old valiantly combating dyslexia" –[53] - should the ref be before or after the en-dash?
    After, as far as I am aware. - SchroCat (talk) 17:50, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • ABC did not tell him in advance that they knew the documents were forgeries - haha. I imagine the temperature in that room dropped quite a few degrees after that.
    Unsurprisingly, he wasn't a happy bunny during the interview, from all I've read! - SchroCat (talk) 17:50, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link federal prison?
I would not link federal prison. The US system of federal and state authorities is unnecessary to explain. If anyone really wants to know more about federal prison, they can look it up, but the words are clear enough on their faces, and it is not important to this topic to have a specific understanding of which prison system he was sentenced to. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:30, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Might do another round but I can't see how this is anything but a support. Very interesting case. Cheers — Tim O'Doherty (talk) 16:25, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Tim, all covered; thanks for the comments - all much appreciated. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 17:50, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And a couple of tweaks, based on SSilvers's comments too. - SchroCat (talk) 06:43, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Had another scan and nothing to complain about. Support. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:28, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks, Tim, that’s great. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 19:20, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UC

[edit]

Saving a space -- another fascinating topic. UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:31, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Some of the forged documents supposedly showed Kennedy's dealings with organized crime: as I read that as written, it implies that Kennedy definitely did have dealings with organised crime, but it's dubious as to whether the documents really showed it (compare "the picture supposedly showed the Queen's lover, Geoffrey Boycott"). Suggest "supposedly showed that Kennedy had had dealings with..." and so on.
How about just "supposed dealings"? -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:44, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would work fine for this bit, but I'm not sure how it would mesh with the rest of the sentence, where we list a whole bunch of other false accusations. On the other hand, it is a long sentence, so there might be an argument for splitting it anyway. UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:27, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cusack sold the papers through memorabilia dealers for between $6 and 7 million: my usual inflation query.
  • John F. Kennedy, while the 35th president of the United States from 1961 until his assassination in 1963, was likely romantically involved with actress Marilyn Monroe at some point during his presidency: not sure about the while here: it reads awkwardly with at some point during his presidency. Also, technically, he remained the 35th president after his assassination. Suggest "John F. Kennedy was likely romantically involved with actress Marilyn Monroe at some point during his presidency, which lasted from ..."
Or just "while serving as president of..."? I don't think the number is important here. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:44, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed: I think the dates are important, though. UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:27, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Biographers differ in their opinions of the length or depth of any relationship, while: I think the point would be clearer if we moved "While" to the front of the sentence: the point is that people believe it happened so hard that the actual fact or not of it is moot for our purposes.
  • and that she wanted to marry the president: suggest "marry Kennedy": it wasn't that she wanted to marry whoever was president.
  • Having the Spoto quote as a pullout (and the last word), in my view, puts the article's weight behind its broad conclusions -- that they were not having a love affair in any meaningful sense, and that Quirk et al were wrong. Do we have a strong enough consensus in the sources to make that claim?
    Yes, I think so. There are degrees of opinion, obviously, but most seem to be in this sort of area. Where Spoto takes a slightly different line to the others, it is in talking about the two being partners in a love affair; the others don't focus on the love angle, seeing it as a more earthy pursuit of two people with high sex drives. - SchroCat (talk) 06:43, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hm: I think if we are fairly definite that the two were sleeping together, we should adjust the framing of the article to be less conclusive that "an affair" wasn't taking place -- it sounds like what Spoto is really doing is quibbling the meaning of affair rather than disputing what most people would see as the important thing. UndercoverClassicist T·C 08:24, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think I'd rather keep it in. I think we're clear that it is probable that they slept with each other - and don't forget, there is no evidence or proof that there was a physical relationship, just a high probability. The Spoto quote just clarifies the nature of the relationship to some extent, which is important, given what Cusack's forgeries claimed. - SchroCat (talk) 09:33, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't disagree, but I think the order is important: at the moment, we have:
    They were likely involved -> they likely slept together -> but Spoto says they didn't have an affair
    I think this could be read as casting WP:UNDUE doubt on the sleeping together: I'd perhaps frame it as:
    They were likely involved -> While Spoto says what they had didn't count as an affair -> Even he says they probably slept together.
    UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:57, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Done, but I don't think it's an improvement. - SchroCat (talk) 09:40, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thinking, slightly morbidly, of WP:ENDURE, you may wish to amend to Seymour Hersh, an investigative journalist and political writer, came to prominence... (that is, remove the present tense). Granted, the "as of 2024" section will need changing anyway when that tense is no longer appropriate.

More to follow.

  • Capital letter needed in as of 2024
  • Hersh and Little, Brown and Company: consider Hersh and the publishers Little... to avoid the potential ambiguity/clunkiness of going from one name into a single name composed of many (it sounds as if there were four men here).
  • Little, Brown thought: this is the normal way of shortening their name, but it does read a little oddly: suggest the publisher?
  • Suggest clarifying that both Loyola High School and Columbia are in New York (Loyola is in Manhattan). Is it relevant that Loyola is specifically a Jesuit institution? Can see it either way.
Both Loyola and Columbia are in Manhattan. BTW, does the source specify which undergraduate school he attended at Columbia? Almost certainly Columbia College. Also, the correct name of Loyola is Loyola School (no "high"). -- Ssilvers (talk) 08:10, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The school name isn't mentioned, unfortunately - it's just "The younger Cusack, who attended Loyola High School and Columbia University" in the source. - SchroCat (talk) 09:11, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the title of Samuels 1997, hyphen should be an endash.
  • After his father's death, Cusack & Stiles lent him : would put a date on this. Could we change one of the pronouns to a name: in theory, it could be read that the law firm lent the money to a dead man?
    I was trying to avoid "After Cusack's death, Cusack and Stiles lent Cusack..."! There's no date shown, unfortunately. - SchroCat (talk) 09:11, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Could we not bring in "after Cusack Jr.'s death, C&S lent the younger Cusack" or something like that? The "Jr." might be a useful disambiguator. We do know that Lawrence X. Cusack Jr. died in 1985, so could add "after [his] death the following year". UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:25, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've tweaked this to "After his father's death, Cusack & Stiles lent Cusack ..." - SchroCat (talk) 09:46, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Works perfectly! UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:41, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • When he completed his courses, he went to work at his father's firm: strictly, it wasn't his father's any more, was it? "The firm" would do fine.
  • Both BrE and AmerE would prefer naval intelligence to "Navy intelligence".
  • Cusack had never been either in the Navy or Naval Reserve: technically, the Navy Reserve is part of the Navy, so this isn't an either-or. We should also use the contemporary term consistently: Naval Reserve (as it was until 2005).
I think it reads well now -- it's worth specifying both. The only thing I might change in that phrase is "never *served* in either the Navy or Naval Reserve. -- Ssilvers (talk) 08:10, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Right, but it's grammatically wrong: it's like saying "he had never been either to London or to England": you either need to clarify something like "to London, or to anywhere in England at all", or to rework to something like "had never served in any part of the Navy". UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:18, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • FBI is never spelt out: is it such a common abbreviation that it doesn't need to be? I think the MoS has a list somewhere.
FBI is absolutely unambiguous here. Would European readers find it ambiguous? -- Ssilvers (talk) 08:10, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's very clear which organisation, but technically the MOS says to give the full rendering at some point, so I've dropped it in. - SchroCat (talk) 09:11, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • a precious metals dealer: hyphenate: precious-metals dealer (though I'm sure he was precious, too).
  • verifications on the handwriting: verifications of or tests on, I think.
  • he was not concerned that Cusack's claims were false – instead he was relieved that Cusack was not a spy: personally, I'd always treat someone's internal monologue as unverifiable, and so go with something here like "he later said, in a 1999 interview, that he had not been..." -- we can verify what he said, but not what he thought.
How about just adding "said that", as in he "said that he was not concerned". I think that this confirms that it was something he said (not a controversial fact, I think), and I think it would be distracting to the narrative to lay out exactly when he said it -- the ref supplies the date of the interview. -- Ssilvers (talk) 08:10, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • August 1996, Hersh and Obenhaus began filming the documentary, but NBC informed them that the network had decided to cancel the project. : that was quick! Any idea of the separation between these two events? We later imply that there was enough time for some text specialists to give the documents a fairly good look.
    Unfortunately not: the sources are hazy on some of the dates. - SchroCat (talk) 09:35, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obenhaus's research team noticed that two of the letters, written in Kennedy's hand, but on Cusack Jr.'s office notepaper: they weren't actually written in Kennedy's hand: suggest "written on C. Jr.'s office notepaper and purportedly in Kennedy's hand..."
  • printed on an IBM Selectric : add typewriter?
  • which was unavailable until 1973: it might be worth, at some point around here, reminding readers of when Kennedy died.
  • Could we name or at least link Jacqueline Kennedy?
  • Suggest linking dyslexia. Is there anything in any source we can add to the effect that Kennedy was a confident or particularly capable writer? It's not out of the question that a US president would have struggled with his handwriting.
Sorry to disagree on this one, but I don't think we should link dyslexia. Not only is it a commonly-known disorder, but it is a wild goose chase here, as we are not actually talking about anyone's dyslexia. Vidal was being metaphorical. And the legibility or consistency of one's handwriting is not related to his or her confidence or capability as a writer (there is no reason why a US President's handwriting would be any more legible than anyone else), so I don't see how this would be helpful. -- Ssilvers (talk) 08:10, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
there is no reason why a US President's handwriting would be any more legible than anyone else: well, precisely: in other words, we need some reason to believe that the poor handwriting would weigh against an identification of it as Kennedy's. UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:20, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry -- reading again, more carefully, I had the wrong end of the stick. Happy here. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:44, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • instead, interview Cusack and Cloud for an exposé.: purely for prose, I would either add a to before interview or change it to interviewed: it's a long way from the to which modifies its form, making it read as slightly awkward.
  • Jennings asked him directly if he had forged the papers: I would remove directly here: I don't think the meaning changes if we do, and it's always good to omit needless words.
  • Cusack claimed that the documents may be copies of earlier originals: sequence of tenses: may have been.
  • Could a wikitionary link or something help to clarify what Hersh meant by "Big deal" (that is, in very American English, that it wasn't a big deal?)
Isn't there something in the MOS or somewhere that says not to link stuff in quotes, generally? And, again, if a reader does not understand the sarcasm intended, I'm not sure making them follow some links to figure it out is helpful. -- Ssilvers (talk) 08:10, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
MOS:LINKQUOTE says link only to targets that correspond to the meaning clearly intended by the quote's author: this is precisely what I'm suggesting doing here. The clearly intended meaning is not the surface reading that, in particular, a non-native reader may infer. UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:21, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's used sarcastically here too, although obviously I don't know about the rest of the world. I think short of adding <sarc></sarc> tags around it, we're going to have to leave it the readers to get the gist - it's a bit too much of an OVERLINKING for my liking. - SchroCat (talk) 09:35, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's fair: there's a lot of latitude for individual taste here, and I err more on the side of linking than most. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:42, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, again, but it is helpful here to clarify that this was a jury trial -- not a trial before a judge without a jury. In fact, a criminal defendant can waive a jury trial, at least in some US jurisdictions if not all. -- Ssilvers (talk) 08:10, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some monetary values are not inflated (I noticed $7 million), though most are.
    I think I've given them where I can safely link them to a base year (from the sources). Where there is no definite date (for example, when he was made a loan by Cusack & Stiles), I've not given an equivalent. Please let me know if there are any I've overlooked, though. - SchroCat (talk) 09:40, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • a state court. In June 2001, this claim was denied by the courts: how come "court" has become plural here? Was it a NY state court?
  • Per MOS:SOMETHINGOROTHER, footnotes for material in dashes and brackets should go at the end of the parenthesised bit: I'd put note i directly against the number, personally.
Sorry to interject above. Great comments overall! -- Ssilvers (talk) 08:10, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • All covered, I think. Please flag up something if I've overlooked it. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:44, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure if overlooked or simply disagreed on, but I'm still not wild about the "in the Navy or the Navy Reserve" (compare "he had never supported a football team or Manchester United"). Could do "in the Naval Reserve or the regular Navy" ("regular" in the sense of "professional") if you like? Alternatively, "active-duty" is quite common in American writing at the moment, but not sure if it was at the time. UndercoverClassicist T·C 18:51, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, I thought it was the word ‘either’ that was the problem, which I removed. Having said that, I think we need to mention both as they are different entities. Your simile is slightly wrong: to extend the imagery, I see it as the difference between the junior and senior teams of ManUre: you’re in one and then move to the other. Both are closely related, but still under the same umbrella. - SchroCat (talk) 19:18, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not the case here, though, because the Naval Reserve is part of the Navy -- everyone in the Naval Reserve is, by definition, in the Navy. It's closer to "the United Junior Team and United" UndercoverClassicist T·C 19:23, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Most Americans are not up on the fact that the Naval Reserve is "part of" the Navy"; until now, I always had assumed that it is an additional, affiliated body. I think it reads smoothly now, while UC's alt suggestion reads less smoothly. But, I guess, UC is technically right, and maybe more military-minded readers will recognize the issue that UC sees. Up to SchroCat. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:22, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I’ve gone with “joined in the Navy or served in its reserve”. I think we need to refer to both entities (rather than ‘any part of the navy’), as it is a distinct and separate part - and I suspect (without anything in the way of proof except how UK equivalents behave), that members of the reserve will describe themselves as being in the reserve, rather than the navy as a whole. UK army reserves describe themselves as being in the reserves, rather than the army, for example: there is a difference between the full time and part time wings of the organisation, despite the administrative bundling together of the two entities. - SchroCat (talk) 04:51, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Great -- that works for me. Happy to Support UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:20, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Me too. An elegant solution! -- Ssilvers (talk) 07:32, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Excellent (although I made a slight tweak to it by removing an "in"). Many thanks as always for going through this and I'm delighted we landed at something much stronger. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:43, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

Spot-check upon request. There might be additional sources here, but not many I'd think. Sauce formatting wise, the main thing I notice is that ISBN isn't linked the same way in the sections. I presume that this is a reliable source? Does "Winship, Frederick M. (August 7, 1996). "Kennedy Book War Heats Up". United Press International." have a news(paper) name? Is "Weinberg, Steve (November 1997). "Attacks on Style and Substance". The IRE Journal. 20 (6): 6–15." in the right section? I notice that many of the news articles have no online footprint; are they really this obscure? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:11, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Jo-Jo. In answer to your questions: the ISBNs are all in the book section and are all linked in the same manner. Yes, I think Legal Assistant Today is reliable: is there any reason to think it isn't? No, there's no newspaper name for United Press International, as UPI is an agency (I've included the field "agency=United Press International" in the template). I think the IRE Journal is in the right section as a trade magazine, rather than an academic journal, although it could be argued either way. I've added one further URL to the news reports, but the others don't have links. As this includes at least one article that appeared on the front page on The Washington Post, I'm not sure they should be described as 'obscure', just that practice varies between newspapers. Many thanks for the comments. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:32, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Churchwell cite links to a different ISBN article than the others. I was asking about Legal Assistant Today because I couldn't find much of a footprint. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:22, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I don't understand the point about the Churchwell cite: the templates are all formatted identically and they all seem to render properly. Could you expand on that - I'm obviously being a bit slow on the uptake here. From the research I did on LAT, it seems to be reliable: it ran for ten years from a reputable publisher, no visible complaints about the output. It changed name at some point and may no longer be active, which probably explains the lack of footprint. - SchroCat (talk) 08:12, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like I was wrong about the links, so nevermind the ISBN thing. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:31, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from JennyOz

[edit]

Placeholder... Hi SchroCat, I have a few minor questions to ask. Should be finished tomorrow my time. JennyOz (talk) 13:21, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SchroCat, sorry for delay and length of my comments! Mostly they are my curiosity and I will be quite happy for you to simply answer "yep" or "nope" to any you deem too worthless:)

top

  • short description - start with 1993?

John F. Kennedy and Marilyn Monroe

  • almost any other event in the man’s presidency - curly apos in man's
  • In Spoto quote "historicocritical" - add hyphen historico-critical per ref ie is intentional compound hyphen not a line break hyphen (and our article also treats it as a compound although it uses "historical-critical" not "historico")
  • Kennedy's brother in law, described - add hyphens ie brother-in-law

Lawrence X. Cusack Jr. and Lawrence X. Cusack III

  • which was based at 61 Broadway, Manhattan, New York. - better as 'was based at 61 Broadway in Manhattan, New York.'?
  • Senate subcommittee on Education - cap S on subcommittee (seems the official norm eg here and article, etc)
  • Cusack Jr. died on October 28, 1985, aged 66.[13] O'Connor officiated at his funeral - move this sentence chron wise to bottom this para?
    I was trying to keep the church-related stuff together and separate from the Monroe-related stuff. - SchroCat (talk) 12:49, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • One of Cusack Jr.'s sons was his namesake, Lawrence X. Cusack III - I noticed that some sources call him Lex. Should we add "also known as" or "sometimes called" or similar somewhere?
  • He never studied at Harvard, but had only audited one of its courses - link Academic audit
  • Cusack had never joined the Navy or served in its reserve. - nor served? Cap R on reserve?
    Not sure on this one as it's a generic term, rather than a formal name. - SchroCat (talk) 12:49, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Production and sale of the documents

  • Reznikoff told Cusack that documents relating to Kennedy were highly sought after and valuable - I think sought after takes a hyphen (UK and US) even when not used attributively before a noun?
    I've gone with it: if one of the Americans watching this knows differently, they can chip in and correct us. - SchroCat (talk) 12:49, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • To give credibility to his story, Cusack claimed that between 1959 and 1963 his father had counseled Kennedy on numerous sensitive and personal matters - I'm guessing there's a hint here that the Cusack Jr. and Kennedy connection was as Catholics? Do any sources suggest Cusack III thought the firm's Catholic ties lent plausibility to JFK being counseled by the older Cusack?
    There's nothing in the sources on this, unfortunately. - SchroCat (talk) 12:49, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • showed that Kennedy bribed J. Edgar Hoover, the - add a nbsp between J. and Edgar (it was on a new line for me)
  • They also purportedly showed that Kennedy bribed J. Edgar Hoover, the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, to keep quiet about Kennedy's sexual activities. - need to add (FBI) here to cover its use in lede and caption?
  • Other fabrications in the papers included tax evasion by Kennedy; the payment of hush money to Monroe as his lover; - link hush money (ie beyond lede)
  • and a secret first marriage in 1939 - do we know if Cusack claimed it was secret at the time it happened or that it was later concealed?
    The sources focus on what the papers were claiming, not whatever line Cusack came up with. - SchroCat (talk) 12:49, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cusack stole genuine deeds from archives at Cusack & Stiles concerning a transfer of land from the Kennedy family to the New York Archdiocese - clarify this refers to the wider Kennedy family (not JFK's immediate) with that link. (Because above has "This is the only known connection he had to either Monroe or John F. Kennedy.")
  • stage a high-profile auction to enable to original investors - second "to" should be 'the'?
  • Hersh was contacted in December 1994 and shown some of the papers; he was interested in the story immediately.[19][33][34] According to journalists Evan Thomas and Mark Hosenball, this was when Hersh decided to change the focus of the book away from the assassination and towards the information in Cusack's Kennedy documents - I think "this was when Hersh decided" could be changed to 'this was when Hersh then decided to' (He could not have decided to change focus before he'd been shown the papers?)
  • According to journalists Evan Thomas and Mark Hosenball - link them or intentionally not done? (They both have author-links.)
  • he was relieved that Cusack was not a spy - any context available why the concern? spy for whom? someone protecting Kennedy's legacy?
  • With the new information from the Cusack documents, Hersh negotiated an advance from Little, Brown of $250,000. - but p. 66 of The New Yorker says Hersh already had a million dollar advance for The Dark Side. It's an additional advance? Also should p.39 be p.26?

Uncovering the forgeries

  • he continued to use experts in different fields, including those versed in fingerprint and handwriting analysis, and - we don't mention that no Kennedy fingerprints were found on the documents (per Zoglin Time)
  • although the verification continued - verification attempts?
  • she denied that she had ever seen Monroe and that a signature that appeared was hers. - ambiguous? is she denying the signature is Monroe's or that it was hers (Janet's)?
  • None had any knowledge of any connection - maybe 'No associates had any'?
  • any connection between the two men or had heard of Cusack Jr - or had previously heard of?
  • Another flaw was that the "y" in Monroe's signature - Marilyn? (because the "y" is in her first name)
    I think I'd best stick with the surname throughout - some people got a little over-excited last time I used a first name in an article! - SchroCat (talk) 12:49, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kenneth Rendell - link Kenneth W. Rendell?
  • although this was based upon a sample of only three cards - what sort of cards, greeting? (this is only mention of cards)
  • Another clue was that Kennedy's handwriting was irregular and inconsistent - Kennedy's own/real/genuine handwriting?
  • Gore Vidal, described it as "a sort of vigorous 9-year-old valiantly combating dyslexia" –[53] while - that ref should go before the dash, ie belongs to Vidal's quote?
  • Hersh wanted the news spread widely to ensure no-one else was fooled by them, and to ensure he was not legally liable for their promotion. - 2 x ensure, 'and to protect himself from legal liability' or similar?

Arrest and trial

  • investigators had found a notebook containing - where? do we know? Had Cusack not tried to cover his tracks?
    It just says they found his notebooks. I suspect he wasn't expecting to be caught, but it shows a particular attitude not to hide some of the giveaway clues of one's guilt! - SchroCat (talk) 13:28, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cusack's trial ended on April 30, 1999; - do we know when it started?

Aftermath

  • he filed for a writ of habeas corpus - add italics

Magazines

  • Frank, Reuven - authorlink Reuven Frank

News

  • Harden, Blaine - authorlink Blaine Harden

Misc

  • Re the false titles, eg "with actress Marilyn Monroe", "Journalist Lawrence J. Quirk", "although actor Peter Lawford", etc. (I thought between BB, TR and SC I understood and appreciated them but am now confused.) Are they used here as an Engvar option ie more acceptable in AmEng?
  • "between $6 and 7 million" x2 - maybe just me but this reads strangely? It's technically okay I think but just thought I'd mention other MOS options... 1) $6–7 million (removing "between" of course) or 2) 'between six and seven million dollars'
  • There is a "Script warning: One or more cite news templates have maintenance messages; messages may be hidden" - I have no idea how to identify.
    Trial and error in deleting them one by one has found the culprit. Now error free. - SchroCat (talk) 12:49, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's it. JennyOz (talk) 12:05, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from MSincccc

[edit]
  • Some of the forged documents allegedly showed that Kennedy had dealings with organized crime (through Sam Giancana of the Chicago Outfit), tax evasion, bribery of FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover, payment of hush money to actress Marilyn Monroe for being Kennedy’s lover, and a secret first marriage.
  • The flaws in the forgeries came to light during document verification by both NBC television network and ABC News while preparing the documentary.
    I agree @SchroCat. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 16:41, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional errors included the use of ‘lift-off’ type to correct a misspelling in Kennedy’s name and a signature that had inadvertently removed part of the underlying type—created using a modern plastic typewriter ribbon, which did not exist in the early 1960s.

MSincccc (talk) 11:20, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Monroe's biographer Donald Spoto observed that an affair between the two "has been assumed for so long that it has achieved as solid a place in public awareness as almost any other event in the man’s presidency".[4]
  • Journalist Lawrence J. Quirk characterized Kennedy and Monroe's relationship as an "on-again, off-again affair," while actor Peter Lawford, Kennedy's brother-in-law, rejected the speculation as "garbage".
  • Spoto describes four occasions between October 1961 and August 1962 when Kennedy and Monroe are known to have met;...

