Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/March 2020

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 30 March 2020 [1].

INTERFET logistics

[edit]
Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:50, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the Australian intervention in East Timor in 1999-2000. This is an unusual case of a multinational coalition not lead by a great power. The politics of the operation, the diplomacy involved in assembling the coalition, and of course the operations are all fascinating subjects, but my interest as always is in the logistics. The official history of the intervention in East Timor, although written, has yet to appear, and I'm not expecting a great deal on logistics, as the World War II and Vietnam volumes are very poor in this regard. (The US volume on logistics in Vietnam has also failed to appear.) So this article represents my best effort. It has passed GA and A-class reviews, and the latter included source and image reviews. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:50, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find anything to nag about except WP:NBSP work needed. Good luck here, Hawkeye! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:08, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from HaEr48 (support)

[edit]

Overall: Well-written and well-researched article, no major red flags in terms of quality, neutrality and copyright, and it is well-referenced. As I read the article from top to bottom, here's what I found can be improved:

  • "was a highly complex, and ultimately successful, endeavour": I wonder if we should skip including this conclusion in the first sentence and let the facts below stand for themselves.
    Sure. Why not. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:09, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Eleven nations contributed transport aircraft to the ..., but over 90 per cent of the cargo and most of the passengers travelled by sea …" If the sea is the primary means of transport shouldn't that be mentioned ahead of the airlift?
    Swapped them around. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:09, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "transported by a naval task force that included the high-speed catamaran HMAS Jervis Bay and landing ship HMAS Tobruk, which brought supplies from Australia by sea. Crucial support came from the replenishment oiler HMAS Success and tankers HMNZS Endeavour and HMCS Protecteur." What is the difference between the roles of the first 2 ships and the last 3 ships, that they needed to be listed separately?
    The first two were moving troops and cargo, the latter providing logistical support. With the exception of the UK, English-speaking people have to travel long distances to get anywhere much, so at-sea refuelling and logistic support are essential; but many other navies lack this capability. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:09, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The logistical support units spent the next two months catching up and eliminating backlogs: which months were these? The start date of the mission wasn't mentioned at this point.
    Changed to "October and November"
  • I think the leads are missing these info: when the mission starts and ends (in months if not dates), as well as a brief background of East Timor's status (did it already gain independence, or is in transition?) as well as why INTERFET was deployed.
    Added: "INTERFET deployed to East Timor in September 1999"
  • The island was formally divided between the Netherlands and Portugal in 1637: 1661 is the year mentioned by the reference?
    Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:09, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • the first Portuguese governor of East Timor was appointed in 1702: The ref says 1701
    Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss)
  • Any idea who were on the island or ruled it before the Europeans came? I'd suggest 1-2 sentences for the sake of completeness because paragraph 1 of background seems to focus on the colonial history, and begins with the Portuguese establishing a settlement which seems very European-centric for a non-European island.
    The East Timorese of course; my main concern was not with colonialism, but explaining how the island came to be divided in two. Added a couple of sentences: "The island of Timor has been populated for up to 40,000 years, populated by successive waves of immigrants from southern India, Malaysia and Melanesia. It was ruled by small kingdoms that traded spices, slaves and sandalwood with their neighbours."
  • "the preferential allocation of resources to combat capabilities and the acceptance of risk in logistics functions brought the Army to the precipice of operational failure.": name the source of this quote inline
    Any reason why? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:09, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Planning and organization: I understand that because Australia is the coalition leader it merits more coverage, but can we please find something about the other nations, especially those that sent large contingents ? I think this is important for the comprehensiveness criteria because other nations account for about half the troops.
  • Added a paragraph on New Zealand. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:09, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alternatively, if Australia was actually responsible for all logistics in the mission, we should add more info about how it came to be that way, e.g. was there any coordination or discussion among the other nations that decided it this way? I think it's important both for comprehensiveness and to provide context to readers on why the rest of the article is so Australian-centric. Right now, Australia's almost exclusive role is presented as a given without much context.
  • The codename Operation Stabilise was given to operations in and around East Timor, while Operation Warden included its logistic support activities in Australia: The second part is a little ambiguous, does Warden include or exclude operations in East Timor? If it is excluded, maybe the preceding sentence should be reworded because it gives the impression that Warden is entire intervention.
    Added "also" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:09, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • However, due to its isolation, Darwin had better facilities than other cities of similar size: suggest explaining the causal relation between isolation and better facilities, it is not very obvious for the general reader like me.
    "Due to its isolation, Darwin had to be more self-supporting, and therefore had better facilities, than other cities of similar size" ?
  • The outsourcing of "non-core" logistical functions in the ADF had created critical shortages of many essential trades ranging from cooks to port terminal handlers: Isn't the point of outsourcing to expand the workforce? why does it cause shortage?
    No, the purpise is to contract the workforce. Added: "as many of these jobs were no longer performed by military personnel" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:09, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In "planning" Wilkinson was appointed Logistic Component Commander on 26 August, but in "organization" the date is 30 August - any reason for the different dates?
    It is not uncommon for a commander to be designated
  • Stapleton was "dual-hatted" as both NCC (Commander, Task Group 645.1), answerable to both Cosgrove (Commander, Task Force 645) as COMFLOT (Commander, Task Group 627.1), and to COMAST's Maritime Commander, Rear Admiral John Lord (Commander, Task Force 627): Are there to many "both"s in this sentence? Could it be reworded to clarify?
    Got rid of one of them. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:09, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spell out the full form of COMFLOT when first mentioned.
    Spelt out. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:09, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Barrie announced: The operation will be Operation Stabilise…: is there any date of this announcement?
    19 September. Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:09, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "An important concern was the Japanese encephalitis vaccine regime": is it because the disease is endemic in East Timor, because there was an outbreak at the time, or…?
    Added that the disease is endemic to East Timor. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:09, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deployment: suggest reordering "Sealift" before "Airlift", because sealift seems to have had bigger contribution.
    Yes, but the airlift comes first chronologically. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:09, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deployment: Did other non-Australian troops (especially outside Commonwealth countries) also deploy via Darwin/Australia? Could we add some explanation?
    The Canadians, New Zealanders and Kenyans are mentioned. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:09, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfortunately, the landing ships HMAS Kanimbla and Manoora, purchased in 1994: Suggest removing "unfortunately" per WP:EDITORIAL
    Removed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:09, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The heliport was found abandoned: "The heliport" hasn't been mentioned before. Is it in Comoro, in the UNAMET compound, or somewhere else?
    It's in Dili. I supplied a map. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:47, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Christianson went to the control tower and explained, through an interpreter since he did not speak Bahasa Indonesia,: "Bahasa Indonesia" is the Indonesian name of the language, which seems weird in an English sentence. Suggest using the English word "Indonesian". Compare "he did not speak Español" (seems weird) vs "he did not speak Spanish"
  • No. 381 Expeditionary Combat Support Squadron RAAF assumed responsibility for the operation of the airport at Dili, while No. 382 Expeditionary Combat Support Squadron RAAF operated Cakung Airport at Baucau: Did they take over all operations at the airports, or just INTERFET-related?
  • All operations. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:47, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • " It was augmented by three French Air Force C-130Hs…" Suggest splitting the sentence because it is too long.
    Split. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:47, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Curious, is "C-130H" short for C-130 Hercules, or is it a variant of the aircraft? It seems both C-130H and C-130 are used in the text
    It is the model of the C-130. Everyone was flying the H model except the British, who had the K model See Lockheed C-130 Hercules#Further developments for all the technical details. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:47, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In order to effect Cosgrove's operational concept of flooding East Timor with as many combat troops as possible, Evans deployed ..." Suggest adding the roles of Cosgrove and Evans in INTERFET, here or before, as context to this statement.
    They are detailed earlier. In case someone is unsure which Evans is referred to, the text says "his brigade" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:47, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • as had occurred in the Vietnam War in 1966: Just to clarify: did this occur to Australia in 1966 or to the US-led coalition overall?
    We're talking about Australian forces here. Added a bit.
  • ADF cargo was tracked using three computer systems, the Standard Defence Supply System (SDSS), Lotus Notes Interim Demand System (LNIDS), and the Cargo Visibility System (CVS): Given it mentions Lotus Notes as the developer of LNIDS, also mention those of SDSS and CVS for completeness?
    No, all were developed by DoD. The LNIDS is just an applicationuses Lotus notes. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:47, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Each soldier had to carry a day's supply: is this Australian regulation applying to Australian soldiers or a general rule of thumb for everyone? Suggest clarifying because not all troops are Australian.
    No, everyone. At this point though, the foreign contingent consisted of the Gurkhas, SBS and NZ SAS. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:47, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • the ADF had no ship-to-shore refuelling capability: Is there a good link for " ship-to-shore refuelling capability", to help understanding what that usually requires?
    No, unfortunately Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:47, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • With limited stocks of ammunition on hand, the 1,500 soldiers of the 3rd Brigade confronted some 15,000 TNI troops, who presumably had plenty of ammunition:
  • The first phase of this was Operation Lavarack, in which 2 RAR moved by air and armoured personnel carriers of B Squadron, 3rd/4th Cavalry Regiment, by sea, to occupy Balibo, which was secured on 5 October
    • Can this be reworded to be easier to parse? Did 2 RAR move by air and APC, or did 2 RAR move by air and the APCs moved by sea (if the latter, why were only the APCs moved and not the squadrons themselves)?
      That wasn't what I meant; I just meant that B Squadron moved by sea with its APCs. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:47, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • " He was assisted by students from the...": Is "he" Cavanaugh or Wilkinson?
    Wilkinson. Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:47, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The main body arrived in Dili on 3 December, but the ship carrying its heavy plant and equipment did not reach Brisbane until 27 November: 27 November is still before 3 December, so why is it a "but"?
    Because Brisbane is not Dili. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:47, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "There was no vaccine" and "Nor was there any treatment other than rest": are these for both diseases or just dengue?
    Dengue. Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:47, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "One Malaysian UN observer died from malaria.": suggest moving it before "A particular concern with dengue…" because (1) the death seems more significant than the nine soldiers getting treated (but alive) (2) the Malaysian sentence doesn't seem to be connected with the rest of the paragraph it is in.
    Added a bridge. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:47, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A prophylactic regime was instituted whereby personnel were given a daily dose of 100 milligrams (1.5 gr) of doxycycline commencing two days before departure from Australia and continuing for two weeks after returning": Who instituted it? INTERFET or Australian military? Is it for all INTERFET troops, or just Australian ones?
    Australians, although it is true of New Zealanders as well. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:47, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • three weeks after return from Australia: How about Australian soldiers, when did they get this primaquine?
    From the RMO. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:47, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • told a CMOC meeting : what's a CMOC?
    Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:47, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Postal: Interesting info, any info for mails from/to other countries further than Australia?
    No, but I'd be surprised. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:47, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • took advantage of free mail delivery: Is it free due to the military mission, or due to Christmas? does the free delivery apply to soldiers from all over the world or just Australian?
    Just to Australians, but for the whole time. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:47, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indonesia recognised East Timor as an independent nation on 19 October, and TNI forces withdrew on 31 October, leaving INTERFET in charge: I think this is better placed as background than "end of mission" as it was closer to the beginning? Also, while reading the article body I kept wondering about when the status of East Timor change or if INTERFET interacted with TNI at all. This part provides the important clarification and I think is better to be mentioned in the beginning.
    You can see that the two overlapped by a considerable amount. This article being on logistics, the fighting is not described. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:47, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • End of mission: Could we have more info on when the troops started leaving and how? I am assuming there should be logistical aspects related to returning troops and their supplies
    Yes, but the scope of the article is INTERFET. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:47, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Or did the troops not return at this point because they also made up UNTAET's forces? If yes, it could be mentioned also
  • 2 and 3 RAR returned to Australia leaving 5/7 RAR behind with UNTAET.
  • End of mission: Suggest switching the order of the sentences starting with "On 20 February 2000" and "Australian logistical support". The former sentence is a bit surprising without context (why would you switch units with just 3 days left?), but the latter sentence provides that context and is better to be first, IMO.
    It will be out of chronological order then. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:47, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • While the troops had good reason to be critical of a lack of spare parts, medical supplies and amenities, they still received logistical support on a scale that many other armies could only dream about: The last part reads quite hyperbolic, suggest either rewording or using quotation mark if it's a verbatim quote
    Switched to a quotation. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:47, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cosgrove had the resources he needed to carry out his mission: "INTERFET had the resources he needed to carry out its mission" to avoid focusing on just one person?
I'm talking about command and generalship here. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:47, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I hope I don't bore you with too much feedback, and hope they are useful. Good job and thank you for your work. HaEr48 (talk) 19:17, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's fine. I should see if I can get Zawed to check the New Zealand section. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:04, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've taken a gander and made a few edits to correct some typos. There was one sentence (being on 28 days readiness) that I wasn't sure of, so please check my edit there is correct. I have the Crawford & Harper ref, will doublecheck it later today/tomorrow. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 23:38, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Hawkeye7: Thank you for the excellent responses. I have some follow up comments which I marked in blue above to make them easy to find. Please take a look. HaEr48 (talk) 04:30, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