MSincccc (talk) 12:03, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • In the early 1990s, Cusack met John Reznikoff, a dealer in historical memorabilia, to sell a small collection of stamps left by Cusack's father.
  • Cusack and Reznikoff selected Tom Cloud, a dealer in precious metals who also engaged in memorabilia trading, to present the documents for sale.
  • Among those Reznikoff presented the documents to was Hal Kass, a collector and businessman.
    The suggested version is stronger because it flows more naturally and succinctly. This sentence structure is clearer and more engaging for the reader, making it more suitable for a potential FA-class article. But ultimately it's your choice whether to use it or not @SchroCat. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 16:47, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @SchroCat, was Kass an investor, and part of the group? If so, I would say so: "One of these investors to whom Reznikoff showed the documents was Hal Kass, a businessman and collector." -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:44, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The plan involved generating interest post-1998 and subsequently holding a high-profile auction to enable original investors to resell at a significant profit.
  • In December 1994, Hersh was contacted and shown some of the papers, immediately expressing interest in the story.
  • Following six months of negotiations, Hersh signed an agreement on July 3, 1995, granting him complete and exclusive access to all of Cusack's documents ahead of the scheduled auction.
    The present version is fine as it is. This was just a suggestion from my end. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 16:48, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • NBC executive Warren Littlefield subsequently stated that he had told Hersh:...
    In May 1997, one of Obenhaus's research teams noticed that...
    When the phrase "one of Obenhaus's..." is used, it indicates that there are multiple research teams or members. Hence, it suggests the plural. MSincccc (talk) 16:52, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There was only one team, so this would be wrong, but I have clarified this. - SchroCat (talk) 17:38, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This included Janet Des Rosiers, one of Kennedy's former secretaries, whose name appears in the papers and who denied that she had ever seen Monroe and that a signature that appeared was hers.
    Adding an "and" between "papers" and "who denied...". It makes for a stronger phrase then. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 16:55, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's grammatically confusing this way and not stronger. - SchroCat (talk) 17:38, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As soon as it became clear in July 1997 that the documents were fake, Hersh wanted the news to spread widely to prevent anyone else from being fooled by them, and also to ensure that he was not legally liable for their promotion. More preferable. MSincccc (talk) 17:00, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not an improvement (the "also" adds no benefit to the reader. - SchroCat (talk) 17:38, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    But you couls use this phrase as it is grammatically more sound-As soon as it became clear in July 1997 that the documents were fake, Hersh wanted the news to spread widely to prevent anyone else from being fooled by them,... MSincccc (talk) 18:00, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    ABC, following legal advice, decided to cancel the documentary project and instead chose to interview Cusack and Cloud for an exposé. MSincccc (talk) 17:02, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Cusack responded that he had not and also claimed that the documents may have been copies of earlier originals. MSincccc (talk) 17:04, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In response to claims of forgery,... You can omit the "the" for a better flow of the sentence. MSincccc (talk) 17:06, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    An investigation showed that he had spent the money he received from the sale of the forgeries on two large houses... This version avoids the repetition of "Cusack" which already appears in the sentence before and after this one. MSincccc (talk) 17:11, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Done - SchroCat (talk) 17:38, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    When that ended, the duo's federal claim was withdrawn, although a different defamation action continued in a state court. This version avoids repeating the phrase "Cusack and Cloud's" in successive sentences. MSincccc (talk) 17:13, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Mike Stern, one of the collectors who had paid $300,000[i], stated:... I rephrased it for a clearer flow of the sentence. MSincccc (talk) 17:15, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    But this has changed the meaning. "one of the collectors who had paid $300,000" means that more than one person paid $300k, which we don't know. "one of the collectors, who had paid $300,000" means he was one of the collectors and that he paid $300k: this we do know. - SchroCat (talk) 17:38, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @SchroCat I have reviewed the article's prose. I would be pleased to support the nomination once I receive your feedback on the recent suggestions. Regards and anticipating our future collaborations. MSincccc (talk) 17:17, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have read up to the section "Uncovering the forgeries". I will complete the rest of the article and its comments later. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 12:38, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 8 June 2024 [39].

Free and Candid Disquisitions

[edit]
Nominator(s): Pbritti (talk) 19:38, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article covers a disproportionately influential religious pamphlet written by an otherwise minor figure in 18th-century English Protestant history. The pamphlet would prove the primary influence (besides the 1662 Book of Common Prayer) on American Anglican liturgies and served as a catalyst for the Unitarian prayer book tradition. However, its influence on the institution it was explicitly written for–the Church of England–was almost null. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:38, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Serial

[edit]

Will look in later today, UTC. ——Serial Number 54129 23:12, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Serial Number 54129: i really hope i'm not annoying you, but it's been six days 750h+ 08:25, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Serial Number 54129: if you're available, I'd appreciate you taking the time to add some comments. I'll had time midweek next week to thoroughly engage with anything you might bring up! ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:43, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Evening SN, just checking to see if you are going to be inputting anything here. Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:16, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well. Since Pbritti has—probably unbeknownst to themselves—provided me with some reassurances, I am almost certain I will be able to look in tomorrow (UTC) morningish. I can't be more precise, unfortunately; we're having Chinese tonight, and that occasionally has a tendency to leave the next morning's movements more prone to short-term adjustment and alteration than usual. Cheers, ——Serial Number 54129 19:56, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Review
  • If you're going to start with the interregnum (inter/regnum or "between reigns") then you should line up the previous monarchy and why it failed in a sentence. It would also explain the religious divide. (Something like "following the Civil War of 1642–8 and the execution of the pro-catholic Ch.I... etc")
  • "Non-monarchical" seems slightly EGGy for "Republic"; or perhaps "Commonwealth" (cf. the 1649 Free State Act)
    • You're right. I was about to say that my original could have been misinterpreted to suggest the government was a military dictatorship, but...anyhow, Done.
  • "However, he disadvantaged the Presbyterian party": Not sure the "however" isn't slightly misleading; if I recall, he intended the conference to be a unifying body, whereas this currently reads as if it was intended to disadvantage the Presbyterians.
    • I nixed However,. My reading of the history here is that Charles generally favored the Episcopalians. If the current sentence is still rough, I can tackle it through a more thorough rewrite.
  • You link to John of Gaunt's gaff but not the bishop of Durham's?
    • I apologize, but I don't see what you're referring to. Is this in regard to the Caroline Divines link?
      • No. Link to Durham House? Which own article doesn't mention there link with bp either...
  • You don't agree wrt false titles? Fair enough; it's not a green link for nothing.
  • In fn.2 (which, incidentally, I don't think is necessary for the lead; a technical term like that is probably too much detail for an overarching view), put your [code]wikt:[/code] expression in lowercase, otherwise it redirects after a few seconds.
    • Removed from lead. Did I fix the linking issues?
    • Good stuff!
  • Probably worth noting the change of one king to another; perhaps "Ch.II had died in 1665, and his successor, J.II caused ire with his personal and etc" (perhaps even note that he had acceded with the support of most protestants).
    • Any thoughts? Obviously, your prerogative; I thought it would clarify an already complex narrative, is all.
      • Neglected to respond and describe my repeated efforts to draft something using the sources here. Ultimately, I ended up with a paragraph that felt even more jumbled. Additionally, I felt like it overemphasized an event some 84 years before F&CD was published. Obviously, other editors are welcome to contemplate a way to add this context, as the article isn't "finished". I may consider coming back in a few months with a fresh mind and taking a swing at it. If I do, I may ping you in the edit summary.
  • "The 1689 Liturgy of Comprehension": "The resulting...", as the date date is repeated.
    • Done.
  • "At least two further editions of the pamphlet were published"
    • Done.
  • "documentary evidence": what was this? Evidence of what? If it's evidence of historical events, then suggests this is clarified. If it's "evidence" of a theological bent, then change to sth like "material dating from".
    • Any thoughts?
      • I don't think further clarification is necessary, as I felt the description of Bacon and Calamy's work being included provided context for what this documentary evidence is.
  • "The text's first...": presumably F&CD? Should mention by name, as the last writing mentioned was the appendix. Probably too subtle a difference between appendixes and texts for the general reader.
    • Done.
  • Link catechism / psalter.
    • Weird oversight on my part. Done.
  • "Rather than any error": I suggest clarifying this is any theological or ecclesiological error; the more literal-minded reader might assume typographical...
    • Done.
  • Per BURDEN, inline citation required for "the utmost perfection" and "neither psalm nor hymn", later.
    • Done.
  • The term "office" has been used several times; suggest clarifying these are the Daily Offices.
    • Hi  :)
      • Forgot to mention, but I addressed this by nixing "office" when used in place of "rite". For many of these liturgies, "office" is part of the official or traditional name of the rite. However, given your suggestion that it could be conflated with the canonical hours, I have leaned into a more generalized and common term.
  • Link "baptism" at its first use.
    • Linked at baptismal
  • "The relevancy of The Books of Homilies was also the subject of questioning ": Slightly convoluted perhaps. Can this be clarified.
  • " large, two-part work": Boswell's piece needs some kind of name here (as you provide for others with massive titles), such as Remarks Upon a Treatise.
  • Next sentence then just needs "This defended..."
    • Done.
  • When did Blackburne lambast Jones? Immediately after he had read the MS of F&CD (even though "he returned it without corrections"?) or in his own Remarks?
    • No source elaborates on the point at which this criticism was made, but the context in the citation presented supports After reading the manuscript.
  • Apropos nothing, I'm surprised to find that Feathers Tavern Petition is a redlink...
    • As was I, but don't fret! I plan to write that article and publish alongside an overhaul to Theophilus Lindsey's article by October
  • In the several footnotes where you provide full book titles, it might be worth identifying any reprints, edited versions, etc, so the reader can find up-to-date editions and/or commentary.
    • I don't know of any reprints for any of the volumes discussed (even Disquisitions doesn't appear to have seen reprints after 1750). Two original copies of Hull's Inquiry have popped up for sale online since I started writing this article in January. I could probably offer additional external links to scans.
Source rev.

Pace your previous source reviewer, but there's a few things that need ironing out. The FAC co-ords can point you towards the script-that-you-don't-have-to-use-but-every-seasoned-reviewer-does-so-will-save-a-lot-of-trouble-if-you-do-too. It basically makes attending to FA? #2C (consistency in citation format) and one click process.

  • There's still no page number for Watson 1999.
    • I've received conflicting advice on this over the years: if I'm only citing the one page, should the page number be in the citation or the reference? It's been in the reference.
  • There's no reason for a book published as recently as Dawtry 2001/Marshall 2004 to have solely a 10-digit ISBN; Worldcat will provide the current 13X.
    • Done.
  • For ISBNs, choose a fmt and stick with kt. E,g. 978-X-XXXXX-XXX-X, 978XXXXXXXXXX or 978-X-XX-XXXXXX-X (at the moment you a mixture)
    • Done.
  • For Ditchfield 2008, if pagination is unreliable, use the |loc= parameter + identifying text.
    • Not familiar with the |loc= parameter but I used the identifying quote.
  • Notes and Queries & Methodist History need an OCLC or other identifier.
    • Done.
  • Since you provide locations for 3/4 ODNB citations, the fourth should have one also.

Hope these help, Pbritti. Nice work on an early-modern ecclesiological complexitude  :) ——Serial Number 54129 13:08, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! These comments all look like they'll make excellent improvements—I'll get to addressing them later today UTC! I may have some clarifying questions, though, so I apologize for any confusion on my end. ~ Pbritti (talk) 14:47, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Most comments have direct replies now. Anything I haven't replied to yet will get a response sometime in the next 12 hours. I had to make some rushed additions to the article after a work (Nuttall 1973) that had never surfaced in any of my previous perusing popped up when I misspelled F&CD in a google search. I've made sure the reference conforms to the standards explained by you and DM. ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:13, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Serial Number 54129: Finally got around to addressing every comment I could. Thanks again for your comments! Let me know what you think. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:44, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Serial ? Gog the Mild (talk) 17:50, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just waiting on a couple of clarifications Gog the Mild, nothing major, and of course, Pbritti doesn't have to do 'em, but in case they've just slipped through the net.
Still, nothing so fundamental as to prevent a wholehearted support though. As I said: is bloody complex period. But is also a bloody nice article. Thanks to Pbrittie for the work! ——Serial Number 54129 18:09, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks SN. In which case, Pbritti - *cough*! Gog the Mild (talk) 18:12, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks to both of you, Gog the Mild and Serial Number 54129! I have responded to the outstanding comments (some of which I had a reply in my head for but evidently failed to actually write down). ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:38, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All good 🍻 ——Serial Number 54129 18:49, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]

UC

[edit]

Saving a space. UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:28, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think I am going to have to take this one slowly -- that is no criticism of the writing, but rather that there are a lot of political and doctrinal intricacies here and I know only very little about them. What follows is mostly about the lead: in general, I find myself wishing for just a little more context and clarification of the various people, parties and beliefs orbiting around the pamphlet itself. More to follow. UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:01, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • The text advocated for reforming the Church of England to enable the reintegration of independent English Protestants, particularly through changes to the liturgies of the mandated 1662 prayer book: this is pretty tough going for someone without a strong grounding in English religious history (is the CofE Protestant, again? Who were these independent Protestants, and how had they become disintegrated? What's a liturgy and what's the story with this prayer book being mandated in 1662? Wasn't there some other kerfuffle about mandating prayer books a bit earlier than that?) The lead has room to expand, given the length of the article, and I think a little more context would be helpful.
    • I gave fixing this a shot. There's a lot of ground to cover if someone isn't already at least broadly familiar with English ecclesiastical history, but I hope that the new lead paragraph is a little more clear. If you want more explanation, I'll add it!
  • statements from historic figures: if we mean "dead people", this should be historical figures: as written, it means "really amazing people".
    • Done
  • drawing several responding texts by contemporaries: I'm not sure this is quite idiomatic English. Suggest amending "The pamphlet's contents were the subject of significant discussion, drawing several responding texts by contemporaries" to something simpler like "Contemporaries [contemporary theologians?] widely discussed the pamphlet's contents, and wrote several texts in response to it".
    • Done: I didn't want to use "theologians" because some of those whose writings are mentioned weren't strictly theologians but rather the 18th-century equivalents to modern pundits. However, my sentence did read atrociously, so I hope it looks clearer now.
  • Is "Dissenters Protestants" usual in HQRS? Reads like "Catholics Christians" to me.
    • Despite its initial peculiarity, yes. On page 1 of Jasper's Prayer Book Revision in England, he refers to "Protestant Dissenters" (a term he largely uses interchangeably with "Nonconformists") to delineate between independent Protestants and Catholics who, for legal purposes, were sometimes treated similarly as groups of separatists from the Church of England.
  • Until the beginning of the Tractarian movement in the next century: I would clarify the nineteeth century, as it's not obvious whether we've crossed the century boundary in talking about all of these responses and influences. Or perhaps, more precisely, "the 1830s"? Isn't it more often known as the Oxford Movement?
    • Since there's some overlap during the 1830s into the 1840s (and the hesitancy of sources like Jasper to generally draw a hard line on the transition), I went with the more general "19th century". Forgot to mention, but in this case, I'm going with "Tractarian" because this is the term more associated with the specific liturgical proposals as described in RSs. They're fundamentally interchangeable, though.
  • Following the collapse of the Protectorate with the Stuart Restoration, King Charles II of England elevated the Episcopalian party that had been marginalized during the Interregnum: another dense one that could do with a bit of space to breathe, especially for those not familiar with the English Civil War and its aftermath: what was the Protectorate, who was Stuart, was the Episcopalian Party like the Labour Party, and was the Interregnum different to the Protectorate?
    • I ended up rewriting a substantial portion of this paragraph to clarify things a tad more.
  • who favoured bishops and other more Catholic practices: I worry here that we're unconsciously accepting one side of the argument: yes, Catholics had bishops, but did it follow that having bishops was a specifically Catholic practice (as opposed to a perfectly Anglican one?) After all, Catholics also built churches, but nobody would have said that building churches was a Catholic practice. Perhaps "other practices in common with Catholicism", "pre-Reformation practices" or something better along those lines? Would an Episcopalian have agreed that these practices were more Catholic (and less... what, exactly?)
    • I'd appreciate you checking if my tweaks improved the situation. I'm trying to stick with verbiage present in sourcing while avoiding implying any biases.
      • who favoured bishops and worship more similar to Catholic practices, that had been marginalized during the preceding Interregnum: there are improvements here, but also still some problems. Firstly, ambiguity as written: were the bishops or just the worship more similar to Catholic practices? Secondly, what's the antecedent of that: "Catholic practices", "worship" and/or "bishops"? UndercoverClassicist T·C 16:34, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can see the reason for giving "St Bartholemew's Day", but as we're using it as a date, perhaps including the more conventional date would help those without a calendar of saints' days on their walls?
    • Done. What do you mean, I thought 17th-century kalendars were dispersed to everyone upon reaching the age of reason...[Humor]
  • William Sancroft, the Archbishop of Canterbury, had advised the bishops in his jurisdiction: does in his jurisdiction mean "all of them" (in his capacity as the senior primate) or "those in southern England"? If the former, I'd suggest cutting it as more confusing than helpful: if the latter (or something else), suggest clarifying.
    • I dropped the element that introduced vagueness. What's relevant to the subject is that Sancroft, as Archbishop of Canterbury, wanted institutional comprehension of Dissenters.
  • We've gone back and forth between "Anglican" and "Church of England" as adjectives: I'd suggest picking one.
    • Implemented with the exception of two cases where "Anglican" is the "correct" word.
  • prayer book revision: hyphenate as a compound modifier (it's used again later, too).
    • I opted to adjust the phrase throughout due to my own dislike for the hyphen rule's tendency to create punctuation confusion.
  • Suggest using p. as the abbreviation in the quote box (not pg.) to match the footnotes.
    • Done. Great catch!
  • The Athanasian Creed is linked on first and third mention: I can't really see a logic for linking the third but not the second (and, to be honest, I'm not sure I can see one for linking either of the latter two).
    • Done. That was a was an overlink. Thanks for the catch!
  • due to its incomprehensibility rather than any error: there's a potential confusion here around the meaning of comprehension: I think you're still using it to mean "making Anglicanism palatable to Dissenters", but a reader might be forgiven for thinking you now mean "people understanding the liturgy". "Due to its incomprehensibility" is also too subjective a statement, I think, to put so starkly in Wikivoice: presumably at least some people thought it was perfectly understandable?
    • Everyone–regardless of whether they approved or disapproved of the creed–seems to have agreed that it was a bit complex, so I went with that.
  • the removal of the Athanasian Creed (due to its incomprehensibility rather than any error), excessive repetition of the Lord's Prayer and Gloria Patri, and anything not permitted by the Bible.: I would have a look at rephrasing this one: the structure (in particular, the reliance of everything on removal) is a little murky, and it took me two reads to realise that he wanted to remove (what he saw as) the repetition of the Lord's Prayer rather than proposing its excessive repetition.

A few more: sorry that I've not been particularly speedy:

  • Section IX sought correct printings of the Bible and prayer book: this seems like it would need some explanation: surely nobody wanted incorrect printings? Was there a particular problem with dodgy texts (the Wicked Bible comes to mind here)?
    • My understanding is that this is partially typological, partially theological. The only source to address this section in any depth is Hatchett 1982, which describes it thus: "The author pleas for correct printing of the Bible and Prayer Book". I tweaked the sentence to suggest typological corrections more clearly but I don't have an source that can get us further.
  • The article uses the -ized suffix: as the article has strong WP:TIES to Britain, I think we should use the BrE -ised. There may be other EngVar matters of a similar sort.
    • I went with Oxford English, a Wikipedia-accepted EngVar basically identical to British English but with "-ize" endings, because many of the sources I used did likewise. I've done the same with most of the other Anglican liturgy articles I've started. If you think standard British English is superior, I'll change it!
  • Could we introduce Isaac Watts: in particular, that he was a nonconformist?
    • Yep, done.
  • Desiring a better metrical psalter, : not quite grammatical (a dangling participle): there's no grammatical subject for desiring except the Sternhold and Hopkins psalter, which clearly didn't desire its own removal.
    • Done.
  • Thirty-nine Articles is linked on second body mention, but not first.
    • Done.
  • reopening the Bangorian Controversy: a bit of background on what/when that was would be helpful.
    • Since the only source that engages with connection between the pamphlet and the controversy is rather dated and doesn't elaborate, simplifying in favor of encyclopedic summary.
  • Note 4: per MOS:CONFORM, we should put Boswell's title into title case.
    • Done.
  • Theological desires similar to those of Jones may have motivated Herring accepting a nomination to the archiepiscopate: could be clearer: perhaps "it has been suggested [by so-and-so] that Herring may have accepted the archbishop's position out of a desire to enact reforms similar to those suggested by Jones"? The current formulation is concise but also pretty tricky reading.
  • However, it is generally considered that ... However, Herring would express uncertainty regarding: can we look at the repetition of however? On another note, I'm not sure of the tense of would express: suggest "After his appointment, Herring expressed...".
    • Done.
  • Could like "peremptoriness" to Wiktionary?
    • Link? If so, done.
  • Jones published Catholic Faith in Practice in 1765 and established the Catholic Christianity Society: presumably Catholic doesn't mean Roman Catholic in this context? Is that worth clarifying?
    • Added "Protestant-aligned" with the hopes of clarifying that point.
      • As I read it, I would still expect that society to be full of Roman Catholics. If that's not the case, suggest footnoting. UndercoverClassicist T·C 16:34, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • Religious terminology, particularly in England, is rife with these frustrating usages that lend themselves to misinterpretation. I've decided to just delete the proper name on the grounds that, for the non-expert reader, what they don't know can't confuse them.
  • a half dozen individuals: any reason not to go with six people, or around it to something like "six further proposed revisions to the prayer book were published"?
    • Done.
  • only one was theologically orthodox: would the five other authors have agreed? Might be worth flipping the other way: that five questioned fundamental points of (Anglican? Christian?) doctrine.
    • Clarified.
  • Charles Wesley's 1784 The Sunday Service of the Methodists in North America was very similar to Lindsey's liturgy, Jones's suggestions, and the Savoy Conference's Puritan proposals.: ever since watching Dead Poets' Society, I have a visceral reaction to the word very. As written, this sentence implies that all three of Lindsey's liturgy, Jones's suggestions and the Savoy Conference's proposals were very similar to each other: is that true?
    • Tweaked and clarified.
  • Following the American Revolution,: I would put a date on this: most people will know it's vaguely in the late C18th, but the precise chronology is important here and not everyone will have it down.
    • Added some BLUESKY dates.
  • The proposed revision submitted in 1786 featured a preface of queries later described by liturgist Marion J. Hatchett as an outline of Free and Candid Disquisitions. as the most significant of the William Smith's work on the 1786 proposed prayer book led some of his fellow clergymen to believe he had made the revision with a copy of Free and Candid Disquisitions beside him.: this bit seems to have gone wonky.
    • Recent typo I introduced. Sorry about that!
      • Much better, though now missing a space before the start of this sentence. Might consider rephrasing (per MOS:IDIOM led some of his fellow clergymen to believe he had made the revision with a copy of Free and Candid Disquisitions beside him to e.g. used a copy of FaCD in the writing of his revised version -- there's a MOS:IDIOM quibble here that he may not literally have had it physically beside him, nor would it have mattered unless he read it and referred to it. It would at least be useful to clarify beforehand that Smith made a revised version of the prayer book; that lead is currently a little buried. UndercoverClassicist T·C 16:34, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • Gotcha! Per Marshall and the referenced writings, it appears that they quite literally (rather than hyperbolically/idiomatically) believed that Smith had a copy of the pamphlet at his side while working on his revision. I've adjusted the sentence to provide greater clarity and remove suggestion of idiom.
  • Demonstrating the desire for substantial change beyond simple alterations,: another dangling participle that would be better reworked.
    • Done.
  • Richard Watson, the Bishop of Llandaff, would publish...: better as simply published, I think.
    • Done.
  • forwarded revisions to restore these practices: I haven't seen forwarded to mean put forward here, as opposed to in the sense of forwarding a letter or email, but that might just be my own limited lexis.
    • Done. Changed to "prompted".
  • Strictly, a Low-Church bias should be hyphenated as a compound modifier.
    • Done.

I think that's all for a first pass -- over to you. UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:11, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review: Pass

[edit]

Working on it. Dugan Murphy (talk) 20:04, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Armentraut/Slocum's "Prayer Book Preface" entry doesn't say anything about the 1979 edition.
    • Is the adjusted sentence better? I feel like it's BLUESKY but that's up to your judgement.
      • I think your BLUESKY point is valid. The source from 2000 refers to "every edition" and it only takes a minute to establish that the current edition is from 1979. Feel free to revert. Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:36, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Armentraut/Slocum could use an ISBN. Though you're citing the online version, I think it's necessary since it is listed on the website.
    • Done.
  • Cuming could use an OCLC number. Same with Halkett.
    • Done.
  • Ditchfield 2005 has a date in the inline citation but not the source listing.
  • Ditchfield 2008 supports one sentence. Is that one sentence really supported by 17 pages of text? If not, a page number in the in-line citation would be appropriate.
    • The only version I had access to was this PDF. The pagination in it is not that of the book that it draws from. Should I use page 8 from the PDF even though that’s the wrong page number for the book?
      • I think so, especially because you link the PDF, which makes it the obvious go-to version for anyone wanting to verify the claim it supports in the article. I just modified the source listing myself in a way similar to a modification made through an FAC discussion like this for one of my previous successful nominations. Feel free to edit that addition a little when you add the page number to the inline citation. Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:36, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked at Armentrout through Halkett and I'll have time soon to take a look at the other sources. Then I'll look more closely at the inline citations themselves and formatting. All of the books I've looked at so far are held by reputable-looking libraries, so I trust they're all high quality. Dugan Murphy (talk) 20:49, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I see New York City Wikilinked in one source listing and not in another. I recommend not Wikilinking either, given how commonly known a city it is.
    • Done: Whoops, that's an embarrassing mistake.
  • Oxford University Press shows up a number of times, sometimes with a publication city listed and sometimes not. You should add it in all listings.
    • Did you handle this? I don't see an example of this issue but maybe my eyes are glazing over.
      • Nope. I'm looking at Sharp, Stephens, and Stewart. Walsh also needs a publication city. And I'm also now seeing that Williams has no publisher or publication city. I see you're using an online version, but since it is based on a print work from 1959 with an OCLC number, I think this info is warranted. Dugan Murphy (talk) 12:32, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Peaston could use an OCLC number.
    • Done
  • Sharp, Stephens, and Stewart all have a date in the inline citation but not the source listing.
    • Done
  • The citations for Halkett et al and Healy both refer to page 327 in their respective books. Is that error or coincidence?
    • Yep, that's a coincidence–I never even noticed! I have a photo of the relevant page that I took when I had the book so I can privately message it if anyone needs to verify/check for close paraphrasing.
  • Watson 1999 needs more specific page numbering in its inline citations.
File:Page from Watson.png
@Pbritti: FTR here is the page from Watson cited. ——Serial Number 54129 19:36, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done: The PDF is from OUP and I'm fairly confident the pagination marks are accurate, but I don't have the full ebook or a hard copy.

Having now looked through all the sources and citations, I would say they all look reputable. The Notes and Queries article sent up a red flag given its age (1860), but it is nevertheless a lot newer than the subject at hand, so I wouldn't call it a primary source or anything. And its a scholarly journal anyway. Everything else is either an at least relatively modern scholarly article or a reputable-looking book, almost all of which are held at academic libraries. The citations are consistently formatted, with a few minor exceptions to be addressed, above. Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:36, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review, Dugan Murphy! Your help has been outstanding. Let me know if you think of any other things that would preclude this from being a FA! Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:00, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since all the issues I raised are addressed, and given what I said in my summary above, I say this source review is a pass. My own FAC nomination is just over a week old and only has one reviewer so far. Could you take a look? Dugan Murphy (talk) 01:13, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly! I should have time tomorrow. This does come with the caveat that I did do some monkeying around in the article in the immediate aftermath of that bizarre effort to PROD it. ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:38, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Spot check: pass

[edit]
  • Citation 1 Halkett et. al. 1926, p. 327: checks out
  • Citation 20 Westerfield Tucker 1996, p. 243: checks out

To complete a spot check, I need scans of a few pages emailed to me:

Earwig didn't find any likely plagiarism. The most likely matches it found were mostly long book titles. Dugan Murphy (talk) 02:21, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dugan Murphy: I am regrettably in a different state than most of my books at the moment. This rather annoying barrier will be remedied Wednesday. I will send you any pages I happen to have scanned already ASAP, with the rest arriving by 22:00 UTC Wednesday. ~ Pbritti (talk) 03:27, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Whoosh—the first text, Hatchett 1982, is currently coursing through pneumatic piping as we speak. Please let me know how you'd like me to send further scans. ~ Pbritti (talk) 03:45, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hatchett 1982 pages received. Send me the other requested pages when you are back with your books. Dugan Murphy (talk) 17:21, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You should have all the scans now, Dugan Murphy. Sadly, a work emergency called me home a few days early. Happily, I could take pictures of my books. Sorry for the Healy 2023 scan—it's a picture of a copy from a bookstore. ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:26, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Received! The pages you sent me fully support the sentences preceding them. Send me the requested pages from Jasper 1954 and Hatchett 1980 when you get a chance. Dugan Murphy (talk) 15:02, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Jasper 1954 sent and Hatchett 1980 early tomorrow UTC. ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:35, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Jasper 1954 received. Never mind about Hatchett 1980. The claim it supports is already supported by another citation, so I don't think I need to see it. I have one question I just posed above concerning citation 7, but I think I already know the answer to that question, so I'm going to say this spot check is a pass. Nevertheless, I think it is worthwhile to get your response to that question above. Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:27, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much, @Dugan Murphy: your willingness to offer a more in-depth review on such short notice is much appreciated. I have addressed the citation 7 matter to reflect the uncertainty regarding whether this is a "known fact". ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:52, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SC

[edit]
General
  • I made some changes around the dashes to bring it in line with the MOS
    • Thank you!
Background
  • "reestablishment" is hyphenated in BrEng
    • Done
  • "King Charles II came to power": you don't need his title here (you say he came to power as King)
    • Good point! Done.
  • "While Charles had promised religious toleration to Royalist Presbyterians—who did not approve of bishops and worshipped according to Reformed forms within the Church of England—and Episcopalians with the Declaration of Breda in 1660, his convening of the Savoy Conference in 1661 to consider the future of the Church of England's liturgical worship disadvantaged the Presbyterian party." This 103-word sentence is carrying a lot of information and it's too easy to get lost in it. Maybe recast as two, more manageable ones?
    • Egads—when you quote it like that, I can't help but agree. Let me know if that's more manageable now.
  • Should "Convocation" be capitalised here?
    • RSs seem consistently in favor of capitalization (I've seen an exception in a book I didn't reference that discussed a later subject). I don't know the MOS enough to be certain here. Will make lowercase if preferred.
    I don't mind either way: I ask from a position of complete ignorance on the point! - SchroCat (talk) 13:31, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Ronald Jasper forwarded": 'forwarded'? Neither the OED or its Cambridge equivalent suggest a meaning that works here
    • A bad colloquialism used around these parts. Done.
  • Link Trinity?
    • Linked at Trinitarianism.
  • That's fine. - SchroCat (talk) 13:31, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Contents
Sources
  • Why do you have some publishers linked and not others (and why the same publisher in some places and not others?) Can I suggest you make consistent by removing all publisher links: it's so rare that people find publisher links either useful or helpful, that it's probably best without them (think: are people reading this really going to want to see that Alfred A. Knopf is an American publishing house? It doesn't aid understanding one iota).
    • Done. You're right. The inconsistency came from the templates employed (Cite ODNB automatically includes OUP but does not link it). I have dispensed with the linking.
  • Even more so the linking of publisher locations. "Oxford: Oxford University Press" and "Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: " is doubly pointless and goes into WP:OVERLINK and WP:SEAOFBLUEterritory. Ditch the lot is my advice.
    • Done

I hope these help - SchroCat (talk) 07:10, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SchroCat: thank you for your comments and revisions! I have implemented them with the exception of the Trinity and Convocation ones. For those, please let me know if you'd like me to move the link and make lowercase respectively. Any additional comments are also very welcomed! ~ Pbritti (talk) 12:45, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from RoySmith

[edit]

Just a few random comments:

  • I think you want {{snd}} instead of raw emdashes to avoid bad line breaks as in File:Screenshot showing bad dash.png.
    • Done.
  • Among the changes to the prayer book and its liturgies that Jones sought in order to effect comprehension was the removal of -> "...were the removal of"
  • You might want to link "pamphlet" to Pamphlet wars instead of Pamphlet
  • including a rite for visitation of prisoners does this mean a prayer asking that you be allowed to visit, or is this something that once you have been granted visitation, you can perform with the prisoner?
    • Clarified.
  • Charles had promised religious toleration to both Royalist Presbyterians – who did not approve of bishops and worshipped according to Reformed forms within the Church of England – and Episcopalians with the Declaration of Breda in 1660. It's not clear what "with the Declaration of Breda" modifies. Are you saying that Charles used the declaration to make this promise? Or are there some Episcopalians who have the declaration and some who don't, and the promise only applies to the former group? I'm pretty sure it's the first, but the distance between the two clauses makes the connection unclear.
  • All of the above are nits; make changes or not at your pleasure. The bottom line is this is a wonderful piece of expository writing in an engaging and flowing style that I'm happy to support. This is a topic I know almost nothing about, so my support is for the quality of the prose only; I rely on others who know more about the topic itself to comment on correctness and completeness. RoySmith (talk) 16:21, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 5 June 2024 [40].

Thomas Neville (died 1460)

[edit]
Nominator(s): ——Serial Number 54129 19:58, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
According to Sharon Penman, on 30 December 1460, '...Thomas Neville, devoured a heaping plateful of cold roast capon and pompron buried in butter [and] signalled to a page for a third refill of his ale tankard'. As they say, an army marches on its stomach. But dies on its feet. Almost to a man. In snow. Outnumbered three to one. The cry would have been Á sarum! Á Sarum! Á York!.
Lots of Nevilles in this one—a Hutton of Nevilles, is that?—both individually and collectively, hence Thomas. Any thoughts on this article's improvement will be gratefully received.
Let your cry be Á FAC! Á FAC! ——Serial Number 54129 19:58, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps not, for those of us old enough to recall Johnners' "And now it will be Afaq to Knight at the Nursery end". Tim riley talk 14:01, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Classic! Too young to remember his full glory of course, but what a wit! Spontaneous and right on the nose. ——Serial Number 54129 14:39, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Of course. Thanks Nikkimaria, done. ——Serial Number 54129 12:34, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Too minor for words

  • I don't know if it is just me but the caption and alt-text which currently read The site of the Battle of Stamford Bridge in 2006 are causing me inappropriate hilarity which is unworthy of the dignity of the Nevilles. Can I respectfully request that you consider rewording it in order to stop me giggling like a helpless infant? The site of the Battle of Stamford Bridge pictured in 2006 would do it, as would The site of the Battle of Stamford Bridge, 2006 photo or The site of the Battle of Stamford Bridge (2006 photo) or like whatevs. Indeed one could go for the big one and just say The site of the Battle of Stamford Bridge because no sane person, or even an editor here, can or should care when that photo was taken, unless it was from 1454 which would certainly be interesting. I certainly don't care – I can see plenty of places on Wikipedia where the date of a photo matters a lot (here is the current petrol station when it was still a turkey farm) but I honestly do not think this is one of those places. It simply does not matter: it adds nothing that we need. Having said my bit I will now stfu as I understand the young people charmingly put it. I will almost certainly not resort to fisticuffs nor a three-year edit war over this matter. Best to all, DBaK (talk) 17:56, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
DBAK Thanks! I think. Yes, I see what you mean... I've kept it simple in the caption but added your suggested , 2006 photo for the alt for the benefit of the screen reader. Apologies for triggering both the OCD and the funny bone in the space of a few hours!
Thinking about it, wasn't the Battle of Stamford Bridge in 2006 after all... when Chelsea entertained West Ham at home. Thanks for looking in, though; it's easy to get sloppy about Alt text, etc., which is a disservice to outer readers who need it. ——Serial Number 54129 18:17, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely brilliant, thank you very much. I feel a warm glow of post-OCD happiness now. Cheers DBaK (talk) 19:44, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

750h

[edit]

Comments Support from Tim riley

[edit]

From a first canter-through looking for typos:

  • "combatative and landless" – combative?
I knew that if anyone was going to pick up on it...! But yes. It's verbatim and faithful to the source. Honest guv. A direct quote. I left it like that deliberately, for opinion (and in case it was an EngVar thing, although I believe Friedrichs is as English as Queen Victoria). Thoughts? Use {{sic}}?
Yes, I think a "sic" is in order. Neither Chambers nor the OED recognises "combatative". How sad that the beloved Brian Boulton is no longer with us: he loved "sic"s and would, I am sure, have applauded your suggestion. Tim riley talk 12:40, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Honoured to have Brian mentioned at one of my FACs. Vale Royal Abbey will remain forever GA in his memory. ——Serial Number 54129 14:39, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • saw Thomas"in the thick of the fighting" – space
  • Bourgchier or the more usual Bourchier? – we have both
  • ransonms
  • Released into te temporary
  • "shortlived" – the OED hyphenates the word
  • "Thomas' marriage" – and all possessives for names ending in s. This is what the current edition of Fowler has to say on the point:
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.

More later after a proper read-through. Tim riley talk 12:03, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done, although I thought s's was an AmEng and now I'm more confused than ever (says Baldrick).
It would not be altogether accurate of me to say that ess-apostrophe is standard American and ess-apostrophe-ess is standard English, but as a rule of thumb it will serve. Tim riley talk 12:40, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Second and concluding batch
  • Lead
  • "became a significant player" – what did he signify? You mean "leading" or "important", I think.
Good one!
  • "alongside his father and uncle, his head was impaled" – presumably just their heads too, although this seems to say father and uncle were impaled in their entirety.
True.
  • Early career, knighthood and marriage
  • "earned himself the moniker "Kingmaker"" – Chambers marks "moniker" as slang. Nickname or sobriquet might be preferable.
Sobriety is a much more elegant word.
  • "of genuinely comital proportions" – a word new to me: an explanatory note or link to Wiktionary would be a kindness.
Explanatory note regarding the actual amount itself and wikt. link for the dicdef.
  • "They they both inscribed as marginalia" – too many "they".
Done.
  • Feud with the Percy family
  • "who were also responsible for its escalation" – not sure why "also".
removed.
  • "the Nevilles would have had a substantial retune with them" – a splendid image, but I imagine you mean retinue.
As opposed to an Old Blind Piano Retainer  :)
  • "the estates of Percy loyalist Sir William Plumpton" – clunky false title
Tweaked sentence.
  • "The crown tried to settle the feud" – but you capitalise Crown elsewhere (rightly, I think).
Done.
  • Final years
  • "whom Hicks speculates may have been involved in piracy" – who, not whom wanted here.
Of course, changed.
  • "Calais—which the latter was now captain of" – not wrong but a bit inelegant. Perhaps "Calais – of which the latter was now captain"?
Absolutely fair enough.
  • "gathered for an upcoming parliament" – "upcoming" makes me want to upthrow and outwalk. What's wrong with the normal English "forthcoming"?
Clever  :) itdone.
  • "probably the largest and bloodiest battle on English soil" – is that the largest etc to that date or at any time throughout English history?
Pretty much the GOAT as the yoot of today says. I've added a footnote with some quotes to show it's a generally accepted position.
Wow! Excellent note. Makes one shudder to read it. Tim riley talk 12:40, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The remains of Thomas Neville and the other dead of Wakefield removed from the Micklegate Bar" – were removed, unless they toddled off of their own volition.
Done.
  • "the recent death and burial there of his mother Alice in December the previous year" – I'm not sure we need both "recent" and "in December.
Lost recent.
  • "In a chariot drawn by six horses" – "chariot" comes as a surprise. I associate the term with Ancient Egypt and Rome, but am quite prepared to be told I'm wrong.
Well, I wanted to keep the wording of the original source just to avoid confusion with the modern sense of a hearse. But what I've done is a add a (perhaps slightly massive?) quotebox showing how the procedure became codified in later royal household ordinances—chariots included—that OK?
I like it very much, and if other readers are not interested they don't have to read it and can stick with the main text. Tim riley talk 12:40, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it was good fun doing, although, as usual, it took ages. ——Serial Number 54129 14:39, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Sir Robert Welles support" – Welles's?
Done, per your comment above.
  • Notes
  • "Not completely the same office as today" – that gives the reader all help short of actual assistance – either explain the difference or omit the note would be my advice
Apologies. Yes, it is a bit bizarre. I remember I was looking for a source on the history of the Mews, which would have been perfect, but couldn't find one. Which was annoying. Of course, I then forgot about this fag-end of a half-arsed footnote and left it hanging. Still, now gone for good.
  • "And replaced, entre-nous, by Lancastrian heads" – entre nous? This is an encyclopaedia article, not a confidential chat.
Done!
  • "The heraldist Anthony Wagner" – might be better to link to Heraldry rather than to Herald (although Sir AW was a herald, I know).
A personal friend of yours, perhaps also I hope?  :) So I've linked to heraldry but called him a heraldist.
I never met AW, though I worked for a short while alongside two of his staff, who clearly found him formidable. Tim riley talk 12:40, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I hope these comments are of use. Tim riley talk 13:18, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • All fantastic stuff, Tim riley, as always, completely embarrassed about the schoolboy typos—believe it or not, I can generally spell, but perhaps, distance and concentration lapse first. I've replied more fully to a couple of your points, mostly in explanation or where I've changed stuff. Apologies for the delay in finishing up here—I would've been done a while ago, but someone got in the way. If you've got any further advice or suggestions, please do so. Thank you very much, again. ——Serial Number 54129 19:13, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll have one last read-through and return to – I confidently hope – support. Tim riley talk 12:40, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Meanwhile, if you feel like getting a bit of your own back you can have a pop at me in another current FAC, here. Tim riley talk 12:53, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You still haven't decided whether the name is Bourchier or Bourgchier. Tim riley talk 12:59, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved as g-less. ——Serial Number 54129 14:39, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of that point, after a last perusal I am happy to support the elevation of this article to FA. Tim riley talk 13:47, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Much appreciated Tim. See you there. ——Serial Number 54129 14:39, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

[edit]
Inline quotes

*"in loans to Salisbury: "the price the Nevilles could extract was a measure of Cromwell's desperation"". Wikipedia:Quotations says that quotations should be attributed inline, not just in a citation.

  • "an estate "of genuinely comital proportions"" Ditto.
  • "Thomas has been called "combatative [sic] and landless" by one historian,[10] and "vigorous and youthful"[34] by another". Ditto.
  • "as part of a Neville "show of force" in January 1454" Ditto.
To be fair, didn't require a quote at all; rephrased.

*"To purvey the king's right prises of falcons, goshawks, sakers, sakerets, 'laners', lanerets and gyrfalcons for sale through the realm, paying 20s for a falcon, 10s for a tercel gentle, 13s. 1 d for a goshawk, and 6s 5d each for the tercel of a goshawk, saker, laners and laneret." Source should be inline.

  • "in what has been described as "probably the largest and bloodiest battle on English soil"" Inline citation.
  • "A "rich, pageant-filled affair"" Ditto.
  • Note 16. Ditto.
Couldn't see this... Nichols is already cited inline?

Thanks Dudley, all attended to except one, plus a comment. I hope you don't mind me dividing the review up like this—it was easier for my eyes to have the technical adjustments separate from the narrative concerns.

Narrative/contextual points
  • "the second son of Richard Neville, 5th Earl of Salisbury, a major nobleman and magnate in the north of England during the fifteenth-century Wars of the Roses, and a younger brother to the more famous Richard Neville, Earl of Warwick, the 'Kingmaker'". I was unsure at first whether Thomas or Father Richard was the brother of the Kingmaker. I suggest clarifying.
Tweaked.
  • "His wedding in August 1453 is said to have marked the beginning of the armed feud between both houses". This is not helpful without context, and I am not sure it belongs in the lead, as it is said below to be a suggestion from one historian.
Removed the hypothetical but clarified a bit more about the feud (which was probably understated in the lead, considering the importance it played in the last few years of his life!)
  • "He was probably born soon after his elder brother Richard in 1428, and certainly by 1431, by when his parents had had two more sons, John and George." By 1431 is odd if his parents had had two more sons by then. I suggest before. Also, ODNB on George says he was born 1432.
Tweaked to 1432, sourced to ODNB.
  • "In 1439, Maud, Countess of Cambridge, reported Thomas to the royal council for attacking her house" When he was ten years old?
Indeed! I wondered who'd notice first...
  • "he attended Cromwell's funeral. The complexity of his affairs led to many legal machinations". Thomas's affairs or Cromwell's?
Clarified Crumb's.
  • Who benefited from the revised will?
Added a chunk explaining in more detail; a bit complex as it wasn't so much the amounts involved but the loosening of the ties that bound his executors that altered the balance.
  • "Although Thomas's feud with the Percy sons was not directly connected to the Battle of St Albans in May 1455, it was considered part of the general disorder." You need a few words to explain the battle.
Tricky to reduce such a complicated period down to a few words! A small paragraph explaining the king;'s illness/recovery/battle is OK?
  • "Edward of March". You should explain who he was here, not at the second mention.
Done.
  • "According to P. A. Johnson, both York's eldest son, Edward of March, the Archbishop of Canterbury, Thomas Bourchier". presumably "and the Archbishop".
Well caught, done.
"...at Wakefield", less so. ——Serial Number 54129 15:49, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your points Dudley Miles, always appreciated. I'm kicking myself over the inline cites, as I generally always followed that, and then recently, someone said it wasn't always necessary. So I stopped. Anyway, see what you think of my suggestions for your contextual concerns. Have a good Sunday. ——Serial Number 54129
  • Thanks Dudley Miles, that's appreciated. Just an FYI, but I've got something up my sleeve regarding his preteen assaults on Aunty Cambridge's deer park... just waiting for a source. I expected more questioning over it to be honest  :) as I know how bizarre it sounds, I did a double-take when I came across it, too. Anyway, I'll give you a ping in future if that's OK. Cheers, ——Serial Number 54129 18:26, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, thanks for that edit to the footnote; it reads much more easily now. I'd forgotten the unfalse title can be a collective one, of course. Cheers, ——Serial Number 54129 18:31, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SC

[edit]

A bit of reference formatting to start with:

  • Some of the references are inconsistent in various ways:
  • Notes are formatted differently (these are examples only and they should all be consistent):
  • FN3: Griffiths 1981, p. 568 + n.33.
Material is referenced to both the source text and a specific footnote.
  • FN4: Griffiths 1981, p. 599 n.33.
Material is referenced to a page's specific footnote only.
  • FN55: Payling 2014, p. 599 n.33.
Yes, inserted space.
  • FN120: Nichols 1863, p. 252 n..
That extra dot? Bizarre. Removed. Not numbering sources was common for Victorians; they often used symbols (•♦■°☆ etc) when they had several.
Sorry, I don't think I was clear on these. All the footnotes are in a different format: "568 + n.33.", "599 n.33.", "599 n.33.": they should all be in the same format. - SchroCat (talk) 14:08, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I think it's particularly important, per V, to be consistent in how I direct the reader to the relevant material. It basically depends on whether what is being cited is found in the page prose, the footnote or both. (I must have a blind spot, but I can't see the difference between the latter two examples from Griffiths you use? The dots and gaps, etc., all seem the same?)
  • Page ranges are in two formats (these are examples only and they should all be consistent):
  • FN6: Pollard 1990, pp. 251–2.
Thanks; annoyingly I found four such.
  • FN26: Brooks 2018, pp. 115–116.
This seems OK?
  • FN 82: Boardman 2006, pp. 553–5355. Typo on the range?
Indeed!
Early career
  • "John,[1] and George": Is the comma needed?
No; lost the comma.
  • "Maud[note 2] Stanhope,": any chance we could move the note until after the comma?
Yep, done.
  • "also niece and joint-heiress": the niece
False title! Done.
  • "earl and countess of Salisbury parents": I'm not sure what this says: is it the E&C of Salisbury's parents?
It's GobbeldyDuke; now adjusted (cut 'parents')
  • "Neville aggrandisement anathema to": an anathema?
Check.
Death of Cromwell
  • "argues that husband and wife": Has a name disappeared from the start of this sentence?
Or was it—in the throws of drunkardness—omitted in the first place? I think we should be told  :) Inserted 'she' before. Or should that be 'Friedrichs'? But I used her name at the beginning of the previous sentence, too.
  • "Thomas was never "able to cut very grand figures": the grammar goes a little awry here, talking about an individual and then referring to him as "figures"
Absolutely; it wasn't a particularly important quote, so I reworked it completely.
Final years
  • "R.L. Storey": space between the initials
Spaced.
Civil war
  • I know it's a quote, but I think we're OK to make consistent the punctuation for "13s. 1 d" and "6s 5d" – spaces and full stops should be consistent
Check.
Battle of Wakefield
  • "Christmas Truce": capital T?
L/ced. Also delinked: it turns out we don't have an article on the overarching concept of truces that take place over a Christmas period; what we do have is an article on one particular Christmas truce over 500 years later, in which Capt. Blackadder was definitely not offside. A curious omission!