[edit]
  • "brought troops and supplies from Australia by sea" You do not need "by sea" as you have said it on the line above and named ships.
    Removed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:01, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "HMNZS Endeavour and HMCS Protecteur" I would specify New Zealand and Canadian. NZ is obvious but I had to check what C referred to.
    I don't think the redundancy would be appropriate in the lead. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:01, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • You show the statistics in the 2nd paragraph in different ways. 90% and most for sea, and exact quantities for air. I suggest giving the exact numbers by sea in brackets if the information is available.
    I regret that the exact figure is not available. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:01, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have logistics or logistical six times in the final paragraph of the lead. Would it be correct to replace "vehicles and logistical support" with "vehicles and other supplies" and "inadequate logistics" with "inadequate supplies"?
    Changed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:01, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not think the early history of Timor is relevant in such a specialist article, although that is personal opinion.
    I agree, but see the comments above from other reviewers. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:01, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your explanation of the situation before independence is very unclear. If I understand correctly, before WW2 West Timor was part of the Dutch East Indies and East Timor was a Portuguese colony. The whole island was occupied by Japan during the war and handed back to the colonial powers after the war. West Timor became part of Indonesia in 1949, but the east stayed Portuguese until 1974. A civil war then broke out between the pro-independence Fretilin and the UDT, which opposed independence except during a short period of cooperation with Fretilin. This should be spelled out if correct.
    Sounds like you understood correctly. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:01, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indonesia should be wikilinked, but should it be at the first mention of the country, which is as "Indonesian" or the first mention of "Indonesia"?.
    We don't wiki-link present-day countries like Australia and Indonesia. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:01, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Oecussi enclave". The article on Oecussi describes it as an exclave. I have never heard of this word before, but it is correct and enclave wrong according to Enclave and exclave.
    Except for the sea border, it is entirely surrounded by Indonesia, hence is a semi-enclave. It is also a semi-exclave. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:01, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • ""teeth-to-tail" ratio". Is there an article you can link to?
    Yes. Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:01, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the very same cuts in logistic capability rendered this impossible" I am not clear what you are saying here. I assume you are referring to the "administrative cuts", but I would take this to mean in desk personnel rather than logistical capabilities (which presumably means mainly transport and storage facilities and stocks).
    Tightened the wording. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:01, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which based in Sydney" "which was based in Sydney"?
    Yes. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:01, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "developing plans for Operation Spitfire, the evacuation of foreign nationals and selected East Timorese". I think it would be clearer to start the paragraph with something like "The first task, which was to evacuate foreign nationals and selected East Timorese, was designated as Operation Spitfire."
    I don't see how that would work. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:01, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I realise that Australia and NZ took the lead roles, but it seems unbalanced to give an extremely (excessively?) detailed account of their preparations, down to who attended which meeting, and not a word of the logistical preparations of the other 21 countries which took part.
    The article also covers the United States and Canada. These four countries accounted for nearly all the in-theatre logistics. I have accounts from Thailand and the Philippines, but only Kenya contributed to the logistical effort. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:01, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and joined the TNI personnel there". The very high use of initials makes the article difficult to follow for non-experts. It would, for example, make it easier for readers if you wrote here "and joined the Indonesian army personnel there".
    TNI is the Indonesian armed forces, the Indonesian equivalent of the ADF. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:01, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Singaporean RSS Intrepid, and the Danish civilian ship Arktis Atlantic". No change needed, but is the first ship redlinked and not the second on the principle that every naval ship deserves its own article but not every civilian one?
    That and the fact that it is already red-linked in other articles. Two of its sister ships have articles. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:01, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:25, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "we saw pallets of beer being loaded on hercs" The next sentence refers to Darwin but I am not clear whehter the whole Canadian quote refers to Darwin.
    Added "in Darwin". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:16, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • " black and grey water". These could be linked to Blackwater (waste) and Greywater.
    Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:16, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a first rate article. I found it difficult to follow due to the excessive use of initials, but I assume that this is standard in this type of article. The only major fault is the first paragraph and the first sentence of the second paragraph of the background section, which are a collection of facts rather than a clear explanation. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:42, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    A clear explanation of what? The purpose of the background section is to fill the reader in on how the situation came about. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:16, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I pointed out above that you have not clearly explained the history and suggested what needs to be covered. You agreed that my summary is correct, but did not amend the article. It is not relevant that the Japanese invaded on 19 February 1942, or that Australia supported Indonesian independence and proposed that East Timor become a UN trusteeship. What is relevant is that after the war West Timor became part of Indonesia and East Timor reverted to being a Portuguese colony, but you have not said so. I would delete the whole first paragraph as too off topic, but if you do give the earlier history you need to state it clearly. I would start the background something like: "Timor is an island of 30,777 square kilometres, 700 kilometres north-east of Darwin in Australia. After WW2, West Timor became part of Indonesia and East Timor was a Portuguese colony." Dudley Miles (talk) 17:35, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The early history is about how East Timor became a Portuguese colony, and how it became politically separated from ethnically identical West Timor. It is relevant that the island was occupied by the Japanese as it was this that created the sense of obligation between Australia and East Timor without which INTERFET would never have occurred. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:51, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Nick-D

[edit]

As a disclaimer, I originally suggested to Hawkeye that he develop this article. As I've noted elsewhere, the results have been great, even by Hawkeye's usual standards. I reviewed this at ACR, and the changes since then look good. I have the following comments, all of which are minor:

  • "The ADF had not anticipated commitment to such a large peacekeeping mission" - the tense is a bit off here ("The ADF had not anticipated being committed to such a large peacekeeping mission", perhaps?)
    Sure. Changed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:20, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Chief of the Defence Force, Admiral Chris Barrie, centralised strategic and operational planning for the projection of forces to East Timor at ADF Headquarters, bypassing the service chiefs." - Was this a change in procedures? I thought that the arrangements where the service chiefs are responsible for "raise and sustain" functions only and don't have operational control of their forces were in place by this time.
    You're quite right; they don't have operational control. But the service chiefs retained a role as "senior environmental advisors", so it was indeed a change in process. Added words to this effect. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:20, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in case one had to make an emergency landing" - should this be " in case any had to make an emergency landing", or was there only a capacity to respond to a single incident?
    Changed to "any" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:20, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The 198th Works Section deployed on 2 and 5 October." - I'd suggest noting the role of this unit
    Added: "This was a unit that planned, coordinated and managed construction tasks." Hope that is clear enough. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:20, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nick-D (talk) 10:12, 14 March 2020 (UTC) Support My comments are now all addressed, and I'm very pleased to support this fine article's promotion to FA status. Nick-D (talk) 00:35, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by JennyOz

[edit]

Hi Hawkeye, another credit to your comprehensivity and I only have minor tweaks to suggest...

That's it, JennyOz (talk) 08:03, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:34, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Minor answer above. All good, thanks for explanations, happy to add support. JennyOz (talk) 12:38, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note

[edit]

Notwithstanding similar reviews carried out at the MilHist ACR, I've checked image licensing and source reliability and no issues leap out. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:55, 30 March 2020 (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) 30 March 2020 [2].

SMS Roon

[edit]
Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 13:16, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is an article I'm quite pleased to see finally make it to FAC - it's come a long way since August 2007. Part of the Armored cruisers of Germany good topic, this article covers one of the later vessels, which had an interesting career, serving as a flagship of the German scouting force, seeing action during World War I in the Baltic, and ending up slated to be converted into a seaplane carrier, although the war ended before the conversion could be carried out. As I alluded to earlier, this was a fairly old article I wrote back in 2008–2009 that I overhauled last year, after which it passed a Milhist A-class review. Thanks for all who take the time to review it. Parsecboy (talk) 13:16, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5

[edit]

I'll do this one as soon as possible. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 19:39, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CPA-5, are you still planning to stop by? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:43, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did it, sorry for the delay.
  • SMS Roon was the lead ship of her class of armored cruisers No SMS note?
    • Added
  • had a top speed of 20.4 knots (37.8 km/h; 23.5 mph) Unlink the common units here.
    • Done
  • in several operations against Russian forces Pipe Russians to the Russian Empire.
    • Done
  • 2,000 metric horsepower (2,000 ihp) and speed by .5 knots (0.93 km/h; 0.58 mph) This isn't an American-related article so add a nought in the knots.
    • Done
  • She carried up to 1,570 t (1,550 long tons; 1,730 short tons) of coal Other sentences don't use short tons.
    • Removed
  • Roon spent the following years participating in various --> "She spent the following years participating in various"
    • Done
  • Link knots in the infobox same for nmi.
    • Done
  • "SMS Roon in the Kaiser Wilhelm Canal, c. 1910" Needs a circa template.
    • Added
  • Is it possible to standardise the 10/13-digit numbers in the ISBNs?
    • Done

@Parsecboy: Looks good to me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 19:39, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks CPA. Parsecboy (talk) 19:38, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

The references are all appropriately formatted, and the sources are of high quality, exactly what you would expect for a German ship of this vintage. Spotchecks not conducted due to nominator's long record at FAC. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:41, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM

[edit]

This article is in great shape. I reviewed at Milhist ACR so only have a few minor things to add here:

  • in the first sentence I suggest adding "in the 1900s" after "(Imperial Navy)"
    • Good idea
  • link knots in the lead
    • Done
  • drop the comma in "In September 1911,"
    • Done
  • were the 8.8 cm guns in the superstructure open mounts?
    • Clarified
  • suggest being consistent with the deck armour measurements between the infobox and body, one in mm the other in cm
    • Fixed
  • full stop after Fritz Hoffmann
    • Good catch
  • Eugen Kalau vomn Hofe
  • perhaps state that HMS New Zealand was a battlecruiser
    • Done

That's all I could find. Nice job. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:44, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks PM. Parsecboy (talk) 15:03, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Peacemaker67: - anything else you'd like to see addressed? Parsecboy (talk) 15:42, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, thanks for the ping. Supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:07, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Llammakey

[edit]
  • The length is not converted to feet/inches, only feet in both text and infobox
    • Good catch
  • Metric horsepower linked in infobox but not text
    • It is, in the first para of the design section
  • In Service history section, would rewrite the sentence "...Field Marshal Alfred von Waldersee christened the ship after Field Marshal Albrecht von Roon" as "...Field Marshal Alfred von Waldersee christened the ship Roon, after Field Marshal Albrecht von Roon" otherwise it sounds like von Waldersee took a turn christening the ship after von Roon.
    • Good point
  • Since you use ship and Roon in that sentence, would suggest changing "the ship" in the following sentence to "the cruiser" to break up repetition (since "ship" is also used in the word "flagship".)
    • Works for me
  • Are the two minelaying cruisers named Albatross different ships? If they are not, the second link in the Baltic operations section can go, as well as the "minelaying cruiser"
    • Fixed - didn't catch it since the first link lacked the dab
  • "retreat of the Albatross" - remove the definite article
    • Fixed
  • "break into the Gulf" - no need to capitalize gulf there.
    • Fixed

That's all I could find. Otherwise good stuff. Llammakey (talk) 16:23, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Llammakey. Parsecboy (talk) 21:30, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - no problem Llammakey (talk) 17:07, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Suggest adding alt text

Comments from Harrias

[edit]

I reviewed this article during its A-class review, and by and large I have little to add.

  • Use {{lang}} templates for foreign-language terms please.
    • Done
  • "..with the belt armor being 10 cm.." Avoid Noun plus -ing.
    • Reworded
  • In the lead it says that "There, she formed part of the reconnaissance screen during the raid on Yarmouth in November.." and in the body of the article, this is described as "The ships then escorted the main body of the High Seas Fleet during the raid on Yarmouth on 2–3 November." It's not immediately apparent to me if those two descriptions are exactly synonymous. Assuming that they are, I vastly prefer the plain phrasing used in the body; consider adopting similar in the lead, as "reconnaissance screen" is not accessible to a layperson.
    • Works for me
  • "Roon was ordered under the provisional name Ersatz Kaiser.." If I've learnt anything from these articles, that means she was replacing a ship called Kaiser, right? Can that be mentioned explicitly?
    • Done
  • "Prince Heinrich had pressed for such a cruise the previous year.." It would be worth providing context of why Prince Heinrich's opinion mattered. (A quick look suggests he was commander of the High Seas Fleet?)
    • Good idea
  • "..the armored cruiser Blücher, which had been transferred to I Scouting Group, and on 25 August.." It's not that important either way, but I'm not sure the explanation of why Blücher needed replacing is necessary in this article.
    • I think we could safely lose that.
  • I wonder if so much detail is necessary in the Scarborough, Hartlepool and Whitby paragraph. Including all the specific times seems to me to give the impression that it is very important information, and I felt like I had to pay very close attention. The stylistic difference to the rest of the article makes it stand out, and I'm not sure the content warrants it. Harrias talk 15:26, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's a fair point - I've trimmed the times. Parsecboy (talk) 15:41, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice work; I don't have any further concerns with this article. (Disclaimer; I am taking part in the WikiCup, and will claim points for this review.) Harrias talk 18:04, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review etc. from Shearonink

[edit]
  • Permissions/sources for images look good, all check out.
  • All images (except infobox one) need alt-text
  • short description ("ship") is...well...kind of too short.
  • Personal observation - she was a beautiful ship. Wow. Shearonink (talk) 22:28, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note

[edit]

Hi Nate, I know this isn't Harrias' area in terms of MilHist FAs (or indeed FAs in general given his cricketing interest) but I think we'd benefit from a quick look from someone outside the MilHist fraternity, if you could try and scare one up... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:43, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see what I can do. Parsecboy (talk) 13:58, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It occurs to me that Llamakey is not a MILHIST guy, Ian. Parsecboy (talk) 14:38, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:31, 30 March 2020 (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) 30 March 2020 [3].

Wolf

[edit]
Nominator(s): LittleJerry (talk) 21:17, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the wolf, one of the most well known and well studied carnivores and the ancestor of the dog. This article has been worked on for months and has been both peer reviewed and copyedited. Credit to William Harris and Mariomassone. LittleJerry (talk) 21:17, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:38, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's the difference between lime and green?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:38, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Wolves_attack_moose_2012-04-12_001_(cropped).jpg is tagged as being of low quality
Its the best one we got of wolf tearing into prey. LittleJerry (talk) 22:38, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless, the image quality is admittedly quite poor. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:25, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 02:40, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Capitoline_she-wolf_Musei_Capitolini_MC1181.jpg should include an explicit tag for the original work
I have not seen this required for other photo of pre-modern works. LittleJerry (talk) 22:38, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It should be fairly straightforward. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:25, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what tag to use. LittleJerry (talk) 02:40, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure why I have to add another PD tag for a work created before copyright even existed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:41, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Italy#Freedom_of_panorama . Nikkimaria (talk) 15:49, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 17:58, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Dore_ridinghood.jpg has no copyright tag at all
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:38, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:38, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
When/where was the former first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:25, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand. The image page states so. LittleJerry (talk) 02:42, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not that I can see? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:56, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It says it was made c. 1900 by Charles Marion Russell, an American. LittleJerry (talk) 13:46, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Made is not the same as published. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:33, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Replaced. LittleJerry (talk) 15:20, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Comment from Tim riley

[edit]

I'll have more comments later, I hope, but from a first read-through I wonder why in an otherwise BrE article the AmE "gray" is used throughout rather than the English "grey"? (The OED admits "gray" but favours the usual "grey"). – Tim riley talk 15:48, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is written in Canadian English with Canadian spellings. See talk page. LittleJerry (talk) 15:50, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Tim riley, still reviewing? LittleJerry (talk) 13:42, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Johnbod

[edit]
Lead
  • "...is a canine native to the wilderness and remote areas of Eurasia and North America." Not sure of the technical meaning of "native" in zoology, but the wolf was surely "native" to pretty much the whole of these continents until driven out by man (as said lower down)? I suspect there is a better way of putting this.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 19:15, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "is the largest extant member of its family," which isn't named or linked for a long time after...
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 19:15, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Only 3 lead paras, none very long. Large tracts of this long article (141 K crude bytes) are not mentioned at all.
Will get to. LittleJerry (talk) 19:26, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 22:49, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is talk of wolves in Mexico, but the distribution map has them nowhere near that far south, apart from a little dot in the southern US.
We only have the IUCN to give us the full wolf range. LittleJerry (talk) 19:15, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Mammal Species of the World (3rd ed., 2005), a standard reference work in zoology, recognizes 38 subspecies of C. lupus including the domestic dog." Do we neeed to spell out the source in the 1st para?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 19:26, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "its highly advanced expressive behaviour" is there a link for "expressive behaviour"?
No. LittleJerry (talk) 19:15, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes - Wolf communication. Johnbod (talk) 03:13, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 15:15, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "long history of association with humans" is "association" the right word?
Changed. LittleJerry (talk) 19:17, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Although the fear of wolves is pervasive in many human societies,..." - nothing I can see lower down on societies where it was not "pervasive".
Pawnee? LittleJerry (talk) 19:16, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Description
  • "Coyotes, jackals and wolves are isomorphic, with the size relationship between their bodies remaining constant.." The mathmatical link here is completely useless ; what does this actually mean?
Changed. LittleJerry (talk) 19:15, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "to overcome the deep snow that covers most of its geographical range" needs "in winter" or something. The "most of" only applies to the last 1,000 years or so, presumably.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 19:15, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Rest
  • "Habitat use by wolves depends on the abundance of prey, snow conditions, absence or low livestock densities,..." wonky grammar in the last bit.
Changed. LittleJerry (talk) 19:15, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:52, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ecology
  • "Wolves occurred originally across Eurasia above 12˚N and North America above 15˚N" this means nothing to most of us, so including indicative tips would be good - "including nearly all of India", "Guatemala and northwards" or something.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:51, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some overlinking in the range description - eg this is about the 5th mention of Canada, yet only now linked. Does "forest" need a link, or "insect" in "diet"?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:51, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Probably split the "diet" section at "In North America..."
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:51, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The prey animals of North American wolves continue to occupy suitable habitats with low human density, eating livestock and garbage only in dire circumstances." something missing/ too much here - cut ""The prey animals of"?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:51, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Wolf and tiger interactions are well-documented in Sikhote-Alin..." should better locate with "Russian Far East" or "Pacific Russia" or something. These are Siberian tigers, which should be linked.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:51, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Behaviour
  • Picture caption: "Italian wolf pack resting in a shade" - these are Italian wolfs (presumably), photographed in France (Monts de Gueret Animal Park, not even near the border). Is "in a shade" colloquial in Canadian English (as opposed to "in shade")?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:51, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Too long para "The wolf is a social animal...."
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:51, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Johnbod, anymore? LittleJerry (talk) 21:36, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yup:
  • "An Iberian wolf in the Community of Madrid trotting in summer fur." - reads a bit wierdly. This is just the local authority area round the city. Better piped to "near Madrid".
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:08, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Their vision is as good as that of humans" - including colour vision? Is so, should be said.
No. LittleJerry (talk) 15:08, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • North America populations - I added Asian links - I think several states etc here need lks. plse check
  • "having been exterminated in the British Isles in the 18th century" - the usual date given is 1680, in Scotland. In England they were extinct much earlier.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:08, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In culture / Further information: List of fictional wolves" - better merge this with the "In fable and literature" hatnotes.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:08, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • break para at " Isengrim the wolf,". The following para needs a break too, prob before Kipling.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:08, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "considered to have had more influence than any other literary work in forging the wolf's negative reputation in the western world." Seems very overstated! The wolf hardly had a positive reputation in 1696.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:08, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "memoir Never Cry Wolf is widely considered to be the most popular book on wolves" - evidently big in Canada, and published in Russia, but was it ever published in the US or UK? Perhaps needs qualifying.
Yes. LittleJerry (talk) 15:08, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:08, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Break para at "The wolf is featured on the flags of the Confederated Tribes ..."
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:08, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Livestock depredation has been one of ..." another long para - brk at "The majority of losses..."
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:08, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Small farmers surprised by a wolf" - "Petis paysans" = literally "small/young peasants/country people" Use "Country children" or something?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:08, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dank

[edit]
  • Can anyone point me to the most recent discussion of "wolf" vs. "gray wolf" vs. "grey wolf"? I support the current article title, but I think the first sentence could use some help, probably in the form of a hidden comment linking such a discussion. - Dank (push to talk) 18:07, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It was discussed here. LittleJerry (talk) 21:27, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks much. I added a hidden comment, and I changed the first sentence to "... also known as the grey wolf or gray wolf". Normally we don't give both spellings for an alternative common name, but I'm arguing that this is an exception, because there are plenty of people who always write "gray" instead of "grey", but "grey wolf" instead of "gray wolf". That is, they think that's the correct spelling, not a language variant. - Dank (push to talk) 22:07, 7 January 2020 (UTC) If anyone wants to change that to "grey (or gray) wolf", that works too, I think. - Dank (push to talk) 22:12, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Sainsf

[edit]

Here are my comments after a brief look through the article. I will keep adding over the next few days. Also, per the rules of WikiCup 2020 I declare my participation in it and that I will enlist this review in my submissions. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 05:21, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lead
  • It is the largest extant member of its family would it be better to shorten it to "the largest extant canid"?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:45, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • with males averaging 40 kg (88 lb) and females 35.5–37.7 kg (78–83 lb) Why do we provide the average for males and a range for females?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:45, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Up to 38 subspecies of C. lupus Should we not stick to calling it "wolf" instead of bringing up its scientific name unless necessary?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:45, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • its more social nature The sociality article gives examples of both solitary and gregarious behavior. Maybe link it to the appropriate subsection. Maybe "more gregarious" works better?
There's not appropriate subsection to link to. LittleJerry (talk) 21:29, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link territorial, pathogens
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:45, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although social animals, single wolves or mated pairs typically have higher success rates in hunting than do large packs I don't exactly see the contradiction here.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:45, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The global wolf population is estimated to be 300,000 Include the year this estimate is of
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:45, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It has a long history of interactions with humans Should be "The wolf has a ...." looking at the previous line
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:45, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looking at the infobox,
  • do we really need a ref for binomial authority if its already cited in main text?
Sure. LittleJerry (talk) 13:59, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the range map needs a caption, and should mention the year the data is from
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:45, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Etymology
  • ' What do the asterisks in front of a few words mean?
I assume it has something to due with the Germanic languages. LittleJerry (talk) 15:45, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Taxonomy
  • Is the opening line on introduction of binomial nomenclature relevant enough?
Made changes. LittleJerry (talk) 13:59, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The etymology of Canis probably belongs in the earlier section
I disagree, the etymology section is on "wolf" and "lupus" which mean the same thing. LittleJerry (talk) 15:45, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • on the next page is it a relevant point to mention?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:45, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • under the wolf C. lupus similar to the lead instance, is the scientific name needed here? I feel wolf should do, and it maintains consistency. 38 subspecies of C. lupus This instance is understandable in the context of that sentence so no need to discuss this one.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:45, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does "some 36" imply an ambiguity in the published number?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:45, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • more cranio-dentally robust links would be helpful
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:45, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:45, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In Admixture with other canids there are some duplinks – golden jackals, dhole, basal, red wolf. "Gene flow" could use a link
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:45, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • that was 12-14% admixed —> that was 12–14% admixed
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:45, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • in the Caucasus Mountains. and in Bulgaria. an extra period?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:45, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Description
  • Females tend to have narrower muzzles and foreheads, thinner necks, slightly shorter legs, and less massive shoulders than males Should we mention sexual dimorphism then?
I don't see the need. LittleJerry (talk) 15:49, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The height should probably be included in the lead as one of the most common measurements
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 15:49, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Diet
  • In Europe, wolves eat apples, pears, figs, melons, berries and cherries This line appears to have a lot of common terms linked.. I get the point but maybe we can exclude a few like "apples" at least
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 15:57, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Like all land mammals that are pack hunters, across their range the wolf feeds predominantly on I think it should be "across its range", or the comma comes after "range", altering the meaning.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 21:32, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • with a pack being capable of bringing down a 500 kg (1,100 lb) moose I would be curious how many wolves we are talking of here in a typical pack, but that section comes later in the text. If possible, an idea of the number that could be capable of doing something like this would be a good addition.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 21:40, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Social structure
  • The wolf is a social animal A link to sociality would be good
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 15:57, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • covering roughly nine percent of their territory per day either one of "%" or "percent" notation should usually be followed throughout the text consistently
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 15:57, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see many instances such as these two lines The wolf can be found between sea level and 3,000 metres (9,800 ft) and Scent marks are generally left every 240 m (260 yd) with different units and abbreviations. Needs consistency throughout the article
The contexts are different. LittleJerry (talk) 15:57, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
At least the "m" or "metres" (abbreviated/nonabbreviated) notation should be consistent for all unit types. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 20:52, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 21:29, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wolves advertise their territories to other packs Display (zoology) would be a good link for "advertise"
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 21:29, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Scent marking involves urine, feces, and anal gland scents. Scent marking is more effective at advertising territory Two sentences beginning identically. Could be merged or reworded a bit to avoid repetition. The following lines also use "scent mark" frequently, which could possibly be shortened to "mark" as scentmarking is the only mode of marking we are talking about here.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 21:29, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • This includes the use of vocalization, body posture, scent, touch, and taste. The phases of the moon have no effect on wolf vocalisation Two different spellings for "vocalization". Please check for other instances of variant spellings
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 21:29, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Disablement
  • deliver a bite force of 28 kg/cm2 (400 lbf/in2) A link for bite force would be good.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 21:29, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the caption of an image in this section I guess it should be "white-tailed" deer per the article on the deer. Plus a link would be nice
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 21:29, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Infections
  • a hookworm known to infect wolf pups in utero "in utero" could be simply reworded to in the uterus.
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 20:15, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Status and conservation
  • Two duplinks – Mexican wolves, Rocky Mountains
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 20:15, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relationships with humans
  • would face should they follow him.(Matthew 7:15, Matthew 10:16, Acts 20:29) There is a stray period in between
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:15, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • increased cortisol levels in instances Cortisol may be linked unless it is linked elsewhere
It is. LittleJerry (talk) 20:15, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the image caption "Small farmers surprised by a wolf (1833) by François Grenier de Saint-Martin" it would be good to add a link to the name of the artist. I find a French wiki article on him.
Done. LittleJerry (talk)
  • "Dogs" is a duplink in "As pets and working animals"
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:15, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is all. The article is wonderfully comprehensive and was a great pleasure to read. Amazing job! Sainsf (talk · contribs) 19:09, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose. All my concerns have been addressed and I feel the prose definitely meets FA standards. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 05:47, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FunkMonk

Johnbod and Sainsf, any more? LittleJerry (talk) 23:46, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey LittleJerry, sorry for the delay. I'll add all my comments by this weekend.. there shouldn't be many left though. Cheers, Sainsf (talk · contribs) 03:08, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Jens Lallensack

[edit]

Great to see this here. First comments below, more to follow.