That's my lot. An interesting article on a messy time of English politics. - SchroCat (talk) 14:49, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much SchroCat, always a pleasure you know. What ever happens, it's a better article after your input than before. Cheers, ——Serial Number 54129 16:52, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bloody hell. Thanks SchroCat, I mean it. And noted for the future. Greatly appreciated. Cheers! ——Serial Number 54129 18:50, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

Why does Mercer 2010 not have page numbers?

What makes "Beckett, J. V. (1988). The East Midlands from 1000. Harlow: Longman. ISBN 978-0-58249-269-1.", " Wagner, A. (1993). Medieval Pageant: Writhe's Garter Book: the Ceremony of the Bath and the Earldom of Salisbury Roll. London: Roxburghe Club. ISBN 978-0-95011-994-6." and " Storey, R. L. (1999). The End of the House of Lancaster (rev. 2nd ed.). Stroud: Sutton Publishing. ISBN 978-0-75092-199-2." a reliable source? I'll see if @Ealdgyth: has anything to add about the sourcing since she's a better connoisseur of English history and sources than I am. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:08, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Longman and Sutton are both quite good academic publishers. Beckett's in 207 libraries, mainly universities near me. Storey's in 804 libraries (I think I actually have a copy somewhere in a box....) Less sure of Roxburghe Club - but it's held by 46 libraries, including the Folger Shakespeare Library and a number of academic libraries. I'd call all three the usual specialized secondary sources we should use. Ealdgyth (talk) 12:59, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jo-Jo, anything else? Gog the Mild (talk) 17:09, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing much to add since SchroCat above commented on the source formatting already. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:12, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: I am curious, however, as to what makes Cora Scofield's The Life and Reign of Edward the Fourth and Rosenthal's Nobles and the Noble Life RS? ——Serial Number 54129 16:52, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you questioning the reliability of the sources you have used? Usually the arrow of enquiry flies the other way. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:54, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Gog the Mild Just so. I wondered what serendipitous luck made, e.g. Beckett come in for extra scrutiny when e.g. Scofield enjoyed no such special favour. Ah well. As playthings to the gods are we, etc  :) ——Serial Number 54129 17:55, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What made Beckett get extra scrutiny is that I couldn't find them being cited here while Scofield has a lot more hits and this review. Ditto for Rosenthal. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:12, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Matarisvan

[edit]

Hi, some comments:

  • "a younger brother to": "a younger brother of" would be better?
Good point.
  • I'm not quite sure how this can be done, but would you consider splitting the 2 paragraph long lead into 4 paragraphs? The 2 paras rn seem to be too big.
Interesting, see what you think! I think that's a good idea, as you say, where is the main question. I think this works though?
  • Consider adding the current value of the 20 pounds using the inflation adjusted template? Also do this for note 4 and its preceding figure, and all the other historical amounts? I can't remember if there is an MOS for this, but in all FACRs I have read, current values seem to be required.
I'll look into this; I have no idea how to convert medieval pounds/shillings/pence with 20th-century decimalization but it might be possible.
  • Note 2: by invasion, I guess you mean the Anglo-Saxon one? If so, consider linking?
Apologies, the Norman one! But linked.
  • Lord Cromwell's feuds: Consider adding who the other parties were in a note? It might be obvious to British readers but not anyone else, including me. Also NOFORCELINK might apply here, wdyt?
Absolutely. I think it's relevant enough to keep in the body, and flows neatly into the next para. And I'd never read NOFORCEDLINK before! Thanks  :)
  • This might be irrelevant here, but consider adding the images of the 3 castles bequeathed as marrriage settlement? We only have 3 pictures here (excl infobox) but all of them showing castles might be odd, wdyt?
In a way, the problem is that so few images are available from this period, so we end up relying on photos on the things that are left... like castles, which are solid enough to have survived. But there's rarely portraits, seals etc. Tell you what: how about a colour scan of the actual contract made between him and his father and brother in 1459? (I'm not sure where the three bequeathed castles were, you see.)
  • Do we have any content on why Maud continued to carry the Willoughby surname? Was this a custom at the time?
Well, it was more that it was a title than a surname; she was known by her senior title, and her new husband was only a knight compared to her ex, who had been a baron. For example, Salisbury's sister Katherine eventually married four times. Her first was to the duke of Norfolk, so for the rest of her life she was referred to as "Katherine Norfolke", when she used a surname at all, because her three subsequent husbands were all of lower rank (two knights and a viscount, IIRC).
  • Consider linking to Wressle Castle?
Linked.
  • Medievalist is linked in the second section but not the first.
  • "manor of Stamford Bridge": "manor at Stamford Bridge"?
The manor was more of an area rather than one place, but I've linked it to Manorialism, which hopefully clarifies?
  • After the Friedrichs quote, we start off with "argues that". Wouldn't "Friedrich argues that" be better here, since the preceding quote ended in a full stop?
SchroCat noticed that too! A major typo  :)
  • Consider linking to jure uxoris?
  • Do we know what manors/castles were bequeathed to the Neville couple by the 1451 will? If so, consider listing, if there are too many, I believe an aggregate count would also work.
The sources aren't that specific, and forgive me for not going to Magdalen College, Oxford and transcribing Magd. Add. MS. 66.—approximately 1000 words of scribal Latin!—for this article  :)
  • Consider linking to West March (Scottish Marches)?
Well, they were on the English side, but I added 'towards Scotland' to clarify.
  • Consider linking to Royal Mews?
Done.
  • Since the defeat of an army outnumbering its opponents by 3 times is rare, could we have the brief details of what led to this outcome, whether in the body or in a note?
Good idea; I've added a substantial footnote, plus source, to gloss it?
  • What is your view on linking to the pages of authors and publishers? I believe you have not done so to avoid SEAOFBLUE in the biblio, no? In that case, Cambridge University Press shouldn't be linked too, would tou agree?
Absolutely true. It's also accuracy (I can't always guarantee that I'm linking to the right edition) and consistency (if I can't link all, should I link some?). Anyway, have delinked CUP.
  • Boardman 2006 is the only citation here whose ISBN format is inconsistent with the others, for it does not have the 978 prefix. I understand this may be so because some ISBNs do not have this prefix, and adding it leads to the ISBN breaking. Is this the case here?
That's a funny one—well spotted. There's no reason, really, for a book that recent to even need a 10-digit ISBN? So I've changed to to the 13-digits shown in Worldcat.
There's a useful ISBN converter here too. - SchroCat (talk) 17:39, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • In Davies 2004, is "online" being repeated necessary? Is this due to autopopulated data?
I think it's because I so rarely use {{Cite ODNB}}, I don't realise what I need and don't need to enter myself  :) anther good spot!

This was a good article to read. That's all from me, cheers! Matarisvan (talk) 10:58, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Matarisvan that was a really interesting review. You made me think and reassess what I'd written in a way that seldom happens. I hope I've taken full advantage of your suggestions; let me know if anything needs tweaking. Thanks for looking in! ——Serial Number 54129 16:52, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Serial Number 54129, thanks for your kind words. Could I just add 3 more comments here?
  • Now when I think of it, a note for what led to the outcome at Wakefield would be helpful, just like the one you have added for Blore Heath.
  • Good thought, added, in a couple of footnotes.
  • Maybe due to the idiosyncracies of the Cite ODNB template, the error you removed in Davies 2004 is still present in Hicks 2004, Horrox 2004 and Pollard 2004.
  • Check.
  • What is your policy on author's names? I see you've used only last names and initials for the first names. I'm not sure what the MOS here is, more experienced editors would be better qualified to comment on this.
  • Well, I don't really have a policy; I really just go by consistency(again!); sometimes we know first names, sometimes only initials so it seems easier to stick with the one thing we know (except groups, institutions and websites of course).
Matarisvan (talk) 14:40, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Matarisvanm all good points, and all addressed. See what you think. Cheers, ——Serial Number 54129 16:56, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to extend my support for promotion to FA class. Looking forward to your other works, cheers Matarisvan (talk) 17:40, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Serial Number 54129, nudge. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:56, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comments

[edit]
  • "Sir Thomas Neville (c. 1429 – 1460) was the second son of Richard Neville, 5th Earl of Salisbury, a major nobleman and magnate". It is not immediately clear which was the "major nobleman and magnate".
  • "On their return, however, the following year, he was released". Does "however" add anything?
  • "Taking part in the disastrous Battle of Wakefield, the Yorkists went down to a crushing defeat." It may be just me, but this sentence seems to start off referring to just Thomas and end with reference to an entire army. Maybe '... Lancastrian-inspired disorder, taking part in the disastrous Battle of Wakefield, where the Yorkists went down to a crushing defeat' or 'There he took part in the disastrous Battle of Wakefield, where the Yorkists went down to a crushing defeat' or similar? Gog the Mild (talk) 18:15, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Gog, always a pleasure. I agree with these points; it's funny how one word (re. your first query) ended up with rewriting much of the opening lead; I was going to simply say, "who was a major northern etc". But that would expose a duplicate "was". So mini re-write! Cheers, ——Serial Number 54129 11:42, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 4 June 2024 [41].

Liza Soberano

[edit]
Nominator(s): Pseud 14 (talk) 16:41, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

After tackling two Filipino musician bios, back again with an actor BLP this time. Liza Soberano is an American born Filipino actress who began her career as a model in the Philippines before she ventured into acting. Since then, she has appeared in commercially successful projects primarily with frequent collaborator Enrique Gil, both of whom are depicted in the media as a "love team". Dismayed at being typecast to parts as an on-screen couple with Gil, Soberano returned to the United States in 2022 to pursue an acting career in Hollywood and has since made her breakthrough in the 2024 comedy horror Lisa Frankenstein. 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) 16:41, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

750h

[edit]

Will leave comments soon. 750h+ 02:15, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

lead
  • "For her performances of a gutsy young aristocrat in the drama series Dolce Amore (2016) and a tribal heroine in the" recommend linking "aristocrat" to Aristocracy (class).
Linked
  • "In an attempt to shed her image as an on-screen couple with Gil" I think for conciseness this could be changed to "Attempting to shed her..."
Done
career
  • "She portrayed a fruit farmer who supervises Gil's character after being forced to work in the plantation." I think this should be "on the plantation". I think though.
Changed
Linked
  • "...experience, as she did neither understand nor suffered from a break-up." suffered should be changed to "suffer".
Done
  • "Mari-An Santos of the Philippine Entertaiment Portal particularly" Entertainment is spelt wrong.
Thanks for catching this. Fixed
  • "It featured flight sequences which required her to perform stunts while" "which" should be "that".
Done
  • "The series was controversial for whitewashing the cast; Soberano's character was meant to be of indigenous Filipino ethinicty." Ethnicity is spelt wrong too.
Fixed
advocacy
  • "Soberano is a gender equality advocate and supports women and children's rights." ==> "Soberano is a gender equality advocate and supports women's and children's rights."
Done

That's all I got @Pseud 14: Excellent work on this article and i hope to see more in the future! 750h+ 08:08, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review and for catching the typos 750h+. All comments have been actioned. Let me know if there's anything I may have missed. Pseud 14 (talk) 15:03, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No problem Pseud! I'm happy to support the nomination. 750h+ 22:58, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MyCat

[edit]

I promise to not delay reviewing this one- let's take a look!

  • Around this time, she was spotted online, through her social media post, by a talent scout - could be condensed: "Around this time, a talent scout found her on social media and introduced her to..."
Done as suggested
    • Also, what did the talent manager find? Singing videos? Acting videos? Or did they just say "she ought to be a model" (which is entirely possible)
Every source I checked only mentions a social media post and did not detail anything else. So I am of the assumption it was purely based on her appearance and likely the latter.
  • she had already been signed to a one-year deal - seems a bit wordy; possibly, "she had signed a one-year deal"
Done as suggested
  • At his urging - whose urging?
By Diaz, clarified this
  • Her break came the following year - the next para says her breakthrough was in Got to Believe; does this mean "break" in a different context?
Revised this sentence, as her first series (and not necessarily a breakthrough, yet)
  • she found this to be an important learning experience - which show is 'this'
Tweaked for clarity, as this pertains to the show mentioned in the preceding sentence
  • she underwent a series of workshops - acting workshops? singing workshops? learn-filipino workshops?
Clarified as acting workshop, since voice lesson is also mentioned separately
  • she went on to appear - 'she appeared' is less wordy, but I'm unsure if there's a specific reason it's worded this way
Revised as suggested
  • a romantic drama about childhood best friends (played by Dingdong Dantes and Bea Alonzo) who realize they are in love with each other - this detail is more about the film than about Soberano- what did she play? Otherwise I don't think this detail is needed
None that I could find. Removed/tweaked
  • Similarly, the Philippine Daily Inquirer's Rito Asilo remarked that the film's delivery was lackluster and unauthentic - this echoes the previous quote, not sure it's needed
Removed
  • as she did neither understand nor suffer from a break-up - this confuses me a bit- I think I know what's being said here, but it's in the wrong order; perhaps "as she had never experienced a break-up and did not empathize with the character" or something of the sort that fits what the source says
Done as suggested (partly), I think "as she had never experienced a break-up" sums up why she couldn't draw from real-life experience
  • She found it in the Netflix animated series - 'it' is kind of vague- she found another genre? Rephrase here
I believe the preceding statement satisfies that, she actively looked for parts in other genres, it would refer to "parts" or "roles" she sought/found in the animated genre. Hopefully that provides some clarity
  • but viewed it to be "almost the exact same cadence" - exact same as what?
Tweaked this to clarify it was her line delivery
  • Describing her off-screen personality, News.ABS-CBN.com praised Soberano's "humble approach to fame", - no citation after this
Thanks for catching, added now.
  • after the latter achieved international acclaim - one can 'receive' acclaim, or 'achieve' stardom, but I'm not sure you can 'achieve acclaim'
Should be the former. Fixed.
  • In 2017, Soberano topped TC Candler and The Independent Critics's listing of the "100 Most Beautiful Faces in World" - I can't find a citation for this in ref 79's massive list- am I missing it?
It should be in the 2018 ref Liza Soberano No. 4 on ‘100 Most Beautiful Faces of 2018’ list : Liza was awarded the Most Beautiful Face of 2017 last year

That's all for me- amazing work on another huge BLP! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 12:37, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your review MyCatIsAChonk. Very much appreciated. I have provided my responses to your comments. Let me know if there's anything I may have missed or needs clarification. Pseud 14 (talk) 13:44, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All good now- thanks for the impressively fast fixes! Support. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 13:58, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your support and for always taking the time to review. Pseud 14 (talk) 14:08, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Ippantekina

[edit]
  • "at age twelve" can simply be "at twelve"
Done
  • "sought roles in other genres, including the 2021 Netflix series Trese." that's the name of a series, not a genre
Thanks for catching. Added the genre and made some tweaking
  • "In 2022, she returned to California to pursue an acting career in Hollywood, and has since starred in the horror comedy Lisa Frankenstein (2024)" convoluted grammar? Suggest "She returned to California to pursue an acting career in Hollywood in 2022 and has sinced..."
Done as suggested.

I've read up to "2011–2015: Early roles and breakthrough". Ippantekina (talk) 07:46, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review Ippantekina. I have addressed your initial comments. Looking forward to the rest. Pseud 14 (talk) 16:49, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consider unlinking "breadwinner" as it's a fairly common term.
Unlinked
  • "the film and their performances were criticized for its overdone clichés and formulaic plot" I always favor the active voice, so I suggest something like "reviews criticized the film and their performances for..." plus "its" is grammatically incorrect
Revised as suggested
  • "Soberano learned to speak in Italian"
Done
  • "praised her as the production's prime asset" reads sensationalistic, maybe "praised her as the film's highlight"?
Revised
  • "play the part by deglamorizing" am I correct to assume that this means she sort of "glowed down"?
Correct. I think it might have been a term I've read in some actor BLPs that would refer to being a character who is awkward, unkempt, completely unglamorous
  • "The film emerged as a commercial success" suggest "was" (I prefer simplicity y'all)
Done
  • "Filming took place in Dubrovnik, Croatia, and featured Soberano as a struggling overseas worker" this means "Filming featured Soberano as..."? Suggest something like "Filmed in Dubrovnik, Croatia, it featured Soberano as..."
Revised as suggested
  • "the series was ultimately cancelled" but the series did make it to the airwaves right? Would be helpful if we know after how many episodes was the series cancelled.
Yes it did air. TV series in the Philippines are usually aired daily, like a soap opera, and there isn't usually sourcing that provides info on the number of episodes. What is often available online is the premiere date or the show's end date, so I had to go with when it ended and why it was cancelled.
  • "She found it in the Netflix animated series Trese (2021)" found what..?
I believe the preceding statement satisfies that, she actively looked for parts in other genres, and it would refer to "parts" or "roles" she sought and found by taking part in the animated genre project. Hopefully that provides some clarity
That would be grammatically questionable... ("it" = "parts/roles"?). I suggest something like "She found an opportunity with the Netflix animated series...". Ippantekina (talk) 08:05, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That actually reads much better. Revised and thanks. Pseud 14 (talk) 15:46, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Reception for her voice acting" reception of
Done
  • "Kathleen Llemit of The Philippine Star thought that she had "dynamics" in delivering her lines, but viewed it to be "almost the exact same cadence"" what does "it" refer to here?
it would refer to the deliver of her lines.
Ditto, grammatically unclear. I suggest: "Kathleen Llemit thought that her delivery had "dynamics" but contained "almost the exact same cadence". Ippantekina (talk) 08:05, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Revised as suggested as well.
  • "She became aware of a forthcoming comedy horror film" so this plan has not realized? If so I'd remove it per WP:CRYSTALBALL
It prefaces the next paragraph on how the role/project came about.
  • "Lisa Frankenstein (2024), starring Kathryn Newton in the title role" sooooo is Lisa Frankenstein the comedy horror film previously discussed?
Correct, to answer your comment above.
If so why don't we remove the "forthcoming" thing? I would just summarize how Soberano moved to LA in 2022, got involved with Zelda Williams, and shot the film without mentioning the details of how she had doubts about a yet unnamed film (that's for the film article). Ippantekina (talk) 08:05, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed "forthcoming" to avoid ambiguity. I've re-read the source and by the time this was pitched to her, it was already greenlit with a name/title and script. Additionally, I would respectfully argue and as I have seen in other FAs for actors, it is generally acceptable to discuss initial reluctance/doubts about projects and what made them accept those roles (unless those projects did not materialize, then it would def not be worth mentioning, IMO). As examples:
  • In Leonardo DiCaprio's article about taking on Jack in Titanic: DiCaprio initially had doubts, but was eventually encouraged by Cameron to pursue the part.
  • Jennifer Lawrence on how she accepted the Hunger Games role: Despite being an admirer of the books, Lawrence was initially hesitant to accept the part, because of the grand scale of the film. She agreed to the project after her mother convinced her to take the part.
  • Anne Hathaway's doubts about doing a sequel to Princess Diaries: She was initially hesitant and nervous about starring in the sequel, but agreed to it after Marshall convinced her that she was not repeating anything.
  • Jessica Chastain on accepting a role for her Broadway debut: Chastain was reluctant to take the role, fearing the anxiety she had faced during her early stage performances.[64] She ultimately agreed after finding a connection to Sloper Pseud 14 (talk) 15:46, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "She also founded a production company which will produce a yet-untitled drama thriller film" ditto CRYSTALBALL
Removed.