  • Lead: fights over territory are among the principal causes of wolf mortality packs. – I don't understand the word "packs" here; the article body speaks simply of "wolf mortality", not the mortality of whole packs.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:36, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Non-rabid wolves have attacked and killed people, mainly children, but this is rare because wolves are relatively few, live away from people, and have developed a fear of humans because of their experiences with hunters and shepherds. – This second sentence on attacks on humans seems to over-emphasise this aspect in the lead. This is much more detail and provided in the lead for all other aspects. Maybe include other highly relevant information instead, such as domestication and the origin of the domestic dog.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:36, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • However, the classification of a number of these canines—including the domestic dog, dingo, and New Guinea singing dog—as subspecies or even separate species has recently been challenged by zoologists. Studies using paleogenomic techniques reveal that the modern wolf and the dog are sister taxa, as modern wolves are not closely related to the population of wolves that was first domesticated. – Aren't these two sentences contradicting? First it is stated that the dog may not be a subspecies or separate species, which can only mean that it is the same subspecies as the wolf. Then it is stated that both are not closely related.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:36, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • link phylogenetic or maybe even avoid the term.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:36, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • They are regarded as having been more robust skulls and teeth than modern wolves – Grammar seems off? Maybe "They had more robust skulls and teeth than modern wolves"?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:36, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Himalayan wolf appears to be part of a lineage that is basal to extant Holarctic wolves. Modern Holarctic wolves – I would introduce/explain the term "Holarctic wolf", as it isn't clear why the Himalayan would not be one part of it since it occurs within the holarctic region?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:50, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • An extinct Late Pleistocene wolf – Which one, and what is it, a species?
It is linked. LittleJerry (talk) 20:50, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The wolflike canids are a group of large carnivores – "Wolvelike canids" is another vague term. What is included there?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:50, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • dhole needs a link.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:50, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • the African hunting dog – what is this? Can it be at least linked?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:50, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • On average, adult wolves measure 105–160 cm (41–63 in) in length and 80–85 cm (31–33 in) at shoulder height. The tail measures 29–50 cm (11–20 in) in length, the ears 90–110 mm (3.5–4.3 in) in height, and the hind feet are 220–250 mm (8.7–9.8 in). – Why this mixture of cm and mm? Better stick with one unit, to make it easier to compare these numbers.
Because ears and feet are smaller? Those are the measurements given in the source. LittleJerry (talk) 20:50, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The heaviest wolf to be taken by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service was killed on 70 Mile River in east-central Alaska on July 12, 1939, and weighed 79.4 kg (175 lb). – This seems to be, compared to the rest of the article, excessive detail. Not sure if the parts by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and 70 Mile River is really needed.
Removed. LittleJerry (talk) 21:02, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The ears are covered in short hairs, which strongly project from the fur. – Are really the hairs projecting from the fur, or is it the ears? If the latter, than it sould be "and project from the fur" and without comma?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 21:02, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • generally develop the smoothest overall coats as they age. – unclear: this means the fur isn't smooth in juveniles?
I guess. LittleJerry (talk) 21:02, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apart from those wolves which are white or black, these tones vary little across geographical areas. – This does not make sense to me. If the color of "white" and "black" wolves vary (as indicated here), than these would no longer be "black" or "white".
It doesn't say black and white wolves vary. It says that there are wolves that are black or white (the extreme ends of color) but otherwise they don't vary much in color tone. LittleJerry (talk) 21:02, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • has reduced the wolf's range to about one-third of what it once was. – I suspect that this is excluding Asia; could this be made clear?
Not in source so no. LittleJerry (talk) 21:02, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • the northern United States, Europe, and Asia from about 75°N to 12°N. – Restrict to eastern and northern Europe to avoid confusion? The "12N" only applies to Asia?
Not there. LittleJerry (talk) 21:02, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • while they disperse from packs to form their own or join another one. – Though the latter is supposed to be rare? Maybe add ", rarely,"?
Source doesn't say. LittleJerry (talk) 21:02, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does this mean that typically, a lone wolf first searches for a mate, and then for territory to fund an own pack? It does not become very clear through the text.
Source doesn't say. LittleJerry (talk) 21:08, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Raised leg urination is considered to be one of the most important forms of scent communication in the wolf, making up 60–80% of all scent marks observed. – I would either word it "is considered to be the most important form of scent communication" or "is one of the most important forms of scent communication". Having both "one of" and "considered" seems overly careful.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk)
  • Over what distances can wolf howling be heard? This seems to be an important practical information (people hearing wolves at night might want to know how close they might be).
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:41, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Content in the first paragraph of the "Reproduction" section overlaps with content from the second paragraph of the "Social structure" section. After reading that latter paragraph, important questions remain unanswered; this is only mentioned in that "Reproduction" paragraph. Other information is given in both paragraphs, leading to redundancy (e.g., Most foreign mature wolves are killed by the pack unless it needs to replace a breeder). Maybe it would be better to merge both together; maybe move everything related to wolf dispersal to the "Social structure" paragraph?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 21:30, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some wolves may leave the pack but remain in its territory, waiting for one of the breeding parents to die before they can breed. – But these can only be the offspring of the breeding pair? Or does this only apply to male wolves that have been adopted by the pack at young age? If so, maybe mention to avoid confusion.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:55, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Females are capable of producing pups every year, with one litter annually being the average. – But this means that they are also capable to breed twice (or more) a year, since one litter a year is not the maximum but the average?
Yes. LittleJerry (talk) 22:55, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • female wolves remain in a den located away from the peripheral zone of their territories, where violent encounters with other packs are more likely to occur. – should it be "less likely"?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:55, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • As there are few convenient places for burrows, wolf dens are usually occupied by animals of the same family. – I don't understand; since one pack = one family, it seems self-evident that separate families/packs would not share the same den? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:48, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:55, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • However, the classification of a number of these canines as subspecies has recently been challenged by zoologists. – But "A number of these canines" seems now to refer to the "38 subspecies of C. lupus"? The cited source is only about the domestic dog (and its descendants). Furthermore, the source doesn't state that their status as subspecies has been challenged as far as I see.
Fixed. The source was supposed to be the article section link for more information.
  • The optimal pack size for hunting elk is four wolves, and for bison a large pack size is more successful. Single wolves or mated pairs typically have higher success rates in hunting than do large packs – this seems to be contradicting? Assuming that elk and bison are representative prey items (elk was mentioned to be one of the most important), a pack size of four is more successful than single wolfs/pairs?
It's saying that in general. And bison are not common prey. LittleJerry (talk) 20:21, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • please link "lagomorph".
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:21, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In August 2019, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service implemented changes to how the ESA is applied. This allows the removal of species from being treated as endangered, including the wolf.[144] As a result, the State of Minnesota declared that of the 6,000 wolves living in the lower 48 states, half of these live in Minnesota – I don't understand. How is this declaration of the State of Minnesota related to the ESA changes? Can this be made clearer perhaps? Does the recent ESA change mean that wolfs can be hunted again in places like Minnesota?
They were stating to the USFWS that their wolves no longer endangered. LittleJerry (talk) 20:21, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Removed. LittleJerry (talk) 00:53, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would inclusion of a map showing the historic range of the wolf be an idea (e.g., [4])? This would, for example, show that wolves existed in Great Britain but got extirpated there, something not mentioned in the text. Might be more helpful than the currently included "Wolf range in Europe" map, which is a bit redundant to the range map of the taxon box.
See [page]. And wolves being killed off in Britain is in the text. LittleJerry (talk) 20:21, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Tracks are not important. No other FA mammal article describes them. LittleJerry (talk) 21:39, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Tracks are arguably important, as you are much likely to find tracks then to actually see a wolf in the wild. But I don't insist; the decision is yours. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:03, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jens Lallensack anymore? LittleJerry (talk) 21:39, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Annoyingly I lost my notes. Will have to read the last part of the article again … --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:03, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jens Lallensack? LittleJerry (talk) 16:56, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • For the Pawnee, Sirius was the wolf star – If we find the association with wolves in so many cultures, can it have a single origin?
Or maybe independent people notice the constellation is shaped like a dog/wolf. This is more relevant to the article on Sirius. LittleJerry (talk) 13:09, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although portrayed as loyal, honest and moral, Isengrim is forever the victim of Reynard's wit and cruelty – So Isengrim is the good, and Reynard is the bad? This does not really reflect the poem, where Isengrim is also characterised as greedy and dumb.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 13:09, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The wolf in this story is portrayed as an allegorical sexual predator – only in a few very early versions there are elements of a sexual predator. I'm not sure if this interpretation is generally accepted, and the sentence "is portrayed as an … predator" is imo wrong. I would be more prudent and use "antrophomized" instead. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:03, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 13:09, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 13:09, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
supporting now. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:08, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Fowler&fowler

[edit]
Note Please see the reasons for a change of vote at the end of the source-check section. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11
51, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
Many essential changes have been made. Not all, but enough to merit promotion. The ones remaining can be made after promotion; indeed I will be making some myself, or at least, discussing them with the nominator. If I have left any boldface "opposes" dangling, please disregard. Best, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:52, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I won't have time for a proper review but will do one of the lead. Here are a few questions:

  • The wolf is also distinguished from other Canis species by its less pointed features, particularly the ears and muzzle.
  • What other features are there in Canis species that can be assigned a degree of pointedness?
  • If there aren't or if there are, but not readily identified by a common reader, would it be simpler to say, "... by its less pointed ears and muzzle."
  • The wolf is nonetheless closely related enough to smaller Canis species, such as the coyote and the golden jackal, to produce fertile hybrids with them.
  • Is there a reason that the (presumably) post-Crick-and-Watson expression "closely related enough" is preferred to the more common "related closely enough?"
  • The winter fur of a wolf is long and bushy and predominantly mottled gray, although nearly pure white, red and brown to black colours also occur.
  • And the summer coat?
  • What is bushy other than the tail?
  • Would it be better to say, "The winter coat is thicker and the tail bushier? That way you get around having to say anything about the summer coat.
  • "although" is not needed with "predominantly."
  • Gray mottled with what? Predominantly brown?
  • This is probably obivous, but for rank beginners like me, it may help if you tell us, "recognized by whom."
  • Would it be clearer to say, "Of all members of the genus Canis, the wolf is most specialized for cooperative game hunting; this is demonstrated by ..."

More coming soon. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 06:39, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed a few of the things that you asked but I will not be doing anymore, sorry. This article has had a copyedit pre-FAC and during this review has had four text reviews. At this point, reviewing wording is tedious. LittleJerry (talk) 12:13, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for making the changes in the first few sentences. As for your refusal to make other changes, neither copy editors nor FAC reviewers typically review for coherence in relation to the sources. The sentence, "The winter fur of a wolf is long and bushy and predominantly mottled gray, although nearly pure white, red and brown to black colours also occur," for example, as you must know, has been in the article for years, taken from the IUCN status survey (2004), p. 124, which says, " General appearance and proportions are not unlike a large German shepherd dog except legs longer, feet larger, ears shorter, eyes slanted, tail curled, and winter fur longer and bushier, and with chin tufts in winter. Fur is thick and usually mottled grey, but can vary from nearly pure white, red, or brown to black." When you say, "Winter fur is bushy," it is a statement of contrast. That is why I asked about the summer coat and suggested, "The winter coat is thicker and the tail bushier." I could see incoherence, but at that point did not know the source. Now that I know, I can see that the sentence is not faithful to the source it is taken from. Why don't you paraphrase the IUCN description in some loose manner? I am trying to help you. :) Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:48, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed all. Who recognizes the 38 subspecies is in the body. I was already told to remove Mammal Species of the World from the lead. LittleJerry (talk) 14:29, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Yes, I realized that. Please see my scratched bit above. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:49, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have now carefully read the lead and see no further issues. I have skimmed the rest of the article. It meets all the FA criteria. I'm delighted to see a vital article, the kind whose absence I typically bemoan. My only regret is that (for some reason) I did not see this FAC submission earlier. I'm happy to support this article for promotion to an FA. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:13, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note

[edit]

Unless I missed something, I think we're still waiting for source review... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:16, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but I reached out to a few people. LittleJerry (talk) 15:29, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Axl? Casliber? Nikkimaria?? Ian Rose has stated on the FAC talk page that I just need a source review for reliability and formatting. LittleJerry (talk) 20:23, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See my note about about the IUCN source paraphrase. I don't have time to do a proper source review, but will make sure that the lead is reliably based on sources. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:58, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The source is not cited for fur color. A different source is used in the body. LittleJerry (talk) 14:40, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Source review

I have now done a source check of the rest of the lead by comparing it with this version of May 2019 (in which the sentences were cited). I believe this is enough, as many sentences in the lead have not changed substantially since. The sentences are reliably sourced. I have also done spot checks for a dozen sentences in the rest of the article. I'm happy to report the sources are reliable and have been paraphrased faithfully. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:08, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jonesey95 has also looked at source formatting before the FAC submission. LittleJerry (talk) 18:37, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I tidied a bit of the formatting just now. Source 122 (as of this writing) had no page number. It might exist in the page history; sometimes these things are inadvertently deleted. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:48, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 19:01, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Rose? LittleJerry (talk) 13:45, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tks F&F. I hope you understand my pedantry but I need to confirm whether the source reliability check was for the references in general (per our usual source reviews for reliability and formatting) or just for those used in the citations that were spotchecked... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:58, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Ian Rose: No probs at all. The check involved checking every sentence in the lead (by going back in the article's history to the time when the sentences had citations and then checking the reliability of the source and the accuracy of the paraphrasing) and spot-checking nearly a dozen citations for the same in the later sections. If you tell me how the usual source review is done, I'm happy to do that. (Does it involve using the citation bot?") I don't know what checking the format involves. I did notice that some citations are in Harv/Sfn format and others in "Citation/Cite-book-etc" format. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:46, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The "harv vs citation" difference is because some books are being used extensively throughout and others are used for only a specific page or page range. I have done this in my other FACs with no problem (see pinniped and bat for examples). LittleJerry (talk) 16:24, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's fine. Totally understandable. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:32, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Rose? LittleJerry (talk) 20:23, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: @Johnbod: Ian hasn't answered. What are the usual source reviews for reliability and formatting? Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:07, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like what you did was what we refer to as a spotcheck. See first para here: User:Nikkimaria/Reviewing_featured_article_candidates#Sources. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:48, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Great. Thanks. Will attend tomorrow AM. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:22, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is somewhat tricky for me to check the sourcing, because many references are books to which I don't have access. The reference "Larson" does support the statement at the end of "Taxonomy", subsection "Subspecies". Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:58, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The references to Freedman and fan all support the article's text. Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:27, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks but Fowler already did a spotcheck. We just need checking for formatting and reliability. LittleJerry (talk) 14:07, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fowler&fowler? LittleJerry (talk) 14:11, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the delay. I've had my coffee. Will attend, with industry and application today. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:57, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by F&f continued

[edit]
There are a total of 314 citations to 205 sources-pages.
  • There are eight books for which the "Sfn" format has been employed.
  • Except in the instances mentioned below, all books have ISBN information and have been published by reliable publishers:
  • Exceptions: None
  • These books have been cited 163 times.
  • The two most cited books are:
  • Mech & Biotani, cited 64 times, and Heptner & Naumov, cited 39 times
  • In a Reference section of 314 citations, neither of these two sources constitutes an instance of over-reliance.
  • Except in the instances mentioned below, all citations have associated page ranges:
  • Exceptions: None
  • There are 34 other books for which the "cite book" format has been employed.
  • Except in the instances mentioned below, all books have been published by reliable publishers, have ISBN information, and have been cited no more than a few times:
  • Exceptions: None
  • These books have been cited 54 times.
  • Except in the instances mentioned below, all citations have associated page ranges:
  • Exceptions: None
  • Except in instances mentioned below, all articles have been published in reputable journals, have the usual format of volume, issue, page numbers, and DOI information (other than old articles, field reports):
  • Exceptions: None
  • There are 16 web sites for which the "cite web" format has been employed.
  • Except in instances listed below, all web sites are live, reliable, and their citations have access dates.
  • Exceptions:
  • Tucker, P.; Weide, B. (1998). "Can You Turn a Wolf into a Dog" (PDF). Wild Sentry. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2015-12-08. (no access date)
  • Woodford, Riley. "Alaska's Salmon-Eating Wolves". Wildlifenews.alaska.gov. Archived from the original on July 26, 2019. Retrieved July 25, 2019. (dead link)

Please fix the last two LittleJerry. This completes my source review, Ian. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:22, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed both. LittleJerry (talk) 12:45, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I checked the Etymology section, there are no issues. The article has already has spotchecks from you and Axl. It doesn't need anymore. LittleJerry (talk) 13:09, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note from F&f

Ian and LittleJerry I am very sorry. I made a huge effort to do the source review right. As you will have noticed, I have examined each of the 213 cited sources for issues of general reliability, wiki-layout etc. That part of the review is finished. However, I had an uncomfortable feeling about the spot checks I had done. I had done them hurriedly because the article was languishing and I consider it to be the kind of vital article I exhort people to write; LittleJerry had worked hard on it, and I wanted to help him. Unfortunately, I didn't do such a good job of spot-checking the Etymology section; the Status and Conservation section and the Relationships with human section. So, I examined them more carefully. There is an issue, one of WP:DUE. Greater weight is assigned to North American sources and interpretations, and a more generally to Euro-American ones in each of these sections. Here are but three examples:

Etymology. The source says this; the page says this What the Saxon clans called themselves is irrelevant to the etymology of the word "wolf." But it was the second paragraph that began to bother me. It had colloquial names in (historical) north America. I wondered where the other names were, that the complete etymology above would posit existing in a large swathe of Indo-European-speaking belt in Europe and Asia, not to mention in other linguistic cultures.
Status and Conservation. I noticed that the population of only the Himalayan wolf was mentioned in India. A WP page listing various national populations was linked, but it is sourced to: Mech, L. David; Boitani, Luigi (2010), Wolves: Behavior, Ecology, and Conservation, University of Chicago Press, pp. 323–, ISBN 978-0-226-51698-1, Note: This information was obtained by assembling data from available bibliographic sources and the informed and subjective estimates provided by the experts of the IUCN/SSC Wolf Specialist Group and the Large Carnivore Initiative for Europe (Boitani 2000). Except for a few local situations that are well known, most of the numerical estimates should be considered no more than indicative of the general status of the populations. There are no recent reliable estimates for Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Nepal, and Bhutan. At this point, I did become concerned but thought I/LJ can fix this—it is a matter of finding an updated source. So, I moved on to the next section:
Relationship with human section. The wolf is a creature of many cultures. I can't speak for all cultures, but I am conversant with South Asian culture, having edited SA-related WP articles for the greater part of 13 years. The wolf has been a part of Indian culture going back its (and humanities) earliest extant texts in Indo-European languages, the Rigveda. There is a goddess Sarama; the wolf makes appearances in the Ramayana and Mahabharata; it is a part of the ancient Jataka tales (see here); of records of various political dispensations, e.g. 100,000 were killed in the 19th-century before Kipling wrote about the Law of the Jungle ("... the strength of the pack is the wolf, and the strength of the wolf is the pack"). Even today, daily in India, the wolf makes news. Here is just one example from one newspaper, The Hindu, from the last few days: Wolfing down watermelons. If you read the RWHC section, however, you would have little clue. This is when I began to have a sinking feeling about the article. And, mind you, South Asia is just one region. These sections, especially the last, need more work than can be done now. Ian, I would like to support this article's promotion, but am worried about these issues. Please tell me how I can help LJ. I know he has worked hard. I would support a provisional promotion subject to LJ fixing these issues during the next month. If that is not possible, sadly, I would have to urge the nominator to withdraw the article and resubmit in a month after he has fixed these issues—which I would really hate to do. Sorry, I tried, made a big effort to make it happen. My respect for LittleJerry has not diminished one whit. This is a complex topic and it needs an enormous amount of work. I will shortly change my support above to Support promotion with a proviso, or withdrawal without prejudice I don't know if it is allowed but this is my considered view. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:40, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There are other issues. There are 17 pictures of wolves from Canada, the US, and Europe (not including Russia). There are 4 from Asia. Yet Asia has more wolves according to the International Wolf Cener than Canada, the US, and Europe (not including Russia) put together. The contiguous states of the US have 5,500 wolves; China has 6,000 wolves, India has 4,400 to 7,100 wolves. There are 5 wolves shown from the lower 48 states, 1 from India, none from China. This is not looking promising in terms of being representative in other aspects as well. It may be that none are available demonstrating some aspect (diet, behavior), but then they should be compensated somewhat in other aspects. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:03, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I made the necessary changes. Given this is English Wikipedia, I'm going to look at English-speaking sources. North American and European wolves are also more well-studied than wolves from other parts, The main bibliography is sourced to the top books on wolves and what they cover is reflected in the article. I noted that the PIE may be the root word also for "lupus" and did not mention the others because "lupus" is the species scientific name. There are also way more wiki images of wolves in NA and Europe compared to India and China. And I can't reference wolves in other cultures if I can't find reliable sources. I tried to find more sources on the wolf in Indian mythology but the they were either low quality or I can't have access to them to verify their accuracy (I looked at the culture section of the Indian wolf article) However, these sections now cover Europe, NA, India, Central Asia and East Asia. LittleJerry (talk) 19:34, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm trying to help you. Kipling's doggerel references the Wolf as an essential part of the Jungle, its law, about which he wrote his books; although I've known it by heart for years, I don't think it is clever. The wolf appears as Akela in the frontispiece of the Jungle books, drawn by John Lockwood Kipling. There is Mowgli, himself, the wolf-boy. Kipling would not have been making wolves such an integral part of the Jungle Books if they weren't an integral part of the culture about which he was writing. The wolf is referenced in 21st-century scholarly references on the the Rigveda, among the oldest Indo-European texts; in the Mahabharata; in the Ramayana; in the Indian Buddhist Jataka tales in Mughal art or literature You are not helping your case when you say, "The most well-studied cultures (Greeks, Romans, Norse, Navajo)" I have made an inordinate effort doing your source review; I did so because I wanted to see it promoted, to give proof that the sourcing was water tight. Why would I now have reservations about the ideology of this article if didn't think they were serious, not amenable to quick bandaid fixes? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:20, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That is why I have suggested a provisional promotion subject to your resolving these issues over the next month. It will take that much time. I don't want to see a vital article come this far and not make it. I understand your frustration. Again, it needs your commitment. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:31, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I really would like more opinions on this. FunkMonk, Jens Lallensack, Johnbod, Sainsf, Axl? Their are a billion things that reference the wolf. I checked the links you give and none of them are helpful. The first book on "Mughal art/literature" merely references "Who wanted to be struck down by a lion's paw, to be torn by a wolf's fangs?" You can't expect me to think that is significant enough to put in the article. The first book for "Mahabharata" states "In the great forest, a wolf can kill a lion that is unprotected. Let Shikhandi not be like a wolf that kills a tiger". Again, why is this significant? Am I suppose to put things like "the wolf is referenced in text x". I already put more stuff on the wolf in East Asian and Indian culture to balance things out and a reference to the Jataka tales. I even add more stuff on Indian wolves in the "attacks" and "hunting" subsections and the population of wolves in India. What more do you want? We already have an article on the Indian wolf were the culture section can be expanded. We also have a "Wolves in folklore, religion and mythology" article forks. LittleJerry (talk) 00:19, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I frankly don't know how to engage you, when you blank out portions of your statements above, after I have very specifically replied to them. See here. The various book links are not meant to be examples of usage of the word "wolf" in Sanskrit literate, but a pointer to the wealth of references that underlie the importance of the animal in the culture. The specific examples in the Mahabharata for example are the name "wolf-belly" for one of the protagonists, Bhima, see here, from an old reference Again, the issues are deeper than can be figured out by your nickel and diming the links I'm giving you as pointers to just one kind of Asian literature, in this instance one that predates the Latin, for example. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:20, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Btw, it is not "India" that I want in there; India came to mind because I know something about South Asian culture. There is a whole swath of Asia, the stomping ground both of the wolf and and of Indo-European languages, that is underrepresented. Other non-IE cultures are probably also under-represented. I already mentioned this: there are more wolves in Asia (including Russia) than there are in the US, Canada, and Europe. (The demography of the page is all wrong, by the author's own acknowledgement.) Reading this page one could easily come away thinking that the wolf is primarily a north American mammal, and the few that are not in north America are in Europe. Look, I want to see this article as an FA, but I don't want to see it as a biased FA, because those are not easily fixed. I am offering you an option: give us some committment that you will spend some serious time fixing these issues in the month after promotion. The others you have pinged can be a part of this enterprise as well. The problem is there. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:49, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The "Mythology/Folklore" and "Fable/Literature" subsections now contain references to North America, Europe, Russia, Central Asia, India and East Asia. That is a wide enough net. Not everything can make it into the article. That's why we have a "Wolves in folklore, religion and mythology" fork. Nothing about the population of wolves in an area tells us about what is significant. The Capitoline Wolf is more well known and significant than most of the Asian cultural wolves. The conservation of wolves in Yellowstone is more studied and talked about than most other places. There is more to talk about with wolves in the lower 48 US, where wolves have been exterminated and brought back and have expanded, than Russia. which has had consistently large population throughout history that has maintained its historical range. LittleJerry (talk) 02:09, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"The Capitoline Wolf is more well known and significant than most of the Asian cultural wolves." According to whom? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:04, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As for conservation of reintroduced species, such as in the US, it too can go into spinoff articles such as you are advocating for folklore. Rewilding (conservation biology), for example. There is no reason to make America's atoning for its past sins (still much in evidence around where I live; only coyotes are here not wolves) the blue eyed boy of wolf conservation around the world. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:10, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
How about the fact that its easier to find discussions of the Capitoline Wolf in the wolf literature including books on wolves in culture like Lopez and Marvin, while I have to dig around to find things on the references you what me too. Sarama seems to be more associated with dogs than wolves. And again, there's more to talk about with regards to certain countries conservation then others, regardless of population size. Let's see what the others say. LittleJerry (talk) 10:48, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You have done nothing thus far. As I probe the article more, I'm finding the bias to be more extensive and deeper than I had hitherto thought. You stated above, "The first book for 'Mahabharata' states 'In the great forest, a wolf can kill a lion that is unprotected. Let Shikhandi not be like a wolf that kills a tiger'. Again, why is this significant? Am I suppose to put things like 'the wolf is referenced in text x'?" But your text already has that: "The Bible contains 13 references to wolves, usually as metaphors for greed and destructiveness. In the New Testament, Jesus is said to have used wolves as illustrations of the dangers his followers, whom he represents as sheep, would face should they follow him.(Matthew 7:15, Matthew 10:16 and Acts 20:29).[173]" " To this you have now added, as an afterthought: "Wolves are also mentioned in texts of the Far East. ..." In other words, you have listed references in the Bible, a much later text, written in the lands that constitute the fringes of the wolves range; yet you are objecting to the Rigveda composed 1500 BCE, containing content of earlier Indo-European mythology from Central Asia.
Again, India and China together have more wolves than all of Europe minus Russia. Yet there are an order of magnitude (factor of ten) more references to Europe (in the pictures chosen, in the other mention) in the article. Again the wolf is as much an Asian animal as it is North American or European. Asia has had longstanding stable populatiosn that are larger than North America and Europe combined. Yet there is a picture of a wolf from Sweden (which shares a population of 400 with Norway) than one from China or India. It is not like those pictures are not available, and I can easily upload half a dozen more from Flickr creative commons. As I probe more, I see that the bias is relentless, throughout the article, in the topics chosen, in the photographs chosen. I have been again and again encouraging you to agree to make the non-trivian changes needed in the article with a firm promise. But nothing has changed. I am therefore changing my vote to an oppose, for I don't expect you will make the needed changes after if you are not even acknowledging them. I'm sorry no reasonable person can say I did not try to help you. Again, issues of bias are highly problematic, much more so than other violations of the FAC criteria. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:47, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As I was asked for opinion: I personally can't see any bias, Asia is represented to the right extent. You say "India and China together have more wolves than all of Europe minus Russia", but that would mean that the section should be mostly about wolves from Russia, where most wolves life. No, this can't be a criterion. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:18, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And as stated before, there far are more image available of wolves in Europe and North America than in other places. The main picture was chosen because of the quality of the image and the fact that the Eurasian wolf is the nominate subspecies. The Bible is used because there is actually a tertiary source that describes what how the Bible portrays wolves. The idea that wolves should be represented by population in this article is absurd. Wolves from certain populations are studied more than those from others. LittleJerry (talk) 13:43, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The nominotypical subspecies and type localities had to do with what Linnaeus and others studied first and where the specimen came from, in the wolf's instance,"European woods and cold.", which Oldfield Thomas more than a century later changed to "Sweden." just as he made the type locality of the tiger "Bengal," after Linnaeus's "Asia," or that of the leopard "Egypt," after Linnaeus's "India," or someone else pegged the lion on the Barbary coast because that is where Linnaeus received his specimen. But the picture on the Tiger page is not from Sundarbans or anywhere else in Bengal, but from the other end of India (whose discussion LittleJ is himself party to); the picture in the FA Lion is not from Barbary, but from Namibia; the Leopard infobox picture is neither from India nor Egypt but Serengeti. Type localities (in biology) or type sites (in archaeology) have more to do with what was studied first by whom. Harappa is the type site of the Indus Valley Civilization (which for that reason is also called the Harappan civilization, but the picture on the IVC page is of Mohenjodaro, the bigger, better preserved site, with more artifacts. The Indian wolf is also a Eurasian wolf, as is the Chinese. If they are not Eurasian, what are they Australian, Antarctican, African? The Bible stuff and most of the pictures for that matter have been in the Wolf article long before LittleJerry made an edit. See here. I would like to see that discussion about tertiary sources. In this article's first unsuccessful FAC the closing note specifically mentioned US bias. It was a problem then. I'm by far not the first one to note it. Please take this critique seriously. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:22, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is NO "bias". We used the images and the information that we have available. It doesn't matter what the population of wolves in Sweden are, the image perfectly illustrates the animal better than any other. The images of the other animals are there for the same reason. If you're going to bring up lion the cultural section for Africa is the smallest dispute that being were lions live and the "Conservation/Africa" section focuses on lions in critically endangered parts of Africa, not where they are most abundant. Thanks for proving my point when you stated "Asia has had longstanding stable population that are larger than North America and Europe combined." So that shows that there isn't much to write about in regards to conservation. You can't just declare that this FAC failed when the consensus is against you. You already showed that the article is has consistent citing and the sourcing is accurate. Everyone elese did the rest. Your complaints of "bias" are not agreed upon. Ian Rose, please weigh in. LittleJerry (talk) 19:38, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Source reviews check for the latter half of 1 (c). ("claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate;") As reviewers, we discuss wording, grammar, and other prose issues and get 1 (a) out of the way. This I did in the lead. We assume good faith, but we still check 1d ( neutral: it presents views fairly and without bias (this is checked by comparing the paraphrasing with the original source etc); So the bias is not yours. I still assume that you have presented the views of your sources fairly. What we are not able to check for easily ais: the first half of 1 (c): "it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature;", i.e. DUE. and 1 (b) comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context. So, the first half of 1 (c) and 1 (b) As reviewers we are under pressure to get on with it, especially in articles we think are on topics we like, which this one clearly is. So, I did support the article on the basis of 1 (a) of the lead, the second half of 1 (c) and 1 (d). That took quite a bit of time. As you must be aware, doing the kind of source review I did was not easy. In supporting the article I certainly did right by your effort. I haven't checked but it could be that there are more published sources on the US (minus Alaska) wolf, and more public domain pictures. But the US wolf had been decimated. It is a reintroduced species and it is small. Asia has 100,000 wolves; US has 4,500. Things like that take time to seep into the brain of a reviewer such as I. But when they do, I become aware that in supporting the article in its curren t version, I'm not doing right by the wolf. 1 (b) is takes time to seep in. It is an undervalued criterion. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:00, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But you can't treat Asia like one country or united political/economic/cultural unit like Europe. There's the Middle East, Central Asia, Russia, India and China, ect. The Eurasian subsection covers Europe, post-Soviet states, the Middle East, South Asia and East Asia. That's comprehensive. The culture sections cover Europe, Native America, Russia, Middle East, Central, South and East Asia. That's comprehensive. If you want me to cut down on conservation in the lower 48, I will do that. LittleJerry (talk) 21:28, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I should also point out that both the North American (occidentalis‎) and the Eurasian wolves have over 200 images at wikicommons. The Indian wolf just has 43. And why focus on populations of countries and not subspecies populatuons? The Eurasian wolf probably has a population greater than the Indian and Chinese wolf combined. LittleJerry (talk) 22:06, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the number of 100,000 for Asian wolves appears to include all of Russia as well. But Russia is also part of Europe so some of those number can go there. LittleJerry (talk) 23:06, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that you are frustrated with the slow pace of the FAC review. I am sorry I appeared toward the tail end of the usual life span at FAC; I wish I had seen the article earlier. But as I have explained, I have to do what I feel needs to be done. We are on the same side. The problem will not be resolved by quick fixes. Consider pictures, for example. Just in a few minutes I found or uploaded these pictures of the South Asian plains wolf (File:Indian wolf Gujarat grassland.jpg, File:Indian Wolf.jpg, File:Wolf Islamabad Pakistan.jpg, File:Indian Wolf Photo Dhaval Vargiya.jpg in art File:The Two Jungle Books 1895 Akela, the Lone Wolf.jpg) the Himalayan wolf (File:Himalayan wolves.jpg, File:Canis lupus himalayensis.JPG) which you do have in a distant view, the Chinese (File:Dalian Liaoning China Forest-Zoo-01.jpg), the Arabian wolf (File:Arabian wolf in Jordan.jpg, File:Arabian Wolf Al Ain Zoo 1 leicht verbessert.jpg) which you have in an unfocused one from Israel. Pictures are important because they correct the imagined phenotype of the species, which over a large part of its range, is a much leaner creature (even in the Himalayas) that it is in North America or Northern Europe. Fixing the problem will take time. The Russian wolf is mostly not in Europe, but in the Steppes and Siberia. Russia has 30K, Kazakhstan and some small Central Asian countries around it have 30K, ... I'm sorry I'm not here to endlessly argue with you especially when you seem not to have the interest of the wolf in mind, only that of your nomination. Sorry, this is as far as I go. If you agree to make a serious attempt to fix the issues during the next month I am happy to support the nomination, as I've already said. But I am not seeing any interest on your part. You've now added an unfocused picture from Mysore India, as if to say that is what I'm interested in seeing in the article. I'm tired. This is it. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:07, 19 March 2020 (UTC) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:07, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures are there to illustrate the sections and hardly any of the ones you listed do. You have not been very helpful in exampling what you what. You're not clearly stating about how many images should be from each region and if they are useful in illustrating a section. That's the only image of an Indian wolf I could find that is useful (showing then in a pack). You also do not state how much of each culture should be talked about. Are you expecting two paragraphs on Asian wolves and one on European wolves? Why is the current cultural section not balanced enough. I can't do what you want if you're going to be vague. And again why are you focusing on country populations rather then say subspecies. LittleJerry (talk) 00:39, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But fine, I'll want to see what Ian or another administrator says about this. LittleJerry (talk) 01:06, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure this is a real problem. We naturally just have the best photos from regions where people are more likely to take good photos of wolves and upload them to Commons or Flickr under free licences. Of course, that means European and American wolves are overrepresented, but if we have to choose between a really good photo of an American wolf doing something, and a mediocre photo of, say, an Indian wolf doing the same, we should go with the best photo. There is a similar issue with sources; of course English language sources are more likely to focus on populations in the West. I could understand if this was about the human article, and Europeans were overrepresented, but in all seriousness, the wolves are not going to complain. And in any case, the article does show wolves from all over the world. As for having the best interest of the wolves in mind, I don't think anyone holds them more dearly here than William Harris, and he took part in the image selection. FunkMonk (talk) 02:42, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@LittleJerry: Because the subspecies keep coalescing and sometimes splitting with increased genomics knowledge. It was Panthera leo leo (the African lion) and Panthera Leo persia (the Indian lion) a few years ago, now its all Panthera leo leo so should we only show one picture of the African lion, only talk about Masai myths because countries don't matter? A few years ago, it was Pathera tigris tigris the so called "nominotypical subspecies," ie the Bengal tiger, and Panthera tigris Corbetti (after Jim Corbett; the Andamese tiger), Panthera tigris amoyensis (Siberian), ... sumartrae, etc etc. Now it is only Panthera tigris tigris and Panthera tigris sundsomethingorother (for the Sumatran), so should we only show a picture of the Indian tiger, and one of the Sumartran forget Siberian, Indo-Chinese, Cambodian, Thai, Burmese because they don't constitute a separate subspecies anymore. Countries do matter, their cultures matter. It was the 19th century culture of the US that made the wolf extinct in the US (except a few lucky ones in Minnesota), the bison nearly extinct, the beaver extinct on the east coast, the turkey (of all birds) extinct in Plymouth. It was the 20th century culture that has brought them back a little, not much, from the brink. I'm tired also of you guys pinging each other. You don't think I can ping people? I make a point, you change the argument; I make another point; you remove your previous argument, Now you've pinged someone who apparently chose the images, (when was that?) but didn't find the time to do this FAC review. ... seriously what is going on here? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:01, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I pinged them because they were involved in the article FAC and did reviews (see above). FunkMonk even did the Good Article review. William Harris wrote a lot of this article, not just choosing the pictures. I'm trying to get a consensus on whether this article needs the drastic changes you say they do. I not going to spend another month on this just because of one person with flawed arguments. No you can't ping anyone outside of this aside from an FAC administrator. My other arguments still stand and have not changed them I just thought of new ones too. I have accommodated you has much as I could, I added more Asian wolf images, I trimmed down the US 48 conservation paragraph, I add more Asian cultural references but that's not enough for you. You think coverage should be proportional to population regardless of what the actual sources cover and what information is available. (By the why the subspecies of tiger still exist, [5]) LittleJerry (talk) 11:37, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Are you attempting to counter the IUCN's 22 expert Cat specialist group's final report of late 2017, cited by 91 other scholarly articles in Google scholar with an article submitted to a journal in March 2018, and published online in July 2018, and in print in December, which has been cited by 8 others? You've made some changes to be sure, in the images, taken from the ones I hurriedly exhibited as a sample. The issues are much deeper; putting words in my mouth will not solve them. Anyway, I have other WP responsibilites. See my user page. Other FACs. This was not even on that list, when out of concern that this article was not moving, I put them on hold to do a source review. Good luck. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:36, 19 March 2020 (UTC) Updated Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:45, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Query from WereSpielChequers