Will review "Reception and public image" and subsequent sections later. Ippantekina (talk) 04:06, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ippantekina. Responses provided to your comments. Let me know if I may have missed anything. Pseud 14 (talk) 17:45, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I replied above; a few instances of dangling modifiers but so far they're not detrimental. Ippantekina (talk) 08:05, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your responses Ippantekina. Made the changes and provided my response to the last point as well. Pseud 14 (talk) 15:46, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be mindful of MOS:LQ; a few full quotes are not being cited properly
Done (I think). Feel free to edit if there's anything amiss. I still struggle with MOS:LQ from time to time :)
  • "with her "angelic eyes, symmetrical features, a refined nose and lips" as her trademark features" I would attribute direct quotes to sources per WP:ATTRIBUTION
Done
  • "In 2017, Soberano topped TC Candler and The Independent Critics's listing" are these listings notable?
I believe it is, it has been publishing this listing since 1990 and has had coverage in various editions of Vogue[42] [43] [44], as well as US Weekly
  • "She uses her platform to speak out on social and political issues" what's "platform" here? I'm assuming social media, is this the case?
That would be correct. I used it for variation and not having to use "social media" repeatedly
I'd use "social media" as "platform" is too vague a term. Ippantekina (talk) 04:14, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "She began dating co-star Enrique Gil" I think "She began dating Gil" is enough as Gil has been introduced previously, and his name appears throughout the article
Done
  • "She is reticent to discuss her personal life on social media, and refuses to share posts involving her family" I don't think the comma is needed
Removed
  • "A K-pop music enthusiast" err, trivia?
Removed

This concludes my review. Overall a nice read. I'm happy to support once my points are addressed :) Ippantekina (talk) 02:51, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ippantekina. I have addressed and replied to your remaining comments. Let me know if there's anything I may have missed. Pseud 14 (talk) 04:08, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to support on prose though one point remains unaddressed above. Ippantekina (talk) 04:14, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your support Ippantekina. I've tweaked that sentence and simplified it, hopefully that works now. Pseud 14 (talk) 04:29, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for addressing everything, I'm happy to give my full support. By the way, I would very much appreciate it if you could give some input to my current FAC for "You Belong with Me". Cheers, Ippantekina (talk) 04:44, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47

[edit]
I missed that, thanks for spotting this. Added
  • I am confused by the infobox note (i.e. Soberano was born an American citizen and does not use her mother's maiden surname, hence her middle name is Elizabeth.) It is not common for children in America to take on their mother's maiden name. Why the need for the note?
I've considered removing it, but I've seen some editors (mostly IP, which I assume are Filipinos and fans) constantly edit it to include her mother's maiden name. And may be unfamiliar with American naming conventions. Hoping that the note would deter those from more disruptive editing.
  • I am unsure about this sentence: (Described by media publications as among the most beautiful Filipino actresses of her generation, Soberano is vocal about gender equality, women's rights, and mental health.) These two ideas (i.e. her perceived beauty and her activism) seem too disparate to put into a single sentence in this way.
Fair point. I have split the two.
  • I do not think "of American descent" is really a commonly used phrased. I would just simplify it to say that she is American.
Done.
  • Why was Soberano raised by her grandparents and not either her mother and/or father after the divorce?
All the sources I've read seem to just mention that her parents split and she was left with her maternal grandparents in the US. I've found other sources that mention both have remarried. So I've included that as well. Although this happened much later.
  • The lead says that she relocated to Manila, but the "Early life and background" section says that she moved from the U.S. to Pangasinan and later Quezon City.
The mention in the lead I believe is for when she started working. Although she did move much earlier than that. I wanted to highlight the move as something related to her starting her career. I've linked Manila to Metro Manila in the lead to be specific, which is generally what we refer to when you are in the capital. Quezon City is one of the cities in Metro Manila. Hopefully that makes sense.
The new link in the lead is an Easter egg. Since the link says just "Manila", I would have assumed it would go straight to the Manila article, not the Metro Manila one. It is still unclear to me as I know absolutely nothing about the Philippines. I would either change the lead to say Quezon City or the article to say Metro Manila. Quezon City seems like the better choice as it is more specific, but I will leave that up to you as you know better. I think consistency between the lead and the article is the most important part. I would not assume that readers would know that Quezon City is one of the cities in Metro Manila. I did not know that. Aoba47 (talk) 14:52, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, I've switched it to Quezon City now for specificity. Pseud 14 (talk) 15:48, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe this sentence could be condensed: (When she became fascinated with the reality series America's Next Top Model, her motivations shifted to modeling, although she deemed it an unlikely career choice.) Something like (She became interested in modeling after watching the reality series America's Next Top Model, but saw it as unlikely career choice.)
Revised as suggested.
  • I am unsure about this part, (despite not knowing to how to speak the language). You do not really need to know how to speak a language to watch a television show? If this is implying that she was unfamiliar with Filipino, then I would say that more directly (i.e. despite not knowing the language). Also the link for Filipino should be moved up to here.
Revised and switched wikilink
  • The "talent management arm" phrasing seems off to me. Would there be a way to revise it?
Revised to talent management group
  • For this sentence, (she eventually signed with Diaz, but he recommended that Soberano learn to speak in Filipino in order to get acting jobs), I would substitute "but" with "and". There is not a contrast between Diaz getting her as a client and then saying she should learn Filipino.
Done
  • I would condense ("assumed the responsibility of being the family breadwinner") to (became the family breadwinner). Also is there any information or context as to why she became the breadwinner for her family?
Revised. From what I gather in the source, it seemed to have been just a statement that she became the breadwinner. (Filipino culture of "giving back" is definitely a driving force to that. She wouldn't be the first actor or artist to do so. I could only assume, but nothing specific as to why she chose to assume the responsibility, other than that notion)
  • I have a question for this part, (and took on voice lessons). Is this referencing singing lessons or actual voice therapy?
That would be singing lessons, which I have now changed.
  • Is there any further information or context on why Malou Santos asked her to use a stage name?
In this case, nothing more elaborate than what was said in the source. I would sometimes read with other actors reasoning such as better recall or something much memorable, but did not want to imply as it is not stated in the source.
  • For the Abigial Mendoza quote, I do not believe you need to add Soberano. The original quote with "She" can be used as it would be easily understood from context.
Done
  • For this part, (as a weblog writer), I would just say (as a blogger). I honestly have never seen "weblog". I think that word has been largely phased out.
I have always thought blogger was informal so I used the definitive full word. I have revised nonetheless.
  • I would avoid one-word quotes like ("stereotypical").
Paraphrased this.
  • I find this part, (through a web of conflicts and struggles among the noble warriors), a little overly wordy. There is slight repetition with using both "conflicts" and "struggles" in the same sentence, and I do not think the "a web of" part is needed.
Reworded and simplified
  • I have a few comments on this sentence: (The series was controversial for whitewashing the cast). I would attribute who is making these claims (i.e. critics, etc.) and it is whitewashing the characters, not the cast.
Tweaked
Added
  • I would condense this part, (considered her a character miscast), to (considered her miscast).
Done
  • I do not think Lisa Frankenstein did well in the box office. Is there a reason why this is not addressed here? I was just curious as the article only seems to bring up the box office when it is positive.
Good point, I think I missed that. I have now added the box office performance before the reviews.
  • For this part, (The journalist Sophie Agustin from Cosmopolitan Philippines), I do not think "the journalist" is necessary.
Removed
  • I am unsure about the linking in this part, (a "communist" group). Why not just say New People's Army instead? I find the current linking an WP:Easter egg as I did not expect it to go to an article about a specific group.
Revised.
  • I have a question about this part, (Teased as a child for her weight and skin). What about her skin did she get teased for?
Revised to be specific (color of her skin)
  • Do we know anything else about her relationship with Enrique Gil beyond 2017? I know that the article says that she is private, but I get the vibe that they are still together so I just wanted to confirm this.
I initially wanted to include Gil's name as "Partner" in the infobox, but then I wasn't sure myself. And also didn't want to include a statement of the relationship ending without a reliable citation. But this source from Feb 2024, does confirm that they are still together.
  • For the citation for this source, the film title should be italics.
Thanks for catching this. Done.

I hope these comments are helpful. Once everything is addressed, I will read through the article a few more times to make sure I did not miss anything. Best of luck with this FAC. Aoba47 (talk) 11:01, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your review Aoba47. It's so great seeing you back on this space again (and wiki in general). I have provided my responses to your comments. Let me know if there's anything I may have missed or that requires more changes. Pseud 14 (talk) 12:15, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am just glad that I could help. I have left a response above and I have a few more comments below, but none of it is major.
I'm actually not sure and have never gone over the categories that have been randomly added over time so I typically don't meddle with those who add it. But I have removed the categories you mentioned in the first 2 bullets. As I have no way of confirming if she does indeed have Ilocano background. As for Star Magic, it is the talent management group of ABS-CBN which produced all her television and movie projects. We usually don't refer to talent management groups (unless necessary) as much as possible to avoid sounding promotional. Pseud 14 (talk) 15:48, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That should be everything. Once everything has been addressed, I will be more than happy to support this FAC. Aoba47 (talk) 14:50, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments Aoba47. All responded to and actioned. Pseud 14 (talk) 15:48, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for addressing everything. I support the FAC for promotion. If possible, I would greatly appreciate any feedback for my current FAC for Kes (Star Trek), but I completely understand if you do not have the time or interest. I hope you have a great rest of your week! Aoba47 (talk) 17:58, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your review, it has been always helpful. Sure I'd be happy to look at it in the coming days. Pseud 14 (talk) 19:05, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source and image review

[edit]

It seems like we are using fairly mainstream Filipino newspapers, and international news media. Kinda wonder if there are book biographies or somesuch, though. Is Philippine Daily Inquirer a high-quality reliable source? ALT text is OKish I guess. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:50, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • From what I've gathered and searched online in scholarly or academic sources, there hasn't been a book or a biography published with coverage of Soberano yet. I think it could be largely attributed to the fact that her career in the Philippines only began around 2011/2012.
  • The Philippine Daily Inquirer is considered one of the Philippines' leading authoritative and independent newspaper. It has a large circulation and news-gathering function and was founded in 1985, with over three decades of publication. It has editorial oversight consisting of a pool of reputable journalists (some of whom have Wiki articles, including Rina Jimenez-David, Letty Jimenez Magsanoc, Randy David, Nestor Torre Jr.) which I believe supports its credibility as an independent and high-quality source. When looking up for sourcing, it is also one of the newspapers for Filipino-related articles available via Google Book archives.

Thanks for taking up the image and source review Jo-Jo Eumerus. I have provided my responses to the points you raised regarding the citation and the availability of a book/biography. Let me know if they are to your satisfaction or if anything needs clarification. Pseud 14 (talk) 16:03, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment

[edit]
Thanks for the comments Gog. Revised and now be trimmed to 3 paragraphs. Let me know if there's anything else I may have missed. Pseud 14 (talk) 20:57, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. I have lightly copy edited it. Are you ok with these changes? It is fine if you're not - just say. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:23, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good Gog. No complaints :) I really appreciate the edits. Pseud 14 (talk) 21:40, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 4 June 2024 [45].

Galileo project

[edit]
Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:59, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a robotic space mission to Jupiter. This article is about the mission; there is a separate article about the spacecraft itself. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:59, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UC

[edit]

Very much coming in as a non-expert here, but it looks like a cracking article and at least gives me the illusion that I can understand what is going on. UndercoverClassicist T·C 18:29, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved
  • October 18, 1989 by: comma after 1989.
    Comma added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:57, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • gravitational assist flybys: should this be gravitationally assisted flybys, as the first two words modify the third? I see no hits on Google Books for this precise phrasing.
    It seems that "gravity assist flyby" is the correct scientific term [46], so standardised on that. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:57, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It launched the first probe into Jupiter: suggest The spacecraft launched to clarify that "it" isn't strictly the programme.
    Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:57, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does the moon Dactyl rate a (red)link?
    Sure. As it happen the link is blue. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:57, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jupiter's atmospheric composition and ammonia clouds were recorded. Io's volcanism and plasma interactions with Jupiter's atmosphere were also recorded: any way to avoid the slightly clunky repetition of were recorded?
    Sure. Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:57, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest linking "encounter", as it has a more specific meaning in this context than its everyday loose one.
    Added a link to the Wiktionary entry (which I just created): "The period of a space mission during which it carries out its data-gathering objectives".
  • There was also concern about the effects of radiation on spacecraft components, which would be better understood after Pioneer 10 and Pioneer 11 had conducted their flybys. These indicated that the effects were less severe than feared: the tenses are a bit confusing here. How much time has passed between the two sentences? I'd suggest something in the middle to the effect of "these took place on [date] and indicated..."
    Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:48, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • who had headed the Mariner and Voyager projects: I'm not clear on the logic as to when names like Mariner and Voyager are italicised, but it seems to be inconsistent in this paragraph.
    Consistently italicised. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:48, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Longer travel times meant that components would age: well, yes, but I suppose the problem was that they would wear out with age? Things simply becoming older isn't necessarily a problem.
    Added "and possibly fail" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:48, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • the onboard power supply and propellant would be depleted: is this quite true? For the first part, perhaps, but wasn't the point of the gravity assists that the overall mission would require less delta-v (and so less propellant) than a mission that didn't use them?
    The onboard propellant is only used for inflight maneuvers, so gravity assist maneuvers would require more of them. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:48, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of the gravity assist options also meant flying closer to the Sun, which would induce thermal stresses. However, the IUS was constructed in a modular fashion, with two stages: I'm not sure I see the point of the however here -- what's being contrasted? It sounds like we've just discussed reasons why the IUS was a bad component for this mission, and are now about to discuss reasons why it was a good one: could that be made clearer and more explicit?
    Reworded the paragraph, and got rid of the "however". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:48, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • An important decision made at this time by Ames and the JPL was: a bit mealy-mouthed: better as Ames and the JPL decided...? Always better to show, not tell, that it was important, and we don't (in this paragraph at least) really set out why this made a difference.
    The paragraph does explain: This allowed it to take high resolution images, but the functionality came at the cost of increased weight. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:48, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In which case, as we've shown, WP:PUFFERY et al would encourage us not to use the word important, but rather to let the facts speak for themselves. UndercoverClassicist T·C 19:51, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:13, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The IUS was not powerful enough to launch a payload to Jupiter without resorting to using a series of gravity assist maneuvers around planets to garner additional speed: could we rework the double negative: something like "to launch a payload to Jupiter, the IUS needed to use a series of..."? I would also stick a full stop after additional speed and then do something like "Most engineers regarded the use of such maneuvers as..."
    Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:48, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The second, but not the first. I'm not sure what the "otherwise" at the start of the new sentence means: was there any scenario in which the IUS would be powerful enough to avoid using gravity assists? UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:07, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A three-stage might have worked; "otherwise" refers to the two-stage IUS. I thought this was clear enough, but emphasised. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:18, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Casani solicited suggestions for a more inspirational name for the project, and the most votes went to "Galileo" after Galileo Galilei: in both cases, I find myself asking: [suggestions/votes] from whom?
    Added a bit about this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:18, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The name "Galileo" was adopted in February 1978: similarly: any idea whose decision that was?
    Added a bit about this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:18, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • a launch on Space Shuttle Columbia on STS-23 : the Space Shuttle (like the battleship New Jersey) -- unless this is the HQRS norm? I'd also clarify something like "the STS-23 mission".
    Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:17, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • in such a way as to: could be briefer simply as as to or even to.
    Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:18, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lifting Galileo and the IUS would require: in this and similar sentences, if they actually did the thing suggested, it's better in the indicative: Lifting G. and the IUS required....
    As explained further on, they did not do it. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:12, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • By late 1980, the price tag for the IUS had risen to $506 million (equivalent to $1.714 billion in 2023). The USAF could absorb this cost overrun: I'm not totally clear on the relationship between NASA and the USAF in this project. Had NASA contracted the Air Force?
    As explained earlier, the USAF was in change of the two-stage IUS, NASA of the three-stage one.
  • What saved it from cancellation was the intervention of the USAF: less verbose as the USAF intervened to save it from cancellation.
    I fail to see the value, but changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:12, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Another few:

More to follow.

UC ? Gog the Mild (talk) 14:23, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Had been holding off while Roy concluded his review: thanks for the nudge. More below. UndercoverClassicist T·C 16:02, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The section on Nuclear concerns seems very determined that there was no real reason why anyone should have been worried about the plutonium. Is this the consensus of the sources?
    Yes, but the sources are written by experts, who tend to have much less fear of radioactive substances than the general public. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:41, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a fair point. Still, there are plenty of experts who have criticised the safety elements of other early-ish space missions and nuclear projects, so if none of them have really challenged the NASA narrative, I think WP:DUEWEIGHT is satisfied. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:53, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • NASA concluded that the chance of a disaster was 1 in 2,500, although anti-nuclear groups thought it might be as high as 1 in 430. The risk to an individual would be 1 in 100 million, about two orders of magnitude less than the danger of being killed by lightning.: the first bit of this attributes both figures, recognising that there's a possible debate here, but the second doesn't: it's cited to NASA, however, who certainly had a horse in this race, so I don't think we can present it as straightforward, disinterested fact. If nothing else, the figure here surely depends on the overall probability of a disaster?
    Changed to reiterate that this was NASA's opinion. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:41, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This created a novel mission failure modality that might plausibly have entailed dispersal of Galileo's plutonium : could this be re-written in plainer English?
    Been in the article since 2006 [47]. Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:41, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The risk to an individual would be 1 in 100 million, about two orders of magnitude less than the danger of being killed by lightning. The prospect of an inadvertent re-entry into the atmosphere during the VEEGA maneuvers was reckoned at less than one in two million: consistency advised under MOS:NUM
    Changed to "1 in 2 million". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:41, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • an accident might have released up to 11,568 curies : not a common unit of measurement: can we contextualise that a bit? Would that be bad?
    There is a link. The Three Mile Island accident released 2.5 million curies. Added a bit more from the risk assessment. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:41, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are some hyphens in page ranges in the footnotes (I noticed on note 74).
    These are not page ranges. Hyphens are okay. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:41, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Note 73 is Office of Space Science and Applications 1989, p. 2-24.. That's a page range, surely? Ditto 72: Office of Space Science and Applications 1989, p. 2-23.. We also generally use pp. or pages for a range. If p. stands for something other than "page", I think that would be wise to clarify (e.g. "section P" or similar). UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:29, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The document uses a page numbering system where pages have numbers like 2-4 and 4-18. In the text, this is documented by using the form p. 2{{hyphen}}4. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:41, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, gotcha. Happy here, then: it looks wrong (and might lead to well-meaning editors like myself trying to change it), but it's correct. You could perhaps use the |at= parameter rather than |p=, which would drop the "p." -- as e.g. 2-23 is really sort-of an abbreviation for "part 2, page 23"? UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:48, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • There were fears that the spacecraft might be hijacked : presumably they would hijack the trucks, rather than the spacecraft, as the latter wouldn't be very easy to drive.
    Very well. Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:41, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • the route was kept secret from the drivers: while they were driving it? How did they know where to go?
    Added "beforehand". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:41, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Last minute efforts : hyphenate as a compound modifier.
    Hyphenated. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:41, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • three environmental groups: any idea who these were?
    the Christic Institute, the Florida Coalition for Peace and Justice and the Foundation on Economic Trends. Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:41, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • the appeal was therefore denied on technical grounds: is that technical grounds? It sounds like they denied it on substantive grounds: technical, to me, means that the proper procedures had not been followed, and so the issue was not considered, whereas the court did consider the issues but, as most appeals do, only had to determine that the original decision had been made legally and reasonably, not that it had been correct.
    The source says: "The rejection of the appeal, by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, was based on technical grounds and was not a ruling on the merits of the case." Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:41, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In that case, we've got a contradiction here. If the reason for rejection was, as we've said, Chief Justice Patricia Wald wrote that while the legal challenge was not frivolous, there was no evidence that NASA had acted improperly in compiling the mission's environmental assessment (emphasis mine), that is a ruling on the merits of the case (that they weren't sufficient). Is this all from the same source: could you perhaps quote a bit more to see if we can see what's happened here? UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:27, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Re-worded to make it clearer that this was in the concurring opinion. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:41, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 343 kilometers (213 mi) orbit: singular and hyphenate (cf. a two-mile queue, a five-dollar note and a four-mile run).
    Added parameter to template. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:41, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Galileo's closest approach to Venus came at 05:58:48 UTC on February 10, 1990, at a range of 16,106 km: some inconsistency in the article about whether units are abbreviated or not.
  • gravity assist maneuver: compound modifier: hyphenate.
    I think it is correct without. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:41, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not per MOS:HYPHEN: [hyphens are used] ... to link related terms in compound modifiers ... hyphens can aid ease of reading (that is, they can be ease-of-reading aids) and are particularly useful in long noun phrases: gas-phase reaction dynamics. UndercoverClassicist T·C 11:12, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hyphenated. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:41, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • low gain antennae and high gain antenna: as above, hyphenate.
    Hyphenated. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:41, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the spacecraft moved further from Earth, it also necessitated the use of the DSN's 70-meter dishes: not quite grammatical (the antecedent of it is the spacecraft, but the spacecraft didn't necessitate the use of the dishes: its movement did). Secondly, who were the other users of the dishes?
    Radio astronomers. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:41, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Is this in the article now? Would add if not. UndercoverClassicist T·C 11:13, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • the downlink telemetry rate: can we explain what this means?
    Seems clear enough. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:41, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not to me, I'm afraid, and it needs to be clear to readers who don't know much about astronomy, telemetry, and don't have an expert grasp of English. UndercoverClassicist T·C 11:12, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Added links. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:41, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • most recently the Magellan spacecraft: when was that?
    In 1989-1990. Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:41, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • the equatorial and mid-latitudes: this is a case for suspended hyphens, so equatorial- and mid-latitudes.
    Added hyphen. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:41, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Earth's magnetic field causes the bow shock to occur at around 65,000 kilometers (40,000 mi) from its center, but Venus's weak one: weak magnetic field, or weak centre?
    Magnetic field. Added, although it makes the text harder to understand. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:41, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If you want it clearer, how about but Venus's magnetic field is weaker, causing the bow shock to occur nearly on the surface? UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:31, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • plasma wave detector: hyphenate as a compound modifier.
    Proper noun; sources do not hyphenate. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:41, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not a proper noun: we're using the term for a thing that detects plasma waves. If we want to refer to a specific thing by the name of "plasma-wave detector", and so to make it a proper noun, we would need to capitalise, but we don't do that for other unique parts of a ship: the thrusters, the engines, the wings and so on are all lower-case. Sources may not hyphenate, but they may have their own house style, and don't have to follow the MoS: we do. UndercoverClassicist T·C 11:09, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Changed. But I am not changing it elsewhere. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:41, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • on 9 to 12 April and 11 to 12 May 1990: the prevailing style here seems to be MDY, so I'd switch to that.
    Yes, it uses mdy. God knows why, as all the sources use the normal format. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:41, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This was only 8 kilometers (5 mi) higher than predicted, and the time of the closest approach was only a second off.: I would cut both onlys as editorialising, possibly rephrasing slightly to e.g. "the time of the closest approach was within a second of what had been predicted".
    Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:41, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's up to the start of "Earth encounters": will be back once you've had a chance to look at this batch. I appreciate it's a lot: it's a big article that is saying a great deal and doing an admirable job of getting the nitty-gritty across while keeping it clear and engaging. UndercoverClassicist T·C 16:02, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marching on:

  • energetic particles detector: you can probably guess this one: hyphenate (particularly useful here: it was the particles, not the detector, that were energetic).
    Hyphenated. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:24, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • by 35 meters per second: should we include an imperial conversion here (mph/fps) as we have for most other measurements?
    Added. The purpose of the conversions is to render historic measurements in the sources into metric. Converting metric to imperial serves no purpose other than looking consistent. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:24, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • at a range of 960 km (600 mi) at 20:34:34 UTC on December 8, 1990. This was 8 kilometers (5 mi): there are other examples, but I'd advise consistency as to whether units are abbreviated or not (generally, per WP:NOTPAPER, I'd suggest not, but there's an argument for not writing out "kilometers" in full if the word is coming up several times in a sentence or paragraph).
    MOS:UNITNAMES: "In prose, unit names should be given in full if used only a few times, but symbols may be used when a unit (especially one with a long name) is used repeatedly, after spelling out the first use". Abbreviated. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:24, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Normally they are only seen in September or October, but Galileo was able to detect them in December, an indication of damage to Earth's ozone layer: is it possible to explain this a little, perhaps in a footnote -- what does ozone layer damage have to do with these things appearing earlier?
    Just another experiment taking advantage of an instrumented spacecraft having an encounter with Earth. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:24, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not following: what I'm asking for here is an explanation of how an indication of damage to Earth's ozone layer follows from Normally they are only seen in September or October, but Galileo was able to detect them in December. It's clear enough that this was an abnormal observation, but not clear how it indicated damage to the ozone layer. UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:30, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not an atmospheric physicist, but added a one-sentence explanation. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:17, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As I read it, it sounds as though these clouds would cause the damage, rather than being a sign or consequence of it: could we make that a bit clearer, if so?
    The text says: "The NIMS was employed to look for mesospheric clouds, which were thought to be caused by methane released by industrial processes. The water vapor in the clouds breaks down the ozone in the upper atmosphere. Normally the clouds are only seen in September or October, but Galileo was able to detect them in December, an indication of possible damage to Earth's ozone layer." Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:20, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure we need the abbreviation of μmol/mol, as we don't ever use that unit again: on the other hand, glossing it to 'one part in a million' might be useful.
    Removed the abbreviation. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:24, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1.1 kilometer per pixel: another candidate for conversion.
  • Link Mare Serenitatis
    Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:24, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • frequency doubled wavelength, Long exposure ... images, Mars orbiting spacecraft: hyphenate.
    Hyphenated. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:24, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • the scan platform acceleration on the spacecraft being slower than expected: this is slightly murky: do we mean that the scan platform wasn't able to move (accelerate) as quickly as the scientists thought?
    It was not able to accelerate (change speed) as fast as expected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:24, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thought so; would say it closer to that, then, as it's much clearer and conveys the same information. UndercoverClassicist T·C 16:42, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:47, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • data acquired was to design laser downlinks: I think this should be was used to -- people designed the downlinks; the data didn't. No objection, but are we going for data as singular rather than plural?
    I never use data in singular; I always use "datum". Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:24, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I quite like the abbreviation template on HGA, but why is it there and not on any other abbreviations?
    Another editor asked for it, given that the abbreviation was defined long before in the text. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:24, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The two LGAa: this is probably the correct plural abbreviation (like LLB or pp. -- though I haven't seen a case where you decap the repeated initial), but it reads oddly: suggest perhaps spelling the abbreviation out on this occasion to avoid that?
    Changed "a" to "s" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:24, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The two LGAa were capable of transmitting information back to Earth, but since it transmitted its signal over a cone with a 120-degree half-angle, allowing it to communicate even when not pointed at Earth, its bandwidth was significantly less than that of the HGA, which transmitted over a half-angle of one-sixth of a degree, would have been: this is a long sentence: it's pretty clear up to would have been. Suggest something like than that of the HGA would have been, as the HGA transmitted....
    Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:24, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "it looked like Galileo's only trip would be to the Smithsonian Institution.": this quote should be attributed in the text.
    WP:INTEXT: " In-text attribution may need to be used with direct speech" but "should always be used for biased statements of opinion." Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:01, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes -- I think the combination of the quote's inherently unverifiable nature (who can disprove what "it" looked like -- that's not an empirical statement) and its strong, slightly sardonic authorial voice mean that here it really does need to be attributed. From another angle, the primary reason to include the quote, rather than a bland statement of fact like "there was a possibility that the mission would not take place", is that it is cleverly and engagingly written, and therefore it seems unfair to benefit from the author's skill and effort here while not crediting them as fully as we could. UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:17, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reason no one had thought of it before was that the second encounter with Earth would not give the spacecraft any extra energy: the start of this sentence is verbose, and we should restate what "it" is in the new paragraph. Suggest "The VEEGA trajectory had not previously been considered because..."
    Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:01, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • the backlog of high priority Department of Defense missions: high-priority
    Hyphenated. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:01, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would swap the centre and left moon images around: most readers will read the left-hand one first, and it's odd that the middle one clarifies that it's of the moon when that one doesn't.
    Changed the captions instead. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:53, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hyphenate false-color mosaic, gravity-assist flyby, High-gain antenna (in subheading), data-compression software, High-resolution images.
    Hyphenated. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:53, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image data collected was buffered and collected in Galileo's CDS extended memory. This represented 192 kilobytes of the 384 kilobyte CDS storage, and had been added late, out of concern that the 6504 CMOS memory devices might not be reliable during a VEEGA mission: I don't think we ever explain what CDS and CMOS mean. It's also been a while since we explained VEEGA: perhaps spelling it out, rewording it, or adding the abbreviation template would be helpful here.
    Added definition of CDS, linked CMOS, added abbreviation template for VEEGA
  • Suggest wikilinking bits.
    Already linked above. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:53, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • while other data was compressed with variant of the Lempel–Ziv–Welch algorithm: data were, I think. Likewise The data collected on Jupiter and its moons was stored and, later, From subsequent analysis of this data
    Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:53, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two months after entering the asteroid belt, Galileo performed the first asteroid encounter by a spacecraft, passing 951 Gaspra , an S-type asteroid, at a distance of 1,604 km (997 mi) at 22:37 UTC on October 29, 1991 at a relative speed of about 8 kilometers per second (5.0 mi/s a long sentence with lots of piled-up clauses: suggest splitting into at least two.
    Split. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:53, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • covering about 80% of the asteroid: earlier we wrote expressed confidence that 70 percent of Galileo's science goals could still be met. -- advise consistency.
    Changed to "percent". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:53, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Several relatively flat planar areas were found, suggesting a catastrophic origin: can we rephrase a catastrophic origin to be clearer ("suggesting that the asteroid was formed when..."?)
    Re-phrased. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:53, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Measurements of the solar wind in the vicinity of the asteroid showed it changing direction a few hundred kilometers from Gaspra, which hinted that it might have a magnetic field: grammatically, it could be either Gaspra or the solar wind.
    I think it is pretty obvious, but changed "it" to "Gaspra". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:53, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Galileo suddenly abandoned the observation configuration and resumed its cruise configuration: could amend spontaneously for suddenly to be clear that this wasn't the result of human input?
    Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:53, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • At that rate, it took 30 hours to send each of the five frames: MOS:NUM would like "5 frames". Ditto two or three lines out of every 330
    Changed "30" to "thirty". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:53, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • A competition was held: any idea of among whom -- just in the office, or nationwide?
    Project members. Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:53, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • the legendary Dactyloi, mythical beings which lived on Mount Ida on Crete, after which the asteroid was named. Craters on Dactyl were named after individual dactyloi: we should be consistent as to whether Dactyloi is capitalised or not (it is in our article). You might also wish to use the English plural "Dactyls", as it's an easier jump from there to "Dactyl" for most readers.
    Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:53, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • after the legendary Dactyloi, mythical beings which lived on Mount Ida on Crete, after which the asteroid was named: slightly grammatically ambiguous as to whether after which has "the Dactyloi", "Mount Ida" or "Crete" as its antecedent.
    Clarified. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:53, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dactyl was the first asteroid moon discovered. Previously moons of asteroids had been assumed to be rare. The discovery of Dactyl hinted that they might in fact be quite common: this is certainly clear, but a little clunking: can we polish it for prose elegance?
    Polished. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:53, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dactyl appeared to be an S-type asteroid, and spectrally different from 243 Ida, although it is also an S-type asteroid: is the antecedent of 'it Dactyl or 243 Ida? Grammatically, the former is most intuitive, though meaning-wise I think we want the latter: suggest a rephrase.
    Re-phrased. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:53, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • while it was en route, an unusual opportunity arose: this reads as a little bit pulp-journalism to me: is there any such thing as a usual opportunity in a mission that is inherently a one-off? I'd cut this sentence, personally, for tone.
    Re-phrased. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:53, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 16 and 24 July 1994: adjust to MDY.
    We only need consensus to change the whole article to NASA dmy format. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:53, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure I understand what you mean. At the moment, the dating system is inconsistent: elsewhere, we have January 2 and 12, 1982, for example. Honestly, I'm willing to wear "NASA English" as a subset of AmerE that uses DMY dates, but we do need to pick one. UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:56, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The article currently uses mdy. I have changed the format of the dates in question. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:35, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • While Galileo was still a long way from Jupiter: any idea of how far?
    238 million km. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:53, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • When Galileo observed an impact in ultraviolet light, it lasted for about ten seconds, but in the infrared it persisted for 90 seconds or more: I'm not sure of the grammar here: the impact itself, by definition, lasted only a moment, but perhaps its traces persisted for longer?
    Changed to "fireballs" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:53, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Right, finishing off:

  • 83 million kilometers (52×10^6 mi and following: not sure what the MoS is on this, but it's odd to mix standard-form and regular numeral notation: suggest "52 million miles", especially as we're not really in the sort of very big or very small numbers that really need SF.
    I am fairly sure that it is MOS conformant, becuase it is generated by the conversion template, but dislike this form too. Just a matter of the correct incantation to get the outpuut right. Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:53, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Galileo probe's project manager, Marcie Smith at the Ames Research Center, was confident that this role could be performed by the LGAs: I would clarify what this role was: we've just been talking about firing engines, which got me quite confused.
    Clarified. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:53, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Interplanetary dust storms had previously been encountered by the Ulysses space probe: cut space?
    Cut. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:53, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The dust particles were about the same size as those in cigarette smoke: could we give an actual measurement? This is good to get a feel, but I'm not sure many people would have a specific number in mind.
    Usually you want the allegory. Added their approximate size. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:53, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The existence of the dust storms had come as a complete surprise to scientists.: presumably, only when Ulysses encountered them; we should clarify that the existence of dust storms was unsurprising to the Galileo team.
    Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:53, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • data storage to the tape recorder for later compression and playback was absolutely crucial: cut absolutely: something can't be only a little bit crucial.
    Cut. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:53, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This was: grammatically if not logically, it's not clear what this is in the preceding sentence: suggest replacing with a noun.
    Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:53, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • On October 11, it was stuck: became stuck? Or did the engineers notice that it had been stuck for a while?
    "it was stuck in rewind mode for 15 hours" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:53, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • sent from the Jupiter probe descent: clearer as "the probe's descent towards Jupiter" or similar.
    Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:53, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link Great Red Spot: isn't it the Great Red Spot, normally?
    Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:53, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • the radiation exceeded expectations, and nearly the spacecraft's design limits: purely for prose style, I think we need another verb after nearly: either exceeded again or a synonym.
    Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:53, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most robotic spacecraft respond to failures by entering safe mode and awaiting further instructions from Earth, but this was not possible for Galileo... because it would have taken too long for a signal to get there? Or had they just not added that feature? We later imply that it could, which means that we need some explanation for why it couldn't at this point.
    Added a bit of explanation. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:53, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The descent probe awoke in response to an alarm: awoke is perhaps a little anthropomorphic.
    It is a technical term used in computer science. A sleep (command) suspends execution until it is woken by an alarm. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:53, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • ammonia ice-particles : ammonia-ice particles (that is, particles of ammonia ice), surely?
    Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:53, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • ammonium hydrosulphide ice particles: by the same logic, endash after hydrosulphide. Is the British spelling of hydrosulphide intended? Sulfide is used elsewhere.
    Changed to US spelling. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:53, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1.5 to 2 bar; and one of water vapor at 4 to 5 bars: first bar should be plural (cf. "1.5 to 2 metres")
    Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:53, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1 bar (100 kPa) pressure level: hyphenate: 1-bar
    Hyphenated. Hawkeye7 (discuss)
  • This was by far the most difficult atmospheric entry yet attempted: ever? Suggest making explicit if so ("yet attempted by any spacecraft"?).
    Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss)
  • carbon phenolic heat shield: I understand "heat shield", but "phenolic" is a tricky one: can we link it?
    Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:53, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • As it passed through Jupiter's cloud tops, it started transmitting data: grammatically, the antecedent of it should be the heat shield, but we presumably mean the probe as a whole.
    Clarified. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:53, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • upper atmospheric readings: hypenate: upper-atmospheric.
    Hyphenated. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:53, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It then dropped its heat shield, which fell into Jupiter's interior: similarly, it should grammatically be the accelerometer.
    Clarified. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:53, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link terminal velocity?
    Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:53, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Timeline of the probe's atmospheric entry.: full stop should go, as not a complete sentence.
    Gone. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:53, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The probe's seven scientific instruments yielded a wealth of information: at least to me, a wealth of information is a bit WP:PUFFERY and slightly too idiomatic/flowery. Suggest showing rather than telling by just getting to what they yielded.
    Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:53, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The implication was that the winds are not produced by heat generated by sunlight or the condensation of water vapor (the main causes on Earth), but are due to an internal heat source.: can we explain why this was a reasonable implication: presumably because Jupiter gets less energy from the Sun, being further away, yet somehow had faster winds, so the extra energy had to come from somewhere else?
    Added a bit. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:53, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The atmosphere creates ammonia ice particles: as before, hyphenate ammonia-ice here.
    Hyphenated. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:53, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • No solid surface was detected (or expected) during the 156-kilometer (97 mi) downward journey.: does this really need to be said? It would have been huge news to find out that Jupiter had a solid surface, but I can't see that anyone, either then or now, would be remotely thinking of it as a possibility.
    Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:53, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The probe detected less lightning... There was far less lightning activity than expected, only about a tenth of the level of activity on Earth. These two seem to go together, but are widely separated. Can we restructure to change that?
    Restructured. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:53, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • noble gases, argon, krypton and xenon, with abundances up to...: the three gases need bracketing off with dashes, as they are noble gases.
    Parenthesised. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:53, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It orbits faster though, with a rotation period of 1.769 days: Not sure about the tone here: better and more formal as "However, it orbits more quickly..." (faster is an adjective, not an adverb, in formal writing).
    More quickly is not used in formal writing, and Wikipedians deplore the use of "however". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:53, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Where are you getting that "more quickly" isn't used in formal writing? I've never heard that "rule", and a quick ping through Google Books and JSTOR finds it in plenty of prestigious books, academic journals and so on. I've also never come across a MoS or other prohibition on "However": it's used twice in this article already. UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:28, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Visible changes occurred between orbits of Galileo: could we (re)state how quickly Galileo went round?
    Not really; each orbit was different. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:53, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link Tvashtar Paterae on "Tvashtar Catena" in picture caption (and/or consider explaining/linking "catena"?)
    Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:53, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • As Galileo approached Io on I24 at 11:09 UTC on October 11, 1999, it entered safe mode: didn't we earlier say that it couldn't do this?
    Clarified. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:53, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • high energy electrons: hyphen.
    Hyphenated. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:53, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • After a frantic effort, they managed to diagnose a problem that had never been seen before, and restore the spacecraft systems with just two hours to spare: a bit breathless (WP:PUFFERY) in tone for me.
  • the flyby was very successful: in nearly all circumstances, I would advise cutting very, and would continue to do so here.
    Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:44, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • While such events were more common and spectacular on Io than on Earth, it was extremely fortuitous to have captured it: not sure this adds anything: I'd be more sympathetic if we could follow it with e.g. "because it only occurred once during the entire time-span of the mission" or something like that.
    Added a bit. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:44, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The safe mode incidents: hyphen.
    Hyphenated. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:44, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This time Galileo passed just 198 kilometers (123 mi) over the surface of Io. At this time, the spacecraft was nearly at the maximum distance from Earth, and there was a solar conjunction, a period when the Sun blocked the line of sight between Earth and Jupiter. As a consequence, three quarters of the observations were taken over a period of just three hours.: the "just"s, here (particularly) and elsewhere, read as editorialising to me.
    Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:44, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfortunately, a series of observations of extreme ultraviolet (EUV) had to be cancelled due to yet another safe mode event: likewise the unfortunately -- and another hyphen needed in safe-mode event
    Delered. Hyphenated. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:44, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • planetary scientist Margaret G. Kivelson, announced that Io had no intrinsic magnetic field, which meant that its molten iron core did not have the same convective: lose the comma after Kivelson. "Convective" is redlinked: is Convection the intended target?
    Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:44, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This time, Tvashtar was quiet: per MOS:IDIOM, I would advise rephrasing to something that more explicitly says that the volcano was not erupting (it might have been doing so without making much noise).
    Both of the sources say: "Tvashtar was quiet". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:44, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    They might, but they don't have to follow MOS:IDIOM: more to the point, if they use a creative idiom and we copy it wholesale when good alternatives exist, we're breaking (in a very small way) WP:COPYVIO. We're allowed to take the facts from sources; we can't take the creative expression unless we present it as a quotation and/or attribute. UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:27, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It is not an idiom; it is a technical term. Linked to effusive eruption. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:26, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't have the source in front of me, though I do have Google telling me that "Effusive eruptions are sometimes called 'quiet' eruptions". Is it absolutely unambiguous in the sources that the volcano was erupting, just not emitting a plume, other than the use of the word "quiet"? I'm not sure I can see in isolation that "the volcano was quiet" definitely means "the volcano was erupting effusively" rather than "the volcano was not erupting". UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:37, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The sources are online. Melzer (p. 254) says: "The Tvashtar volcano was quiet". This is sourced to NASA. which says: "When Galileo sped past Io's north pole on August 6, scientists were watching for activity from a polar volcano named Tvashtar, which had been spewing a plume several hundred km high only seven months earlier. But Tvashtar was quiet." Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:53, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Our article on Tvashtar cites this source, which makes it clear the volvcano was still erupting. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:58, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think it does: in fact, I see Streaks of light and dark deposits can be seen radiating from the central patera (volcanic crater), remnants of the now finished plume eruption, which says to me that it had finished. It does say that the volcano was still active, but that's not the same thing. Have I missed something on that page? UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:42, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "The Galileo spacecraft caught Io in the act of an active volcanic eruption on Februrary 22, 2000. Tvashtar Catena is a chain of calderas, collapse pits formed by volcanic eruptions. The active site of the eruption is visible on the left edge of the image, where infrared imaging sees the glow of a hot lava flow more than 60 kilometers long." [48] Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:14, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Great: cite that and we're golden. UndercoverClassicist T·C 22:47, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:40, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • sulphur dioxide snowflakes: see comments on sulphur/sulfur above.
    Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:44, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Galileo's final return to Io on orbit I33 was marred by another safe mode incident: hyphen, and consider rephrasing marred as editoralising.
    I think is is okay. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:44, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although the project team worked hard to restore the spacecraft to working order, much of the hoped-for data was lost.: I'd consider cutting the first bit: this is already a very long article and section, and we surely take as read that they didn't sit back while their machine was broken?
    Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:44, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although the smallest of the four Galilean moons, with a radius of 1,565 kilometers (972 mi), Europa is still the sixth largest moon in the solar system: in the vein of some comments above, I'd cut still.
    Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:44, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • the sixth largest moon: hyphenate.
    Hyphenated.
  • A "nontargeted" encounter is defined as a secondary flyby up to a distance of 100,000 kilometers (62,000 mi).: at a distance up to is more grammatical, I think. Not sure we need the quote marks: "a grandfather clock is defined as an expensive one in a tall wooden box" works fine.
    Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:44, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Galileo returned to Europa on E6 in January 1997, this time at a height of 586 kilometers (364 mi) to analyze: comma after (346 mi).
    Changed as suggested.
  • On E11 from 2 to 9 November 1997: date format is inconsistent with the rest of the article.
    Changed to mdy dates. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:44, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the GEM, the first eight orbits, E12 through E19, were all dedicated to Europa: clearer if we use dashes or brackets for "E12 through E19".
    Changed to parentheses. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:44, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Astronomer Clark Chapman argued that if we assume that a 20-kilometer (12 mi) crater occurs in Europa once every million years, and given that only about twenty have been spotted on Europa, the implication is that the surface must only be about 10 million years old.: the MoS discourages "we" in this kind of construction: suggest "argued that the surface of Europa must only be about 10 million years old, assuming..."
    Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:44, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tidal flexing of up to 100 meters (330 ft) per day was the most likely the culprit: too many thes here.
    Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:44, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • appeared to contain magnesium and sodium salts.: ambiguous: suggest "salts of magnesium and of sodium" or "magnesium- and sodium-based salts"
    Seems okay as it is. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:44, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As I read it, the most obvious interpretation is that it contained magnesium, which I don't think is true or intended. UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:25, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Changed to "magnesium- and sodium-based salts" but note that "base" has the technical meaning of "cation" in this context. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:26, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since the surface temperature on Europa was a chilly −162 °C (−260 °F): that's rather below what most of us would call "chilly" (indeed, it's almost "big coat weather" up here): given the following sentence, these words can go with no loss.
    Deleted. (It's not very warm here either.) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:44, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • There was acrimonious debate among scientists over the thickness of the ice crust, and those who presented results indicating that it might be thinner than the 20 to 30 kilometers (12 to 19 mi) proposed by the accredited scientists on the Galileo Imaging Team faced intimidation, scorn, and reduced career opportunities: the chronology here seems important, but I have totally lost any sense of when this happened, or how long it went on for. Did this happen during the span of the mission itself? If not, suggest moving to a later section.
    The article has switched from chronological to locational order, as Galileo returns to each Moon several times. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:44, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • We are inconsistent about whether it's Canberra (This allowed Canberra and Goldstone to investigate the ionosphere of Europa or the Canberra (The Galileo project was able to secure 80 hours of the Canberra's 70-meter dish time.
    Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:44, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This was the first time that a magnetic field had ever been detected on a moon contained within the magnetosphere of its host planet: does this really need all four citations?
    Deleted one. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:44, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The evidence pointed to an iron or iron sulphide core: sulphide vs sulfide again.
    Already corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:44, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Margaret Kivelson, the scientist in charge of the magnetometer experiment, felt that the induced magnetic field required an iron core: words for said are tricky, but felt here could perhaps cast the implication that she was working on intuition or vibes rather than professional knowledge and experience.
    Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:44, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • highly cratered dark regions, and grooved terrain sulcus: best without a comma, as both alternatives are short phrases.
    Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:44, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • iron and iron sulfide rock: sulphides again.
    Already corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:44, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 40 percent water ice: if we just said "ice", I don't think many readers would assume it was anything else. I think the link to ice is an overlink.
    Normally yes, but all mentions so far have been of ammonia icx. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:44, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • NASA engineers were able to recover the damaged tape recorder electronics: hyphenate tape-recorder. On another note, there seems to be an extra line break after this paragraph.
    Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:44, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • None of the individual moonlets were reliably sighted twice: was ("none" = "not one": "not one of them was sighted...")
    Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:44, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The star scanner was observing a set of stars which included the second [[Magnitude (astronomy)]|magnitude]]: something is up with the formatting here.
    No idea what this is abvout. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:44, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The bit of wikitext with the square brackets at the end displays on the page -- you'll find it with ctrl-f. UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:25, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:26, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delta Velorum is the brightest known eclipsing binary, brighter at maximum than even Algol.: Even is editorialising, but do I assume correctly that Algol was the previously brightest known eclipsing binary?
    Delta Velorum is the brightest-known eclipsing binary, although Algol has a deeper minimum and is easier to observe visually. DEleted "even". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:44, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • After the primary mission concluded on December 7, 1997, most of the mission staff departed, including O'Neil, but about a fifth of them remained. The Galileo orbiter commenced an extended mission known as the Galileo Europa Mission (GEM),: this is a good explanation of the GEM and GMM, which would have been much better before we got into those two moons -- we were using both of those terms quite freely, and I had rather little idea of exactly what and when we were talking about. Suggest restructuring so that this "Mission extension" section comes before what happened after the mission extension.
    MOved section up. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:44, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • although it might seem wasteful to scrap a spacecraft that was still functional and capable of performing a continuing mission, Congress took a dim view of requests for more money for projects it thought had already been fully funded: this is quite strongly editorial, and needs to be rephrased to have a more neutral authorial voice.
    Suggestions welcome. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:44, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It needs a fairly major rework: although it might seem wasteful to scrap a spacecraft that was still functional and capable of performing a continuing mission casts the strong implication that Congress were being wasteful; similarly, Congress took a dim view of requests for more money for projects it thought had already been fully funded casts them as fools, unable to see that the project had not in fact been fully funded. UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:24, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The project had been fully funded. NASA deliberately kept the price tag low in order to get funding in the first place, and there was a real possibility of the spacecraft failing before funds ran out. Deleted "it thought". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:26, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That bit is better, but although it was wasteful to scrap a spacecraft that was still functional and capable of performing a continuing mission is still a problem. I'd be happier if someone (ideally within Congress) expressed this sentiment at the time, so we could say "although Rep. Stevenson of Ohio gave a speech in which she said...", "despite an open letter from 25 scientists arguing that it was..." or something like that. UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:40, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1995-2022: endash, not hyphen, needed here.
    Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:44, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • In order that scientists could determine whether or not native life forms existed before the planet became contaminated by micro-organisms from Earth,: this one needs a look. Firstly, whether or not is a tautology: whether is better. Secondly, as phrased, it implies that Mars has already become contaminated by microorganisms from Earth.
    Re-phrased. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:44, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • An alternative was the Prime Directive, a philosophy of non-interference with alien life forms enunciated by the original Star Trek television series that prioritized the interests of the life forms over those of scientists. : this doesn't seem to be relevant here, as we don't say that anyone proposed it for Galileo.
    Keep reading. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:44, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Still don't see it: I see Given the (admittedly slim) prospect of life on Europa, scientists Richard Greenberg and Randall Tufts proposed that a new standard be set of no greater chance of contamination than that which might occur naturally by meteorites, but it sounds like this is "new" relative to the 99.9% standard adopted in 1964. UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:23, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the numbered list in "Major findings" would be better and more MoS-friendly in prose.
    I think it is okay. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:44, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • NASA-ESA Outer Planets Study Team: endash, not hyphen.
    Endashes are not being used for anything but page ranges. They cause more thgan enough trouble already. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:44, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    They should be: MOS:DASH asks for them in compounds when the connection might otherwise be expressed with to, versus, and, or between. UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:21, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:26, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know it's not an article on Juno, but is there anything we can say about what that spacecraft observed: did or will it confirm, sharpen or change any of the findings from Galileo? Are any of its research tasks shaped by the experience of Galileo?
    Added a bit about Juno. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:44, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's my lot on a first pass. The article is certainly a monumental piece of work, and I appreciated the occasional tours into more general areas of astronomy and science when they helped explain the specifics of the mission. UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:08, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AG

[edit]

Reserving a spot. Artem.G (talk) 19:01, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First comments:

More to follow later. Artem.G (talk) 19:34, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More comments: Artem.G (talk) 18:05, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Hawkeye7, thanks for the great article and for quick fixes! I support the nomination, and it's probably the best article about a spacecraft mission that I've read. Artem.G (talk) 06:40, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

T

[edit]

I'm not going to do a review, I'd just like to repeat a comment from my Good Article review three years ago that went unaddressed: the mission patch in the infobox is hideous, and it's not the real one. It's easy to find photos of the real one online [55] [56] and since it's NASA work it should be public domain. Tercer (talk) 08:50, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • NASA's statement regarding all of its missions emblems is:

    Their reproduction in any form other than in news, information and education media is not authorized without approval.