[edit]

Hi, or woof if that is more apt. That was an interesting read, and mostly comprehensible to a lay reader like myself. But I do wonder about the idea of banded guard hairs. I had thought that banding patterns involved different colours of hair growing in different proportions on different parts of the body. Are you sure that there are individual hairs that have a banded colour? ϢereSpielChequers 16:07, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. Banding refers to Agouti (coloration) which I have now liked. LittleJerry (talk) 16:23, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note

[edit]

FN172 (Shi, Li) shows a check ISBN message that you might investigate. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:25, 30 March 2020 (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 Ealdgyth via FACBot (talk) 29 March 2020 [6].

Bath School disaster

[edit]
Nominator(s): Shearonink (talk) 04:43, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note on closing—listed at WP:FFA, if promoted, move to re-promoted at FFA, and increment re-promoted tally. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:41, 9 March 2020 (UTC) [reply]

This article is about the school bombing, farm bombing, and truck bombing, in and around the village of Bath, Michigan all of which were perpetrated by one man on May 18, 1927. A total of forty-five people died in what is generally known as the Bath School disaster. I have been working on and off on the article for over 7 years. I think I initially came upon it in the wake of Sandy Hook in December 2012 when the article looked like this. I have felt a responsibility to history as I have worked on this article, to the victims, the people of Bath Township, the rescuers, the heroes, even the perpetrator...that the verifiable truth should be told about the worst school attack in American history.
Bath School disaster is a former featured article, it was promoted in 2006 (see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bath School disaster and then demoted in 2010 (see Wikipedia:Featured article review/Bath School disaster/archive1). I worked to get the article to Good Article status and it was promoted in 2013, (see Talk:Bath School disaster/GA1).
I have asked for help in various Wiki-venues from many hardworking editors and they have all been wonderfully forthcoming on what needed to be fixed/adjusted/deleted/better-sourced/edited and just generally improved. These discussions can be found at:

I am looking forward to everyone's feedback. Shearonink (talk) 04:43, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[Above^^] Updated the link to the discussion about the article's images at the Media copyright questions noticeboard (that's now been archived). Shearonink (talk) 05:49, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

General note: Depending on how the FAC goes (yay or nay) I do hope to someday nominate Bath School disaster as the Wikipedia FA on its anniversary date of May 18. Shearonink (talk) 19:38, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from John M Wolfson

[edit]
Done. Shearonink (talk) 03:20, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I think I caught all of them. Shearonink (talk) 03:20, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dates such as April 5, 1926, etc., need to be followed by a comma unless followed by other punctuation per the MoS, even when none is otherwise warranted.
Well ok...I had thought that it was the "April 5, 1926 township clerk election" not the "April 5, 1926, township clerk election" but yeah MoS etc. I think I've fixed all the comma-less dates now. Shearonink (talk) 03:20, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • thirty-one square miles ... an area of some five hundred and sixty-six square miles should be turned into numbers per the MoS.
I'm not sure how to do that using the Template:convert but I'll work on it. Shearonink (talk) 03:20, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Have been trying to fix this but am having trouble figuring out how to not make the template spell out the numbers... Will come back to this later today. Shearonink (talk) 15:08, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
John M Wolfson DONE. I figured it out - Yay!!! Shearonink (talk) 17:17, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We want to keep all numbers within a list of numbers consistent, so this. We wouldn't write out thirty-one, so we switch them all, including the ten, to digits. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:18, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe that times such as "8:45 a.m.", etc., should have conversions to UTC as well, but I might very well be mistaken in that regard. There probably isn't per further discussion.

The following are just comments on my end and do not affect the promotability of this article:

  • Consider moving the book sources in the References to a separate "Bibliography" or "Works cited" section and shortening the footnotes.
Oh. Wow. I hadn't thought of doing that...I'll consider it, but am interested in why you think the footnotes should be shortened. Shearonink (talk) 03:20, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Readability mostly. It's fine without them, but the footnotes are easier to read if you do shorten them. (See Michael Kenna for an example with {{sfn}}, or 1927 Chicago mayoral election for one without.)
  • Why aren't the "Further Reading" entries used as sources? Such sections aren't generally used in FAs, and this doesn't seem like that niche a topic to warrant one.
Actually the book version of "Mayday" is used as a source but "Mayday" is also very rare & out of print. Keeping accessibility and verifiability in mind the only way most people will be able to read it is through the Internet Archive so a link to the complete online copy made sense to me. I would hate to lose the scrapbook ref but it is a link to one of the few copies available at a library not to a complete online copy - you really think it should go? Shearonink (talk) 03:20, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. While most FAs don't have the sections, there's nothing against them so if you feel they are warranted I have no concerns either way.

Otherwise this looks good so far. I'll try to look into this some more and may or may not take WikiCup points for this. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 21:17, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your thoughts John M Wolfson. Shearonink (talk) 03:20, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 03:33, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
UTC conversions are for ITN, not FAC
IF there is really a requirement to turn times into UTC, I haven't seen it, hope I never do see it, and suggest ignoring it. I can find nothing of that sort at WP:MOS SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:23, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's fair enough, I've just seen such things in articles on disasters and wrecks (something like "8:00 a.m. local time (14:00 UTC)") and thought that there was some sort of MoS requirement for it. Feel free to ignore it, then. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 01:55, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I"m guessing you are seeing that on current events, in the news sort of stuff ... ugh. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:33, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's precisely where I see it most often, which makes me think further that it's not FA material. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 07:03, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

More comments:

  • and kill a generation of the area's schoolchildren. I don't doubt this, but it's not brought up explicitly in the body.
It's not? It's mentioned in the article that hundreds of pounds of unexploded dynamite & pyrotol and various explosive contraptions were found all over the school's basement - the perp intended to 1)destroy the entire building and 2)to kill everyone who in the building. I've adjusted the sentence - maybe it now is a little clearer. Shearonink (talk) 06:19, 6 March 2020 (UTC)\[reply]
The "generation" stuff wasn't, now it's to my satisfaction. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 06:25, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is the road crew O. H. Bush the same as the fireman O. H. Bush? If so, you can just refer to him as "Bush" in his subsequent mentions.
I removed the descriptions of him as "road crew" or "fireman" but I think the 2 mentions of Bush are too separated to have the first mention be "OH Bush" and the subsequent mention be "Bush". Shearonink (talk) 06:19, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 06:25, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're misusing {{Inflation}}; set a specific end year and use |fmt=c instead of the magic word and parser expression. If you absolutely must have an auto-updating latest year use {{Inflation/year}}, which currently goes to 2019 for the US.
I don't understand all the niceties of this template but I'll try to fix it. Give me a day or two...I have to sign off for now, Shearonink (talk) 06:19, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Reading the template documentation will tell you what you need to know. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 06:25, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Template:Inflation issue has been fixed. Shearonink (talk) 15:08, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's all for now. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 05:21, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

John M Wolfson - What other items need to be edited/adjusted/fixed/deleted/sourced better/etc? Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 06:50, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looking through this again I find that I can support this article for promotion. The FAR (which was from a decade ago) was based on insufficient citations, which has since been dealt with. While I didn't look too far into each individual image, the media seems appropriately licensed. The prose seems good, and there are no further coding or linking issues on my end. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 06:59, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks John M Wolfson. Appreciate all your comments & help. Shearonink (talk) 04:03, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kees08 comments

[edit]

Drive by comments, probably will not perform a full review. Kees08 (Talk) 18:13, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • There are a lot more external links that is typical for a FA; could any of them be incorporated into the citations, and are all of them appropriate for the section? The answer could be that they are fine, just want to make sure you look into it.
Thanks Kees08. Yes, I am aware that there are perhaps more external links than the usual complement but in this case I think it it absolutely necessary. This subject, sadly, gets a lot of attention every time there's a school attack anywhere in the world but especially in the US - ranging from people who are simply interested to the vilest of trolls. The links to the good/great/verifiable sources about the event, the video & print interviews with survivors, that one newsreel (the only film of the destroyed building I am aware of), the online copies of the rare/out-of-print books (if you can even find a copy they're $300-$400 and if there are copies in libraries they're in rare book rooms etc.), the complete copy of the coroner's inquest (found on a website that was overseen by James Daggy from Michigan State) ...all the additional info that isn't used as a direct source in the article...the only way I know to preserve it is to include it here for safekeeping. Much of the info about the disaster was initially posted online on websites that have since gone defunct but whose information is preserved in the Wayback Machine. I ran down all the reliable sources I could find beyond the websites to use as direct references but overall I feel a responsibility to history to, in a way, preserve the chain of custody of the information. Hope that all explains my thoughts on the subject. Let me know if you'd like further discussion about it - Shearonink (talk) 19:15, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As long as reasons for exceptions to the WP:EL guideline and WP:NOTLINKFARM policy are reasonable, and the section is formatted and annotated per WP:ELMAYBE (Unusually large pages or ones that include file formats that will require plug-ins should be annotated as such.)(and other sections of the guideline), then it is fine. I trust that you can read and follow the guideline/policies linked there, just wanted to highlight them in case you need to make any changes. Specifically regarding ...the only way I know to preserve it is to include it here for safekeeping, as long as it follows the WP:NOTLINKFARM policy of Wikipedia is neither a mirror nor a repository of links, images, or media files then it is fine. I leave it to you to make that analysis and decision. Kees08 (Talk) 21:20, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Kees08 I have removed 3 of the links, do you think that additional editing needs to be done to that section? I'm not sure if your opinion is a Support or not... Shearonink (talk) 15:03, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It was just a comment, I probably will not do a full review. Kees08 (Talk) 16:03, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Kees08 I removed another link in External links - so that's 4 links in total that I've removed. Let me know if this is sufficient. Shearonink (talk) 18:42, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am a pretty straightforward individual, I really do mean that if you think it complies with EL, then we are good to go, and I don't mean to imply that I don't think it complies with EL. So if you think they are good, you are good to go on this point :). Kees08 (Talk) 20:09, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. To get rid of those 4 I had to think like a writer and "kill my darlings" lol. Shearonink (talk) 21:05, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 19:17, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • We usually require consistent hyphenation/non-hyphenation of ISBNs (either all hyphenated or all not hyphenated); right now there is a mix. I use the hyphenator tool to accomplish this. If you use it, make sure you preview and verify the edit is what you want.
Done. Shearonink (talk) 19:24, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • As of this diff, refs 6 and 49 are to the same source but different page numbers; I have not seen this in any previous FACs but it might be okay. I am used to shortened citations like sfn or the citation style of rp.
Re: FA ref criteria I had always thought as long as the referencing is consistent is the main point. Shearonink (talk) 19:17, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This made me curious enough I looked up the relevant guideline, which is apparently at WP:IBID. It is a guideline and explicitly says that most editors combine them, but does not say it should or has to be done (most Wikipedia editors use one of three options). So I suppose it is your call on how you want them displayed, if you like it how it is, keep it like that. Kees08 (Talk) 20:15, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I finally broke down recently and bought myself a full Newspaper.com subscription but I don't know how to make clips. Am a little woozy atm from dental work so can't quite wrap my brain around how to do the clips. Just saw your offer below - YAY. Shearonink (talk) 21:05, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In citation 68, www.lansingstatejournal.com is not needed. Same goes for other citations that included the url, unless the url is the website's name, such as Spaceflight101.com
I think I've fixed all of those. Please let me know if I missed any. Shearonink (talk) 19:17, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The open access link is not needed in ref 65; links are assumed open by default
Fixed. Shearonink (talk) 19:17, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • For ref 28, I usually use via=Google News instead of news.google.com
Fixed. Shearonink (talk) 19:17, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Am recovering from dental work - in these days of COVID-19 - so will go through the rest of your ref suggestions as soon as I am able - maybe later today. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 18:42, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, no rush. Looks like you got most of them. If you need someone to clip the Newspapers.com, just list the links here and I can clip them all in a couple of minutes. Kees08 (Talk) 20:09, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Kees08 Oh! that would be awesome - THANK YOU. Just saw this post... 2 of the newspapers.com refs are already clips, so here are the other links:
Heart-rending Scenes Occur at Dynamited School The News-Herald (Franklin, Pennsylvania), Page 12, May 20, 1927
clip
38 Persons, Page 1, Greenville News, May 19, 1927
Page 1
Page 14 (this one ends oddly, but I can't find any more on the page)
I looked around that page and the succeeding pages and couldn't find the missing text. I think a few words were cut off in the original version and the proofreaders didn't catch it. Shearonink (talk) 23:04, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Friends Offer Aid, Baltimore Sun, Page 12, May 21, 1927
Clip
Forty-One Killed When Fiend BLowes Up School, Los Angeles Times, Page 1, May 19, 1927
Page 1
Page 2
Property of Maniac, Ironwood Daily Globe, Page 8, March 26 1930
This is the clip, so you are good here
43 Dead, 43 Hurt, United Press International in Brooklyn Daily Times/Times Union (Brooklyn, NY), Page 1, May 19, 1927
clip
I think this is all of them. Thank you again, this is a big help. Shearonink (talk) 21:05, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Should be all of them. Kees08 (Talk) 21:36, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Kees08 I have a question. For all these newspapers.com refs I also have Wayback Machine URLs and am trying to do an archive-url for these clips...but am having trouble figuring out how to do that. Any ideas? Shearonink (talk) 22:55, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Kees08 Got all the clips into the refs. Took out the one archive-url. Thanks again - Shearonink (talk) 00:40, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Davey2010

[edit]

Unfortunately I never comment or work on FACs so am clueless as to the expectations but from here It looks a perfect article, Well written and very well detailed,
Shearonink you've done an amazing job with this article and should be proud of it, I'd support this being a featured article, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 18:42, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from 7&6=thirteen

[edit]

Great article on one of the first acts of domestic (US) terrorism. I copy edited it, FWIW.
Interesting that you use the formatting you do. I would want to put in a bibliography, and use WP:SFN. See for example, S.W. Randall Toyes and Giftes. But under WP:CITEVAR that is your decision.
Other than that, I think this is a worthy candidate on an important subject. It should be a Wikipedia FA, IMO. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:51, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This copyedit introduced multiple problems, and changed the tone. I fixed some,[7] but there is more. There is also overlinking. My suggestion is to revert (and to remind editors to take care when ceing an article at FAC, as this is moving in the wrong direction ... most of these changes were personal preference, and some are not an improvement). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:39, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
They were suggestions. I chose to be WP:Bold. Some will stay; some will go. Reasonable minds may differ. YMMV. Thanks for fixing those two typos. Best regards. 7&6=thirteen (☎)
I tweaked and wikified multiple references. I think they are now in good shape. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:51, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We should take the books, move them to a Bibliography section, and used Harvard citations with WP:SFN. This is very clearly good practice for the Grant Parker book. Per WP:CITEVAR, I am posting this on the talk page. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:33, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
7&6=thirteen - I appreciate your thoughts on this and thank you for posting here before possibly changing the established style. There's a reason that Bath School disaster doesn't use Harvard cites (besides any possible natural evolution in the life of the article)... Almost every single time I go to an article that uses them (and because I have "User:Ucucha/HarvErrors.js" installed) I almost always see badly-mangled references with lots of Harv errors & Harv warnings. Most people who edit Wikipedia - not experienced editors, they "get" it - but most people who edit Wikipedia don't understand how to construct sfn/sfnm or harvnb or harvtxt and their relatives so when they wade into an article that uses them they end up mangling refs and breaking things, then someone else has to go in and clean up the mess. Since I seem to be the main editor who keeps an eye on this article I'd rather not deal with the constant updating and fixing that any of the various forms of parenthetical referencing will almost certainly entail. This article gets spurts of heavy editing and vandalism whenever there is a similar school attack, or near its anniversary date or around the anniversaries of any of the more well-known school attacks like Columbine or the Virginia Tech massacre or the Sandy Hill school shooting. Yes, I do know how to construct Harvard cites and they are easy to use but in my opinion they're a b*tch to maintain. The present referencing on this article is easy to maintain, easy to use, and easy to fix if any issues pop up. Shearonink (talk) 14:07, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. I don't introduce Harvard errors. But since I don't get paid to edit, and have no vested interest in this, it was a suggestion. This article is unduly messy, but that is only my opinion. I've said what I've said; have it your way. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:13, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. All I was trying to speak to is the probability that many people who come to Wikipedia and are new/inexperienced/just passing through or maybe even are mostly only familiar with the cite web family don't understand the nomenclature or the coding that sfn et al entail. And my experience is anecdotal and not empirical in any sense. Shearonink (talk) 14:32, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from MarnetteD

[edit]

I too find it well written and thorough. Shearonink is there more info about the 2011 documentary available? Specifically the the title and whether it was shown in theaters or aired on TV network like PBS or even a streaming service. Thanks for your and others for your work on this article. MarnetteD|Talk 21:44, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The 2011/2012 Matt/Matthew Martyn Bath School Disaster documentary had a screening at the 2012 Capital City Film Festival in Lansing, Michigan: [8], [9], & [10]., but the documentary is not listed on IMDb and I have been unable to find any other distribution. Mr. Martyn is a co-founder/co-owner of a film production business HQ'ed in the Chicago area.. Shearonink (talk) 22:39, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the info S. If any of these details can be used in the article that might help a reader who has the same questions that I did. OTOH if it is too sketchy to pass muster than things can be left as they are. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 23:22, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Did MarnetteD read the version before the grammatical errors were introduced (above) or after? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:41, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I read this version. MarnetteD|Talk 01:44, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review from Grapple X

[edit]

Sampling sources randomly; I'm checking these for close paraphrasing too—if I don't raise an issue with paraphrasing then I'm happy it's not a problem.