    Our use falls under this Fair Use clause, but Commons disagrees.
    I am will to upload a non-free image if that is the consensus here. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:01, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WSC

[edit]

Queries by WereSpielChequers. I'm enjoying reading this but not sure I know enough about the topic to do a useful review.

  • "Galileo performed close observations of another asteroid, 243 Ida, at 16:52:04 UTC on August 28, 1993, at a range of 2,410 km (1,500 mi). Measurements were taken from Galileo" Was 2,410 the closest approach or the point where they started taking observations? Maybe I'm wrong but my understanding of these flybys is that there is a brief period of time to take observations, and observations start and end at a greater distance than the instance of closest approach.
    I have elaborated on this. It was both the closest approach and the point where they started taking observations, due to an operational problem. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:25, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It orbits faster though, with a rotation period of 1.769 days. As a result, rotational and tidal forces are 220 times as great as those on Earth's moon." I thought that the greater mass and maybe proximity of Jupiter to Io as opposed to the Moon to Earth would explain the tidal forces. Though perhaps we are talking about tides on Jupiter as IO also faces Jupiter so the tidal forces would presumably be explained by a bulge.
    Clarified that we are talking about Io. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:25, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's it for now, maybe more later ϢereSpielChequers 12:25, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • "The orbiter was powered by 570-Watt (at launch) radioisotope thermoelectric generators (RTGs)" how many of these 570 watt generators?
    There were two of them; total output was 570 W. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:11, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Rogers Commission handed down its report on June 6, 1986.[47] It was critical of NASA's safety protocols and risk management" I'm assuming this was a report on the Challenger disaster, but perhaps we should say so.
    You assumed correctly. Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:11, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RoySmith (Support)

[edit]

For now, just some random comments. I don't know if I'll have time for a full review.

Random comments are always most welcome. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:37, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's many citations to Meltzer 2007. Unfortunately, the PDF accessed by the URL only includes the front matter up to page xvii. Is there a better URL that gets the whole thing?
    I had that problem too, but I thought it might be a issue with my browser. Switched to the 12 January archive. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:37, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Background:
[edit]
  • "They were followed by the more advanced Voyager 1 and Voyager 2 spacecraft, which were launched on 5 September and 20 August 1977 respectively" Is it worth a short explanation here of why Voyager 1 was launched after Voyager 2?
    Probably not, but I have added a footnote explaining that Voyager 1 reached Jupiter and Saturn first. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:37, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Initiation:
[edit]
  • "NASA's Scientific Advisory Group (SAG)" the acronym SAG is never used after being defined here, so no reason to have it.
    Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:37, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems awkward to say "the JPL". Our own JPL article and https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/ call it just JPL; why not the same here?
    Seems more awkward to me, but changed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:37, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and the probe would be the first to enter its atmosphere" I would make it "and the first to enter its atmosphere"
    Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:37, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a Mariner spacecraft like that used for Voyager". I'm not 100% sure what this means. I think you mean "as was used for Voyager". The way it's written now, I could be taken to mean "of similar design".
    Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:37, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Attitude was determined with reference to the Sun and Canopus" somewhere around here, include a link to star tracker.
    Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:37, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This allowed it to take high resolution images". Clarify what "this" and "it" refer to. Either or both could be the accelerometer, which I don't think is what you intended. It's also unclear how better attitude control affected the camera resolution, which I assume was only a function of the camera sensor.
    It is easier to take longer exposures images if the camera is held still. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:37, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, but less camera motion is not the same as higher resolution. On the other hand, now that I've got the full Meltzer PDF (thanks!), I see that it does indeed say "could help maximize photographic resolution". I think that's a bizarre way to say it, but that is what the source says, so who am I to argue with NASA? RoySmith (talk) 02:22, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Independent Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee". Many of these subcommittees have a linkable article. Is there one for this?
    There is not. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:37, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Casani solicited suggestions for a more inspirational name for the project". I had to go hunting a few paragraphs back to figure out who Casani was, so maybe re-introduce him here as "project manager Casani"?
    Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:01, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "from people associated with it, and the most votes went to " this is a long sentence. Maybe instead of the comma, a full-stop or semicolon?
    Split sentence. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:01, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • " Casani officially announced that he had chosen the name", was the choice his alone, or was he just announcing the result of a group decision?
    He chose, but I presume the decision may have been ratified by senior management. Hawkeye7 (discuss)
Preparation
[edit]
  • "a launch on Space Shuttle Columbia on the STS-23 mission" rephrase to avoid the repetition of "on". Maybe "Space Shuttle Columbia's STS-23 mission"?
    Re-phrased. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:01, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "sometime between 2 and 12 January 1982" is inconsistent with {{Use mdy dates}}
    Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:01, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the Galileo project's engineers decided" I think you can just say "project engineers decided" and trust the reader to understand that you're talking about the Galileo project.
    Changed as suggested
  • "To enhance reliability and reduce costs ... This improved reliability and reduced costs" eliminate the redundancy.
    Eliminated. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:01, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Another 165 kilograms (364 lb) was added in structural changes to improve reliability" aerospace engineers don't take on 165 kg without a good reason (famous quote: "I’d sell my grandmother for a one-pound reduction!"); is there something more we can say here about what this additional weight was used for?
    I've checked all three sources, and noine are specific on this point. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:01, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the three-stage IUS was itself overweight" overweight compared to what? It's maximum design capacity? Some assumed weight used in early mission calculations?
    Design specs. Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:01, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "NASA decided to split Galileo into two separate spacecraft, an atmospheric probe and a Jupiter orbiter". This is confusing. Perhaps this gets cleared up later on, but at this point I'm lost, trying to figure out if we're talking about one spacecraft or two. Here, you talk about two. But in the lead, you say "the Galileo spacecraft consisted of an orbiter and an entry probe. It was delivered into Earth orbit on October 18, 1989" so that's one spacecraft.
    Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:01, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a signal from Earth takes anything from 35 to 52 minutes to reach Jupiter". A few points here. First, "anything" is kind of informal language. But more importantly, I'd explain the nature of this variation; i.e. it's because the Earth-Jupiter distance varies depending on where they both are in their orbits; readers who are not familiar with how this stuff works might guess it has to do with other factors like varying amounts of power available on the spacecraft, or whatnot. Also, I think these sorts of things are typically cited as round-trip time because that's what really matters if you're trying to do remote control; downlink delay to send telemetry, plus the uplink delay to send a command based on the telemetry you received.
    Added an explanation. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:01, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • You need to define USAF the first time you use it.
    Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:01, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "autonomous spacecraft,[35] which was a necessity for deep space probes," There's something odd about the grammar here, but I'm not sure what. Maybe "were a necessity" (or, just "were necessary")?
    Deleted "which was" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:01, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • " posed little value when observed from a safe distance," I don't think "posed" is the right word here. Maybe "Provided"?
    "promised" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:01, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Most of the asteroids in the vicinity ... one of the largest of the asteroids" No need to repeat "asteroids"
    Deleted repetition. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:21, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a generic comment, you use "flyby" many times in the article, but never explain what it is. For the benefit of our readers who don't know anything about spaceflight, you should explain what a flyby is the first time it's used in the main body.
    Linked, with a definition. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:21, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even more generically, please read through the entire article looking for technical words and consider whether a naive reader would understand them. As an example, you talk about "the orbiter in February 1984 with the probe following". How does an orbiter differ from a probe? Other words that might need explaining include "autonomous", "attitude" (we don't want to be launching any spacecraft in a bad mood!) but those are just a few examples, I'm sure you'll find more.
    Added links, explanations. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:21, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still talking generically, it might be a good idea to give real-life examples of units that a reader might be unfamiliar with. For example, "a lithium–sulfur battery rated at 730 Watt-hours"; it would help the reader understand this better if you said that was about how much energy is in a typical car battery (but please double-check me on that and find a WP:RS)
    On average, a 12-Volt car battery can maintain about 5 Amperes for ten hours. That makes such a battery a 50 Ampere-Hour battery. That is equal to around 12 x 50 = 600 Watt-Hours. No idea if this is a reliable source. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:21, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:46, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Spacecraft
[edit]

(my apologies for these comments comming in dribs and drabs)

  • "general-purpose heat source radioisotope thermoelectric generators (GPHS-RTGs)" WP:SEAOFBLUE. I suggest only linking to GPHS-RTG, and let people drill down from there if they want more details.
    Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:36, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "generated 570 Watts at launch ... rated at 730 Watt-hours." I'm not sure how to handle this better, but it's jarring to have two consecutive sentences talking about power sources using different units (power vs energy). I understand the difference, but I suspect a less technically savvy reader will just be confused and/or come away with the wrong impression that the battery is "bigger" than the RTG, when in fact those values can't be compared in any useful way. I see that you're just giving the data as it's presented in the NASA report, but it would still be nice if there was a better way to present this. Actually, a quick calculation says average of 520 watts x 8 year = 36 MW-Hrs. Upon reflection, this makes sense; the battery only runs the atmopheric probe for the short time it takes to descend and burn up. Hopefully you can find some RS that goes into this sort of analysis so you can present it in the article.
  • "Heavy Ion Counter." Why the upper case?
    A holdover from the original version, which used this form. After a change in the MOS (MOS:EXPABBR) in 2017, I and other editors went through the article and removed the uppercasing of abbreviated forms. De-capped. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:36, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reconsideration
[edit]
  • "flight tore the spacecraft apart" seems like an unencyclopedic way to phrase that. Maybe something like "Resulted in loss of the vehicle and the deaths of ..."
    There was a debate about this in one Challenger disaster article. Some people wrote that the spacecraft exploded when it was actually torn apart by aerodynamic forces. This article follows the more precise wording chosen over there. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:36, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This was only partly due to the NASA management's increased aversion to risk in the wake of the Challenger disaster; NASA management also considered ..." This appears to be based on a p 217 quote from Marty Winkler of General Dynamics commenting on his interpretation of NASA management's decision. So I think this deserves attribution as Winkler's opinion.
    Is is the opinion of historians Virginia Dawson and Mark Bowles. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:36, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, so it needs some attribution, "According to Virginia Dawson and Mark Bowles ..." RoySmith (talk) 22:40, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "for a time it looked like its next trip would be to the Smithsonian Institution." That's a cute way to phrase it, but maybe it should be stated a bit more formally. Also, it's an unattributed quote from the source, so that's a problem.
    Altered to match the quote, and turned into a quotation. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:36, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "southerly declination of −23 degrees" -> "declination of 23 degrees south" Likewise for "northerly one of +18 degrees"
    Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:36, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Furthermore ... so the main tracking station would be the Canberra Deep Space Communication Complex in Australia". That makes it sound like using Canberra is a problem. Is it? Why?
    Redundancy. There was only one complex in the southern hemisphere but two in the northern. Expanded on this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:36, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nuclear concerns
[edit]
  • "plutonium in the Galileo's radioisotope thermoelectric generators (RTGs) and General Purpose Heat Source (GPHS) modules" This makes it sound like these are two different things, each with their own plutonium supply. My reading of GPHS-RTG leads me to believe this is a single unit with a single plutonium supply which performs both functions, so this needs to be clarified.
    Correct. Changed to "Galileo's GPHS-RTG modules Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:36, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The overall tone of the first paragraph seems in violation of WP:NPOV. You minimize the risk ("what they perceived as an unacceptable risk") and then state in wiki-voice that "They had been used for years in planetary exploration without mishap", implying that there is indeed no risk.
    There is a whole paragraph about the risk. The issue is what degree of risk is "unacceptable". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:36, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • " If the Galileo/IUS combination fell free of the orbiter". Missing a word? of -> from, perhaps?
    Looks okay to me, but changed "of" to "from" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:36, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ugh. I must be becoming dyslexic. I read that as "free fell", as "the RTG was in free fall". My bad. RoySmith (talk) 00:15, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "an accident might have released up to 11,568 curies (428,000 GBq)." Another example of a unit which is almost certainly unfamiliar to most of our readers. Is that a lot? Are we talking a couple of dental X-ray's worth or another Chernobyl? Likewise with "NASA concluded that the chance of such a disaster was 1 in 2,500". I have no idea if that's a lot compared to all the other risks. NASA must have some standard risk analysis budget. How does this compare with other missions? Also, what does "such a disaster" refer to? In ther previous paragraph you give two different scenarios; which of those is this?
    Chernobyl released between 50 and 185 million curies; three mile island released about 2.5 million curies. I have no figures on the risk assessments of other missions. Part of my job involves carrying out risk assessments, and the low odds and moderate consequences would mean approval. Linked the unite. Deleted "such". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:36, 13 April 2024 (UTC)+[reply]
Launch
[edit]
  • "There were fears that the spacecraft might be hijacked by anti-nuclear activists or terrorists". I'm guessing this is due to the plutonium, but please don't make the reader guess. As an aside, I also have to wonder about the risk was of sleep-deprived truck drivers in a high speed convoy over an unfamiliar route at night having a crash. :-)
    Apparently, there is a Nova (American TV program) episode about this, but I haven't seen it. Added that the plutonium was the concern. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:36, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Venus encounter
[edit]
  • "three hours into the flyby, the tracking station at Goldstone had to be shut down due to high winds" If it was being tracked by Canberra and Madrid, why did it matter what was going on at Goldstone? I'm guessing the answer is that by the time three hours had passed, Goldstone had become the active station, but that should be explained for the benefit of our less technically savvy readers. It also seems odd that you give the time of the flyby down to the second ("05:58:48 UTC") implying it's a discrete moment in time, then later talk about being three hours into it. Maybe just note that 05:58:48 was the time of closest approach?
    Clarified. Note that 10 February in Canberra and Madrid was only 9 February at JPL. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:36, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe I'm just missing it but I don't see where you explained this. RoySmith (talk) 22:53, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "Galileo's closest approach to Venus came at 05:58:48 UTC on February 10, 1990, at a range of 16,106 km (10,008 mi)." Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:58, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • You might also want to explain that doppler provides a direct measurement of the relative velocity between two bodies (in this case, Galileo and the Earth). Again, this is something our more sophisticated readers will know, but will leave others struggling to understand.
    Doppler is linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:36, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, but I think it would still be better to provide some explanation here. I suspect most people are familiar with the "train whistle gets lower in pitch as the train passes" demonstration, but I don't think they would necessarily make the leap to "by measuring the change in carrier frequency of the spacecraft's transmission compared to the nominal frequency, you can compute the spacecraft's velocity relative to Earth", and Doppler effect isn't much help for the casual reader trying to figure that out. Likewise, they might have heard of "Doppler radar" in the context of some gizmo the cops use to give you a speeding ticket, but I think it's asking a lot to expect the casual reader to understand the application of that to space navigation. RoySmith (talk) 00:27, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Added an explanation, with a link. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:23, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "low gain antennae (LGA)" probably should be "LGAs" (plural)
    Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:36, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "DSN's 70 meters (230 ft)", meter (singular)
    Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:36, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Earth's strong magnetic field causes this to occur ... from its center," it's unclear what "this" and its" refer to. I think you're talking about the Earth's bow shock, and the Earth's center, but clarify.
    Clarified. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:36, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "causes the bow wave", I assume "bow wave" and "bow shock" are synonyms, but perhaps reduce confusion by just using the same term in both places.
    Used "bow shock" consistently.
Earth encounters
[edit]
High gain antenna problem
[edit]
Asteroid encounters
[edit]
Voyage to Jupiter
[edit]
  • "A tiny Doppler shift in the signal of the order of a few centimeters per second" This seems like a weird mixing of units. Doppler shift is a change in frequency. From that you can compute a velocity. So, "A velocity change of a few centimeters per second, as measured by Doppler shift".
    Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:57, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "it was fired for the first time" Perhaps I'm picking nits here, but was it ever test fired on Earth? If so, "fired for the first time in XX years", or "after completing its manufacturing tests", or whatever. It's certainly possible this was its first firing ever; some engines are never test fired before a mission, but some are.
    "The main engine could not be tested or fired prior to release of the atmospheric probe because the probe was mounted in front of the engine nozzle." Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:57, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "it would perform as a communications relay": maybe "perform" -> "act" ?
    Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:57, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • " The Galileo probe's project manager ... this role could be performed by LGA-1" This sentence is awkwardly placed. The previous sentence talks about firing the engine, and the next sentence talks about how that firing changed the velocity, but this sentence has nothing to do with the engine.
    The engine was fired to place the orbiter in a position to act as a relay for the probe. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:57, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "Isbel, Douglas; Wilson, James H. "Galileo Flying Through Intense Dust Storm" (Press release). NASA/Jet Propulsion Laboratory. 95-147. Retrieved November 16, 2020. URL can't be reached.
    Updated the link. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:57, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Jupiter
[edit]

(note to self: next up, Io)

Io
[edit]

(up to Ganymede)

Ganymede
[edit]
Callisto
[edit]
Amalthea
[edit]
Star scanner
[edit]
[edit]
End of mission and deorbit
[edit]
  • "Galileo impacted Jupiter in darkness just south of the equator" What does it mean to "impact" something made of gas?
    The sources consistent use the term, and we have a whole article on impact events on Jupiter that does not define it. But at some point it gets so dense that it is like hitting a solid surface.
    The astronomers inform me that this is the case on Earth too; "impact" is 50-80 km up, not on the surface. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:22, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Galileo had not been sterilized prior to launch and could have carried bacteria from Earth." link sterilized and bacteria.
    Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:13, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, finally got to the end. So much for "just some random comments" :-) I'm going to give this a rest for a bit then come back and see how things look overall.

Second pass
[edit]
  • The orbiter would be in orbit around Jupiter when the probe arrived, allowing it to perform its role as a relay." It's unclear what "it" refers to: the orbiter or the probe.
    I thought it was clear enough, but changed it to "the orbiter". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:25, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "required a second Space Shuttle mission and a second carrier to be built for the probe" What is the carrier? I'm guessing it's some mounting adapter that lets you install the probe into the shuttle cargo bay, but clarify.
    No, it is a spacecraft. The probe wasn't intended to fly to Jupiter by itself. Clarified this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:25, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "NASA hoped to be able to recoup some of this through competitive bidding." You put that in just for comic relief, right?
    The source says ""Delaying to 1984 is more cost efficient because we can go into more competitive bidding for the carrier." Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:25, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Who am I to argue with NASA? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:12, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "President pro tempore of the Senate" I don't think I've ever seen this spelled out in full, it's always just "president pro tem", so that's probably what we should use here.
    Um, sure. Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:25, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
General comments
[edit]

Image and source review

[edit]

File:Artwork Galileo-Io-Jupiter.JPG, File:Galileo Preparations - GPN-2000-000672.jpg, File:Galileo probe deployed (large).jpg, File:The Moon from Galileo - GPN-2000-000473.jpg, File:Ganymede diagram.svg, File:Galileo Amalthea artwork.jpg, File:Galileo End.jpg and File:Galileo mission patch.png have broken source links. File:Astronauts John Fabian and Dave Walker pose in front of a model of the Shuttle-Centaur.jpg should have a non-direct image link, especially as it seems to have come from a different website. Is there no source link for File:Galileo in 1983.jpg? File:Descent Module.jpeg and File:Jupiter's clouds.jpg need more information. File:Galileo Probe - AC81-0174.jpg has a broken link, which also seems to be a direct link. Not a comment on images, but the follow-up missions sections seem to be pretty spartan. ALT text ought to get consistent capitalization. Also, File:Artwork Galileo-Io-Jupiter.JPG probably needs a more detailed ALT text, since it describes the apparel of Galileo. Ditto File:Descent Module.jpeg. File:243 ida.jpg'ALT is talking about the wrong moon. Image:Galileo atmospheric probe.jpg'ALT doesn't have the pressure. File:Plate Tectonics on Europa.jpg's ALT probably wants to say "cryolavas"; "cryolarvae" is an interesting concept though.

Source review-wise, I am checking this version; spot-check upon request. #44, #71, #75, #150, #175, #204 are broken. #177 can probably get a better source information than a raw URL. What makes #224 and #225 a reliable source? I am wondering about spaceflightnow.com too, since they don't give much information on themselves. I presume the differences between various sources with respect to identifiers are b/c some of them have identifiers and others don't? That needs doublechecking as e.g Cowen 2001 doesn't have the doi 10.2307/3981750 shown. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:01, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • #44, #71, #75, #150, #175, #204 have the archive URL added.
  • #177
  • Deleted #225
  • Spaceflightnow.com is considered reliable (Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 40)
    Hmm? The only mention of Spaceflightnow.com is when it is compared to a different source. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:20, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I consider Spaceflightnow.com a reliable source for Spaceflight news. We can ask at the WP:RSN. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 12:47, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not clear to me what editorial oversight Spaceflight Now provides, and that's what determines if it's a RS or not. They have a "Member Content" section (https://spaceflightnow.com/category/members/); I'd be wary of using anything from there (not that you have). Looking at the four citations to Spaceflight Now, two ("Galileo to fly over source of recent polar eruption on Io" and "Galileo data recorder still not working") are NASA/JPL NEWS RELEASE, so clearly no problem with those as far as RS goes, but the citations are wonky; they should have NASA/JPL as the publisher and Spaceflight Now noted as the content deliverer using the "via" attribute (or find the originals on a NASA site). "Galileo spacecraft crashes into Jupiter" is by Peter Bond who has published several books through reputable publishers (https://peterbondspace.com/) so I'm inclined to accept him as a RS based on WP:EXPERTSPS. "The Galileo trials" by Ben Evans I'm less sure about. He's described as "a schoolteacher and freelance astronomy and space exploration writer", so I'll need some more convincing to accept him as an expert. RoySmith (talk) 16:42, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have replaced the two press releases with links to the associated NASA/JPL press release pages and removed the Ben Evans reference. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:03, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jo-Jo, are we good on either or both of those reviews? Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:26, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like this passes. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:10, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Matarisvan

[edit]

Hi Hawkeye7, my comments:

Will be posting more comments soon. Matarisvan (talk) 12:14, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More comments:

Overall, a very good article, sources are great.

Drive-by comments

[edit]
Hawkeye7 nudge. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:47, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
wink. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:11, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 4 June 2024 [59].

Yugoslav submarine Mališan

[edit]
Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:04, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a dinky little midget sub that was built by the Italians for harbour defence and anti-submarine warfare tasks in WWII, but was incomplete at the time of the Italian armistice in September 1943, and ended up being handed over to the Italian Social Republic (rump fascist Italy) by the Germans after capture and completion. Captured by the Yugolavs at the end of the war, they repaired and commissioned her for use as a training boat. In 1953 she became a museum boat (a long way from the sea in Zagreb), and she was recently refurbished. There has been some controversy about returning her to her Italian colours and markings rather than retaining her Yugoslav ones. I nominated it at FAC in February but RW stuff took over and I was unable to address the review comments in a timely way, so the FAC was closed. I believe I have now addressed all the comments that were outstanding (@Nikkimaria, RoySmith, Volcanoguy, and Pickersgill-Cunliffe:, see my edits here), so let's have another go! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:04, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Generalissima's comments

[edit]

Aww, this FAC has been sadly ignored thus far! Marking myself down to do a source and image review later. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 16:16, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Peacemaker67: Aighty! Images first up:

  • File:Podmornica CB20 (P901).jpg: Creative commons, uploaded as an own work. Looks good all around.
  • File:CB-20 Caproni U-Boot-Italien 1943 Zagreb TeslaMus 20220617 5.jpg. Ditto.
These are both good, but I feel they might be better if their order was swapped (ie, the restored image is used in the infobox, and the pre-restoration image for context below); since the restored apperance would be closer to the vessel as it would have appeared during its service, no?
The article is at its last and Yugoslav name, so IMHO it is far better to have the infobox image as its appearance in Yugoslav service. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:06, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And now sources.

  • Sources are consistently cited using SFNs. Books have ISBNs, and their cites are consistently formatted.
  • Shouldn't Technical Museum be credited as Nikola Tesla Technical Museum? There's a number of technical museums out there.
It was just the "Technical Museum" at the time, it only changed its name in 2015. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:06, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obviously, it's okay to cite the Technical Museum a lot here, since it's obviously going to be an RS.
  • Obrana i sigurnost appears to be a blog, but it's by a clear subject matter expert, so good to go here.
  • tportal.hr is the one that gives me pause. This appears to be a news aggregator or portal - but at the same time, I think this article is actually being published on the cite itself, rather than posted from elsewhere. I know it's just used to cite a date, but do you know if this source is subject to any sort of editorial review? (Side note: Machine translation translated the name of the ship as "toddler" and if that's an accurate translation that's the funniest name I have ever heard for a naval vessel.)
While tportal.hr is a news aggregator/portal, it is operated by Hrvatski Telekom, which has an editorial board led by Dijana Suton, formerly executive editor at Poslovni dnevnik, a well regarded Croatian business and finance newspaper. Given it is only being used for the date the sub was unveiled, I think it is fine. Mališan is sort of a "slang" version of the English term "little one". Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:06, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since you have one or two FAs under your belt, I feel a full spot check isn't really necessary here. I could of course try my darndest if you desire one. That's all I have for now! Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 16:58, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much for your review, Generalissima! I think I've addressed your points. Regards, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:06, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HF

[edit]

I'm not sure why this isn't getting any attention; I'll try to review this week. Hog Farm Talk 15:29, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Is it known why Malisan recieved the less powerful motor?
Nothing in sources, but I wouldn't be surprised if the later boats of the class got whatever motors were available to Caproni after the main Italian surrender. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:48, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and a 7.92-millimetre (0.31 in) machine gun was stored inside the boat for mounting forward if needed" - had the previous machine gun been removed by this point, or is this not mentioned in the sources
Sources don't mentioned whether the previous tripod and machine gun was removed, but I would have thought that the original one wouldn't have been mounted except when surfaced. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:48, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "with the designation P-901" - is P-901 enough of a ship name that it should be capitalized?
not sure what you mean here, it is capitalised already? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:48, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Peacemaker67 - Sorry, I meant italicized, not capitalized. Hog Farm Talk 23:32, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, per MOS:NAT the pennant number should be in normal font. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:00, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "She undertook one longer cruise in Yugoslav waters between Pula, Rijeka and Zadar." - when?
Not given in sources. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:48, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know that all that information about CB-26 is necessarily relevant to this article
It is really there to compare and contrast the restoration of it with the work done on this boat. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:48, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's all from me. Hog Farm Talk 02:17, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

G'day HF, thanks very much for taking a look. One comment I don't understand. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:18, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
G'day HF, responded to the outstanding one. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:00, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Supporting Hog Farm Talk 01:55, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from JennyOz

[edit]

Hi PM, dinky indeed! Just a few bits from me...

top

  • add dmy template
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:06, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ibox image

  • alt lower hull and dark gray paint - hyphen and spelling ie dark-grey
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:06, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

lede

  • she was ordered by the Italian Regia Marina (Royal Navy) for harbour defence and anti-submarine warfare tasks, - no actual mention of WWII? (until the mention of "a World War II German puppet state")
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:06, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Design and construction

Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:16, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The single rudder and diving planes were both of the semi-balanced type.[1] - "both" seems odd here with planes plural - change to 'all' or simply remove "both"?
The latter, thanks. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:16, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to the naval historian Zvonimir Freivogel, some sources indicate that - he is already introduced the same just above, so just Freivogel here?
Whoops, done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:16, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • When running at full speed on the surface, the boat had a range of only 450 nautical miles (830 km; 520 mi); at 5 kn (9.3 km/h; 5.8 mph) this increased to 1,400 nmi (2,600 km; 1,600 mi). - how increased? lower speed?
Yes, tried to clarify that this was more of a cruising speed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:16, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Service history

  • magnetic mines - add link?
Thanks, done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:25, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aftermath

  • image alt - light green paint on the lower hull and deck and light gray paint on the - hyphens light-green and light-gray... but grey
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:25, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • the tail section with the propeller and the torpedo tubes were dismantled and restored. - tail section was or remove with?
Rearranged the sentence, see if it works now? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:25, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • while the Italians had over twenty boats of the class in service, Yugoslavia had only one. - had only one – Mališan ?
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:25, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

Both done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:25, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bonus

Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:25, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry PM, I meant to add Mališan to that list article. No problem though. (I was surprised when I couldn't find categories for 'Ships commissioned in xxxx' and 'Ships decommissioned in xxxx'.) JennyOz (talk) 10:19, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's me, JennyOz (talk) 11:11, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for the review, Jenny! See what you think of my responses/edits. Regards, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:25, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks PM - always a pleasure. Very readable and understood by this non-MilHist editor. I'm happy to s'port. JennyOz (talk) 10:19, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Matarisvan

[edit]

Hi Peacemaker67, some comments:

  • "Mališan in the Technical Museum...": wouldn't "Mališan at the Technical Museum..." be better from a grammatical POV?
Sure, for consistency with the other caption, but they are both in fact inside the Museum, so "in" would still be accurate. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:51, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wdyt about splitting the first paragraph of the lead, with the breakaway paragraph beginning from "The unfinished boat..."? The first para is too long, the second one is too short, adding a third in between can help.
Sure, done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:51, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The restored submarine was opened to the public...": Wouldn't "The restored submarine was put on public display..." be better? Also consider using the latter phrasing in the Aftermath section?
Done on both counts. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:31, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and engine room aft": "and engine room at the aft", the latter looks a little wrong in naval lingo, but would help avoid WP:SEAOFBLUE. Wdyt?
I don't think so, it's just two adjacent links and at the aft isn't right. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:31, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "After the Kingdom of Italy surrendered": rephrasing to "After the surrender of the Kingdom of Italy" would avoid SEAOFBLUE.
Done, thanks! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:31, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is your policy on linking to publishers in the biblio? Some editors do link, some don't. I understand if you would not want to link to avoid SEAOFBLUE.
I generally avoid it unless it is an obscure publisher but has an article. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:31, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's all from me, cheers. Matarisvan (talk) 11:44, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Matarisvan. See what you think of my responses. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:31, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me, happy to support. You should check if you can get @Nigel Ish to comment here, they seem to be well versed in naval history. Matarisvan (talk) 09:06, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image and source review

[edit]

What makes tportal.hr a reliable source? Is there some background information on "Obrana i sigurnost "? I would probably capitalize the ALT text. Otherwise, all seems to check out. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:40, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

G'day Jo-Jo Eumerus. While tportal.hr is a news aggregator/portal, it is operated by Hrvatski Telekom, which has an editorial board led by Dijana Suton, formerly executive editor at Poslovni dnevnik, a well regarded Croatian business and finance newspaper. Given it is only being used for the date the sub was unveiled, I think it is fine. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:55, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jo-Jo Eumerus, happy with this, or any further queries regarding images and sources? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:29, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Aye, what is "Obrana i sigurnost "? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:38, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Jo-Jo Eumerus, it translates as Defence and Security, and is a Croatian not-for-profit online news outlet about those subjects and associated political goings on in Croatia and the immediate geopolitical neighbourhood. They have editorial and analyst staff, including the executive editor Lidija Knežević, who is a former political and human rights investigative reporter, and the chief analyst was up until recently on an expert panel for the Croatian parliamentary defence committee and is regularly called to provide expert opinion on defence and security matters on Croatian TV. Obris, as they are known, have been around since 2011. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:06, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 4 June 2024 [60].

U.S. Route 101

[edit]
Nominator(s): SounderBruce 03:18, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hugging the Pacific Ocean for most of its 1,500 miles, this highway is both a scenic route and an engineering marvel with dozens of grand bridges, including an orange suspension bridge that you may have heard of. This article on U.S. Route 101, also known as "the 101" in the Los Angeles area and the "Redwood Highway" or "Pacific Coast Highway" in more scenic areas, was overhauled last year and I've finished some recent tweaks that I believe bring it up to FA standards. It is a summary article with three sub-articles for each of the states it passes through, so some details are left to those instead. SounderBruce 03:18, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Lee Vilenski

[edit]

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

Lede
  • U.S. Route 101, or U.S. Highway 101 (US 101), is a north–south United States Numbered Highway that traverses the states of California, Oregon, and Washington on the West Coast of the United States - i get that the article is at United States Numbered Highway System, but do we need to state "United States Numbered..." Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 22:42, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Moved to second sentence.
  • It travels for over 1,500 miles - well, the road itself doesn't travel. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 22:42, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Changed to "runs", which some editors object to but is also valid in American English.
  • major route in the United States Numbered Highway System - do we need to say the last part of this? Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 22:42, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Numbering section explains why this is necessary, but I have shortened it.
  • So most of the lede is fine, but it seems to pretty much only talk about it's route. There's a solitary mention of the date of it being built, and there's no info on things I'd expect of travel - things like how much they are used. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 22:42, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Prose
  • For an FA, the article goes from a lede into a piece about how it's number isn't usual, but surely the name of the road isn't the most important thing about it. There doesn't seem to be anything outside of the lede that states what the article is about. The route description should come first Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 22:46, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Moved to between Route description and History sections.
  • Of these two-digit routes, the principal north–south routes were assigned numbers ending in 1.[5][6] US 101 is an exception to the three-digit rule due to its role as the westernmost major route;[7] it is treated as a primary, two-digit route with a "first digit" of 10, rather than a spur of US 1, which is located along the east coast. - I can't say I know what this means. Surely there's a better way to say it. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 22:46, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Without going into original research territory, I'm afraid there's not much else that can be explained here. It is as straightforward as I can make it: US 101 is treated as equivalent to a two-digit route [presumably because the country is too wide].
  • The table in route description isn't large, why is everything in acronyms? We could easily put the actual titles here. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 22:46, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • The lengths table is consistent between national-level highway articles, such as Interstate 90 (which has far more entries). I have added abbreviation templates to help those unfamiliar with U.S. state abbreviations (which are very common ways to refer to states).
  • To me, the major intersections sections is completely unreadable. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 22:48, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • The simplified list is standard across all national highway articles in the United States, as also seen at Interstate 90. What exactly needs to be made more readable here? SounderBruce 06:30, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comments

Additionally, if you liked this review, or are looking for items to review, I have some at my nominations list. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 22:36, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Lee Vilenski: Thanks for picking up this one for review. I have replied to your comments and will take a look at your nominations when I have a bit more time (between aurora-chasing and birthday-partying this weekend). SounderBruce 06:30, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Lee Vilenski: Just wanted to follow up and make sure that the ping went through. SounderBruce 20:29, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Dylan620

[edit]

I reviewed the GAN for this article and was very impressed—by the time my feedback was addressed, I felt that the article was quite close to meeting the FA criteria. I do have a concern regarding comprehensiveness. At the GAN, I brought up that one of the sources mentioned the "military value" of US 101; I note that there is still nothing in the article about this. Is there a way this could be incorporated? Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 01:29, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dylan620: Given that the source that discusses military value is focused on California, I believe it would be more appropriate to include it at U.S. Route 101 in California. It's been quite a long time since the older U.S. highways have been considered a key part of the defense network due to their relative obsolescence compared to the Interstate Highway System (which has Defense in their name). SounderBruce 01:57, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SounderBruce: That makes sense to me. I'm leaning toward supporting, but I'm going to take a closer look at the changes made since the GAN passed before I come to a decision. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 14:04, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I just looked over the updated article, and I like what I see. I am pleased that you have added alt text to each image/video and that archived URLs have been added for the refs. The added content is pertinent to the subject, and the prose modifications are improvements on the version that I reviewed for GAN. Happy to support. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 17:17, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from ZKang123

[edit]

Looking over:

  • Just a bit of clarification - The Route 101 is generally a combination of various trunk roads and expressways from my understanding? No need to clarify in the article; just double checking.
    • Yes, as a non-Interstate it has plenty of two-lane undivided roads but also expands into a full-fledged freeway at several points.
  • I personally think the lead contains a bit too much information on the route description than the history, with only a brief mention of "US 101 was established in 1926".
    • Added a bit more history to the lead.
  • Also I'm unsure of the relevance of the sentences: "US 101 is a major north–south link along the Pacific coast north of San Francisco but does not serve the largest cities in Oregon and Washington; that role is instead filled by I-5, which has a more direct inland routing. The highway provides a major parallel route between Los Angeles and San Francisco, with significant freeway portions." Sounds like it might contravene WP:NOTGUIDE, and seems to be covered in the previous lead paragraphs.
    • Removed the second sentence, but the first is needed to explain why US 101 has not been converted into a full freeway.
  • For the paragraph in "Route description" beginning with "The highway is known by several names that vary between the states"
    • I think you can just split it into different sentences instead of the entire chunk being one. E.g. "The highway is known by several names that vary between the states. In California, portions of... In Oregon,..."
      • Split them all up.
  • I'm concerned that for the chunk "The highway follows the Pacific Ocean northwest from Ventura through Santa Barbara...", it doesn't seem to be cited in the NYT article ref 22.
    • Moved up the Google citation to support this part of the paragraph.
  • I think the road descriptions seem alright; I like the descriptive commentary and the style of prose. Personally I would add photos of the highway at the state crossings, if there are such photos.
    • For the Washington–Oregon border, there's nothing remarkable except for the bridge; for the California–Oregon border, there's an agricultural station and a few signs. I will see if I have photos of the latter.
  • "but a set of six ferry crossings remained that were operated by private companies until the state government acquired them in 1927." – "but six private-run ferry crossings remained until the state government's acquisition in 1927."
    • Rewrote these sentences to flow better.
  • "Other sections were realigned in the 1930s to avoid rugged terrain and use new tunnels as automobile traffic increased." – "As automobile traffic increased, other sections were realigned via tunnels in the 1930s to avoid rugged terrain."
    • Rewritten.
  • "at a cost of $25 million to construct" – "at a construction cost of $25 million"
    • Changed to "cost $25 million".
  • "at a cost of $11 million" – would prefer "for/at $11 million" since "at a cost of" is a bit redundant. Might consider for other similar cases.
    • Changed to "for".
  • "By 1936, US 101E had been eliminated" – I would have reworded it as "In 1936, US 101E was eliminated..."
    • The source does not give an exact year for when US 101E was eliminated, so I feel that using "by" is more appropriate.
  • "Portions of the highway in southwestern Oregon have also had" – I did a little trip reading this.
    • Fixed.
  • "add center bus lanes" – not sure if it's supposed to be "centered bus lanes". I know they are at the middle of the highway, but I'm unsure if it should be center or centered. Or another term be used.
    • "center bus lanes" is the common term here; the alternative is to use "median", but that implies freeway-like design.
  • "Sections of US 101 in Oregon have been rebuilt or relocated due to erosion or landslides that have damaged the highway." – remove "that have damaged the highway". I think it is obvious enough.
    • Keeping so that the reader doesn't infer that there were relocations done prior to landslides; in this case, most of the construction was reactionary.

That seems to be all from me for now.--ZKang123 (talk) 02:38, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ZKang123: Thanks for the review. I have responded to all of your comments. SounderBruce 06:38, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to support.--ZKang123 (talk) 09:16, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review – pass

[edit]

I will do a source review in a bit, after most prose comments have been addressed. I plan to do a spot-check on one of every five citations and comment on any formatting concerns.--ZKang123 (talk) 02:56, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Review as per this revision

Formatting issues:

  • An issue to speak of is the use of Google Maps (see WP:RSP for the consensus on GMaps) as a citation (ref 21) when describing the route. Perhaps just cite a geographically accurate map from another source, such as a transit authority or government agency, or even just a more geographically accurate map already on Wikimedia?
    • As Imzadi1979 mentions, there was no clear consensus against its use, as linked at RSP. It is being used to cite details that are not able to be shown in adequate resolution on the respective state maps or national atlases, which is common due to how large the United States is, and used in tandem with state maps. The Google Maps data is generally accurate due to its sources (which are listed in the dynamic view), as already mentioned. Frequently, county and city government maps (the likely alternative, in the dozens) may have errors or inaccuracies that Google does not due to its ability to update based on reviewers responding to feedback from the public or governments themselves; they also vary widely in quality based on the budgets given for GIS departments, which may range from dozens of people in an urban county or just one duty for a lone employee in a rural one.
  • I'm not partial about this, but why are some work/publisher wikilinked (refs 1, 8, 95) and others (ref 17 - Los Angeles Times and 111) not similarly linked? I would advice wikilinking for all cases (given no one "reads" the entire references section, so even if you can 100% always determine what is the "first" link, readers won't see it.), or at least in the first mention of each source (especially for Los Angeles Times - noticed it instead got initially referenced in ref 78). Again, however, I'm not so particular personally.
    • The LA Times link was misplaced due to the Numbering section being moved further down the article. I have also added a link to first use of the Chronicle, but don't see the issues with 95 and 111 that are being described.
  • The inset link for Ref 47 is dead
    • The insets seem to work fine for me, both with and without a VPN.
  • For Ref 51, I guess you got the actual page number of the actual newspaper it was published then?
    • Yes, as I originally saw the article in NewsBank but am unable to link directly to it without going through troublesome hoops.
  • Personally I find it a bit of an odd decision and not sure if it's standard to first show the full citation in an earlier ref (ref 48) then using sfn for subsequent references of other pages back to the report (ref 59); I thought reports or books are usually under a separate subsection and then use sfn from there. I was also a bit confused when I hovered over Gratreak et al. (2015) of Ref 50 and assumed having to refer to page 22 instead of page 20. Similarly for Husing refs 95, 96, 98.
    • This format is generally accepted in other FAs due to its simplicity; as this article doesn't have many reports or publications that are cited, a separate section would be overkill.
  • Just a quick query tho - why are some live refs also marked dead, like ref 90? I understand also providing archive links to bypass the paywalls, but some are still alive and well and don't need to be marked dead for now (like ref 87). For ref 1, it's also not helpful to link to the web archive version as the map doesn't work as well.
    • Not sure why the templates are defaulting to showing the archived link, but I have forced it to allow live links to stay as-is.
  • For ref 144 don't you mean page 3 and not B? Or is it B numbering per the original newspaper? Noticed similarly for ref 70 which said p58 per newspapers.com instead of V18
    • Some newspapers of the era had "second front pages" or image pages that would have lettered pages rather than numbers, so B is indeed the page number for 144. For the second, the printed page number is V-18; Newspapers.com is rarely accurate with their page numbers, which are counted based on the microfilm reel and thus won't count skipped numbers, page sections, or a variety of other things that are common to find in old scans. For example, some newspapers have multiple daily editions that have been uploaded but redundant pages are omitted to prevent index pollution; as a result, sometimes a page A18 can be labeled "page 2" if the first 17 have been skipped.
  • Also not exactly part of source review, but is it possible to shift the lengths table to the right instead?
    • It's part of the template and seems to be meant to prevent it from pushing down images in the Route description table; sandwiching isn't a big deal due to how narrow the table is on most screen sizes.
  • All refs are to local news sources or government agencies. Not many other issues on their reliability etc
I understand the clarifications, especially for the use of Google Maps. No other issues with the formatting then. I will continue my spotchecks some time during the week.--ZKang123 (talk) 01:56, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Spotchecks:

  • 1, 6, 11, 16, 26, 31, 36, 51, 56, 61, 66, 71, 76 check out
  • 16 doesn't directly reference the highway, but the highways part of the route
  • 21 – see formatting issues comment
  • 31 supports the tolled part, 32 for the location of the bridge
  • 41 doesn't mention the South Fork Eel River, but supports statement for running parallel to the Avenue of the Giants
  • 46 archived URL throws up an error: This URL has been excluded from the Wayback Machine. I can AGF that the ref supports this statement nevertheless
    • Unfortunately, all Gannett newspaper websites have been broken on the Wayback Machine.
  • 56: I think it's best to change the archive URL to the archive today link because the web archive link doesn't work as well.
    • Per WP:LINKVIO, I don't think we should be linking directly to archives that bypass paywalls.

Will check the remainder over the next few days.--ZKang123 (talk) 09:42, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ZKang123: I just wanted to drop a note that there is no consensus on Google Maps. (See WP:GOOGLEMAPS for the specifics.) In this article, I should note that SounderBruce has linked to the satellite layer in Google Maps, which uses imagery from NASA and several other sources, and not just Google's cartography. A best practice would be to pair that citation with the appropriate official state department of transportation paper map, but that should not impair the usage of the citation alone. Imzadi 1979 → 18:00, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ZKang123: Responded above. Thanks for the source review. SounderBruce 01:22, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Spotchecks continued still with this version:

  • 81, 86, 91, 96, 101, 106, 111, 116, 121, 126, 131, 141, 156, 161, 166, 171, 176 checks out
  • 86 doesn't exactly mention the El Camino Real, but 87 does.
  • I assume that red highlighted coastal route from San Diego to San Francisco is the 101 in Ref 91.
  • 121 doesn't mention the act but 122 does.
  • 136 doesn't support "as I-5 had replaced the stretch to San Diego"
    • Using another source to support that statement.
  • 146 is an offline source. I shall assume AGF. 147 checks out.
  • 151 is offline. Is it possible to share a screenshot of the excerpt?
    • This link to NewsBank should work temporarily; I cannot generate a stable link that can be used in the article, however.
  • 161 supports on the traffic congestion problem. I suppose the article's express lanes refers to the HOVs.
  • "A similar widening east of Santa Barbara began construction in 2008" But in ref 181 it says 2005. Unless this is a different or more general widening work.

Finished source review.--ZKang123 (talk) 09:14, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok everything checks out. Pass.--ZKang123 (talk) 01:32, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review by Generalissima

[edit]
  • File:Highway 101 at night in Los Angeles.jpg is a properly licensed, own work image. Clearly suitable to the article. Properly captioned and alt-text is provided.
  • File:Golden Gate Bridge as seen from Marshall’s Beach, March 2018.jpg. License, suitability, caption, and alt-text all check out. It is left-aligned which is slightly cautioned against (but not explicitly opposed) by MOS:IMAGELOC. However, since it is not in danger of sandwiching anything, I think it's okay here.
  • File:Beach north of Cape Sebastian.jpg. Properly licensed, suitable, good caption and alt-text.
  • File:US 101 northbound approaching downtown Aberdeen, WA.jpg. I am now fascinated about the logistics on how this image was taken. Relevant, well-captioned, and has alt-text.
  • File:U.S. Route 101 flight over Elwha.webm Ooh, a video! License, suitability, and caption check out. It doesn't appear to have alt-text, which I think would be good to add (even though, strictly speaking, MoS does not require videos to have alt-text). Also, it's left-aligned, and close enough to the prior image to cause sandwiching issues on some wider monitors running the vector skin. I'd move it to the right.
  • File:101 Solana Beach.jpg. License, caption, suitability and alt-text check out.
  • File:HUMBUG MOUNTAIN - NARA - 520143.jpg. Ditto.
  • File:Hyde Street Pier - San Francisco (5765732935).jpg. Ditto.
  • File:Astoria - Megler Bridge in 2009.jpg. Ditto.
  • File:Oregon Coast Highway Washout.jpg. Ditto.

Drive-by comments

[edit]
  • Is a page range available for Bearss? Similarly for cite 44.
    • Found a copy of the same Bearss document in the Internet Archive with page numbers; for citation 44, I plan to drive down to the university library and look at their copy in the next few days.
  • References: article titles should be in a consistent case - sentence or title - regardless of how they appear in their original.
    • Converted all that I could see on a few sweeps.
  • Caption: "A washed-out section of US 101 near Newport, Oregon". Could when the photo was taken be mentioned? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:38, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Featured_log/June_2024&oldid=1231123064"