  • Ref 10: Both instances accurate to source. 10a supports "He complained about his taxes being too high" which is a little close to source's "Mr Kehoe began to complain about his taxes being so high"; it's only a minor piece of text but worth looking at.
Fixed. Shearonink (talk) 16:36, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 16: No issues
  • Ref 30: Used for an embedded quote, speaks for itself
  • Ref 60: Accurate both times used.
  • Ref 67: Doesn't mention the statue being displayed anywhere--it's a perfectly valid source for the existence of the museum in the middle school, which it's also used for, but there's no mention of its contents. Could we back this up with another source on the statue or reword the section accordingly?
Not a problem - Done. Shearonink (talk) 16:36, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 70: Going only on the quote provided; seems fine. Source says only "most" are named, is there an omission we should clarify or am I misreading this?
  • Ref 73: Used accurately in both instances.

By and large happy with sourcing here—have had to assume good faith on a lot of book sources as even the Google Books links were unavailable here. Reference formatting is perhaps unusual but is valid and uniform so no issues there; however there are just a few points to address above. Gʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ˣ 14:39, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for checking the refs Grapple X - greatly appreciated. Shearonink (talk)

Qualified support from The Huhsz

[edit]

I read it through and made some trifling edits, one of which was reverted. I am perfectly fine with this; on reflection I think it is ok to state in a footnote that a certain spelling is used "in this article". I am unhappy with the long sidebar list of the dead; what is the encyclopedic purpose of this? If we must have it, could it be collapsible? At present it slightly dominates and clutters the article. But that doesn't lead me to oppose. The article tells the story well and comprehensively, is well-written and well sourced. Nice work. --The Huhsz (talk) 22:07, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I suggest the list is distracting and should be collapsed. I tried to do that, but apparently put it somewhere in the wrong spot, and inflicted unintended collateral damage. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:32, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Remembering the dead is a large part of the Bath School disaster's history. With all the Wikipedia space that's devoted to the perpetrator - both in this article and in his own article, it doesn't seem untoward to also have a plainly-seen list of the people he killed in the article, the people whose deaths made him notable. All of the sources I have consulted go into detail about the victims...Hazel Weatherby the teacher who was found with a child under each arm, Cleo Clayton the boy who survived the school blast but was then killed by the truck explosion, etc. Monty Ellsworth, in Bath School Disaster (the first book written about the events), devoted a whole section to listing out the dead with paragraphs or even pages about each person, Grant Parker in his book Mayday listed out the dead and the injured and so did Arnie Bernstein in his book Bath Massacre. The Village of Bath put up a memorial stone with all the victim's names listed and the aftermath section in the article itself is about the deaths of the victims (and recovering survivors).
A plainly-seen list of the dead has been present in the article since 2006, I would be loath to hide it. Shearonink (talk) 14:25, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

:::I thought this was probably the motivation for the list. Wikipedia is not a memorial for the dead. Would it be acceptable to move this to a footnote or a collapsible table? I would, on the other hand, welcome more referenced material which actually tells the story of individual victims or survivors. But a list of names,especially such a long one, doesn't seem encyclopedic. --The Huhsz (talk) 16:24, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTMEMORIAL states:
Subjects [bolding mine] of encyclopedia articles must satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirements. Wikipedia is not the place to memorialize deceased friends, relatives, acquaintances, or others who do not meet such requirements.
So, it speaks to individual articles about deceased persons not to possibly including names of deceased persons in an article on a notable subject. Is "doesn't seem encyclopedic" a valid-enough reason? Shearonink (talk) 18:35, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

:::::::A valid enough reason to do what? I am not opposing this otherwise excellent article's promotion, merely registering that I am unhappy with the prominence of this list of people who, as you rightly say, are not (even close to) notable in their own right. As I say, I think it would be better to have this collapsible or less prominent. It's a big bit of the article at present, and it tells the reader what? That there were loads of deaths? But they already knew that, the number's in the infobox. That they had names? No, I'm not getting why this has to be such a prominent feature of the article. It's a matter of editorial judgement, with which at least one other editor concurs. Rather than being defensive, you should at least consider taking the suggestions on board. But it isn't a reason to oppose. --The Huhsz (talk) 20:24, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry that my wording above came across as defensive, I thought I was just discussing the issue but apparently not reasonably enough. Apologies. OK, yes, of course I will think about it. I'll take another couple hard looks at the article today and tomorrow and see what I come up with. Heh, if you think it is too prominent now you should know that at one time at the top of the box it had a green background behind the "Killed in the disaster" and took up even more space. Thank you for your thoughts on the issue, greatly appreciated. - Shearonink (talk) 21:14, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I assume there is more information on individual victims. If there is, a separate article might be a good solution. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:04, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Are you proposing a Wikipedia article only about the victims? The 38 grade-school/elementary-school children, the 2 young teachers, the school superintendent and the various townspeople? I doubt they fulfill WP:GNG enough on their own to be the subjects of a WP article or List, unlike Victims of the White Ship disaster and this event wasn't part of a shared national trauma unlike Emergency workers killed in the September 11 attacks. I don't think there is enough biographical material about these people to carry an article but I don't completely understand why their names shouldn't be included in an article that is ultimately about their deaths... Shearonink (talk) 18:35, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have not kept up lately with MOS, but collapsible side bars were once discouraged by MOS and in FAC; content should not be hidden. And I see nothing wrong with the list. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:48, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Very well, and your edit summary is noted. I withdraw my comment; you're right, it's not actionable and if I feel strongly enough about it (doubtful) I will take to the talk page after the article is promoted. As I said right at the top, it's a splendid article and I support its promotion. Even though I agree with 7&6 about Harvard referencing being neater. Congratulations on the article. --The Huhsz (talk) 21:54, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is fairly discrete, appearing at the lower right end of the article. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:31, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's probably "discreet" you mean there, User:7&6=thirteen. But it's a matter of taste and not a bar to promotion, as noted above. --The Huhsz (talk) 21:54, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coord comment

[edit]

Did we get an image review and I'm just being blind? --Ealdgyth (talk) 14:54, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ealdgyth I am pretty sure Nikkimaria was involved pre-FAC; checking with her. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:07, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
John M Wolfson commentated "While I didn't look too far into each individual image, the media seems appropriately licensed." above, which may have deterred potential reviewers, unsure whether this would be considered an image review or not. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:15, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If anyone looking in on this FAC wants to know about the images (especially their permissions & sources) please refer to the extensive discussion about the images I had with Clindberg and SusunW - who were both the most awesome of helpers - which can be found at: Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2020/March#Need some help finding actual sources of images. Cheers, Shearonink (talk) 15:26, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Shearonink, I feel better about having someone like Nikkimaria look into that. (Also, if this is promoted, she will help assure it is handled correctly at WP:FFA-- see my note at the top of this page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:40, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at images in late February; assuming nothing has changed since then (Shearonink?) they should be good to go. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:56, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Nikkimaria. Nothing has changed. All the sources/permissions/research into copyright & original sources still stand. Shearonink (talk) 16:22, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I was of the opinion that the "I didn't look too far into each individual image" implied that it would not be considered an image review, but rather a simple screen pending a full review by someone like Nikkimaria. Per her, though, it appears that everything is in order, so all's well that ends well. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:19, 28 March 2020 (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 Ealdgyth via FACBot (talk) 29 March 2020 [11].

Argentinosaurus

[edit]
Nominator(s): Slate Weasel, Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:02, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The possibly largest known dinosaur. Argentinosaurus was described in 1993 by the important paleontologist José Bonaparte, who sadly passed away this week. The article is a GA, got a GOCE copy edit, and a thorough peer-review. We are looking forward to any comments. Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:58, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I probably should add that this is also my first time at FAC. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 12:10, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I did a pre-FAC peer review on the talk page with the FAC criteria in mind, and it looks good to me now. As one additional point, the life restorations and size diagrams should probably have citations in the Commons descriptions, stating that they match published reconstructions and size estimates. FunkMonk (talk) 01:54, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Suggest scaling up several of the images, particularly the diagrams
How wide should they be? (I assume that you mean adding something along the lines of adding "|500px|" to the wikitext) --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 12:10, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, this shouldn't be done using a fixed px size, but rather |upright=. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:06, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done; hope this looks good now. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:12, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest adding alt text
Added. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:12, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Argentinosaurus_BW.jpg would benefit from sourcing
I'm not sure what the author originally used for proportional references, but perhaps Steveoc 86 can tell us what he used as a guide for updating it? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 12:10, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm doing a minor update to that image and will update the description to include reference info.Steveoc 86 (talk) 22:54, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looks great, thanks! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 06:31, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what to do here. Pinging FunkMonk for advice. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 12:10, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done; I just repaired the link. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:12, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

[edit]

Nb: I intend to claim points for this review at the WikiCup.

I have done a little copy editing, which you will want to check.

  • The skeletal reconstruction tells a reader what the white and the green represents; what about the grey and the blue?
 Done --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 00:06, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • References: at a skim, The Princeton Field Guide to Dinosaurs lacks a publisher; Dinosaurs: The Most Complete, Up-to-Date Encyclopedia for Dinosaur Lovers of All Ages lacks a publisher location; as does Revision of South American Titanosaurid Dinosaurs: Palaeobiological, Palaeobiogeographical and Phylogenetic Aspects; and Apesteguía; ISBNs are inconsistently hyphenated. There may be others.
 Done --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 19:00, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "about 8 km (5.0 mi) east of Plaza Huincul" Could we lose the ".0"?
 Done --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 00:08, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I shall try to do a full review tomorrow. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:39, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • "39.7 metres" seems spuriously accurate. What does the source say? Similarly "Holtz gave a higher length estimate of 36.6 metres" in the main text.
You are absolutely right that this is false precision, but this is what the sources give. I guess this is because these estimations commonly do not include an error calculation. We can of course round it, but then we would deviate from the source, and this can come with WP:OR issues. We already had discussions on this issue; the consensus always was that we should give the precision of the source. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:06, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's fine. I was just demonstrating that I was paying attention. If the sources are being silly, then I agree that all we can do is pass their silliness along.
  • "Additional specimens include" Optional: → 'Further specimens included'.
  • "and Argentine palaeontologist Rodolfo Coria" Suggest 'and Argentine the palaeontologist Rodolfo Coria' to avoid false title. (Likewise in the main text.)
Do you mean "the Argentine palaeontologist"? I've changed this and all comparable occurences to that form within the article now. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 22:01, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oops. I do, I do. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:34, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The verb tense in the second third paragraph of the lead seems a little odd. "Arguments revolved around": why is the past tense used? Are the arguments now resolved? "though the model needed some improvement" I really don't know what this is trying to communicate. (Although I may slap my forehead once you tell me.) "and contained a diverse dinosaur fauna" - do they no longer contain it?
I'm not totally sure here either. Pinging Jens Lallensack. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 19:00, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This still needs resolving.
Tricky, yes. "Arguments revolved around" because we are talking about published papers here. All these arguments were presented in the past. However, this is indeed a case of ongoing debate, the last paper on the topic was published recently. Changed it to present tense. "The model needed some improvement" was meant to emphasise the preliminary nature of the model, but removed this now. The last point, "contained a diverse dinosaur fauna", is past tense because all that stuff has been excavated already. We don't know whats in the formation before excavating it. I would be totally fine with using present tense here though if you recommend it. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:35, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I can see how one might wish to use contained to fit in with "deposited", and if pushed hard I would back off, but I feel that 'contain' works better for our mythical average reader.
Changed accordingly. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 10:07, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image caption: "Size comparison of selected giant sauropod dinosaurs, Argentinosaurus in red and second from the right" Cough!
Oops.  Done --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 21:38, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The mass of the blue whale, however, still exceeds that of all known sauropods." It may be helpful to a reader to be told what the mass of a blue whale is.
 Done --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 19:00, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "As in many other titanosaurs, the vertebrae were cancellous (internally lightened by numerous small air-filled chambers), which was possibly related to increased body size and neck length" OK, so I know why it is possibly related, but you ought to tell a general reader.
Added explanation. Hopefully this helps. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 19:00, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link hyposphene-hypantrum articulations.
This is already linked on its first mention. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 19:00, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:37, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • "it differed from typical titanosaurids in the presence of hyposphene-hypantrum articulations" "in the presence of" doesn't look very user friendly for the lay reader. Maybe 'in possessing' or similar?
In a previous nomination, I was advised against the use of the verb "possess" in this context; will therefore change to "in having", hope this works. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:06, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine.
  • "that included more derived (evolved) members of Titanosauria" A genuine query, should that be 'that included the more derived (evolved) members of Titanosauria'?
Probably better, fixed. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:06, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "to extract a maximum of energy and increased protection against predators" A comma after "energy" would be helpful.
 Done --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 22:01, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "size increases in the evolution of sauropods were commonly followed by size increases of their predators" 1. What does "size increases in the evolution of sauropods" mean. I see what you are getting at, but maybe reword?
Does "increase in sauropod size over time" sound better? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 22:01, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It does. Could you make it so?
  • "It was originally reported from the Huincul Group of the Río Limay Formation" maybe "reported from" → 'excavated from' or 'found in' or similar?
Well, here "reported from" is used in the sense of "it was said to come from." I'm using "originally" here because these deposits were later renamed, so I think that changing reported to excavted might make it sound like the fossils were later dug up somewhere else. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 22:01, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK.
  • "Vertebrates are most commonly found in the lower region of the formation." Maybe add ', and therefore older' after "lower"? (And should "region" be plural?)
Added, region here describes the entire lower part of the formation. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 22:01, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link form. (From "and some unnamed forms.")
Hmm... I'm not sure if that's the definition of "form" I was aiming for - I've changed it to variety. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 22:01, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Several iguanodonts were also present in the Huincul Formation." "were"?
Changed to "are" --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 22:01, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work. Very readable. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:34, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all. I see steady work on this. Could you ping me when you're ready for me to go through your responses? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:34, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apesteguía still lacks a publisher location.
  • ISBNs are still inconsistently hyphenated.
Question @Gog the Mild: Can/should we really unify ISBN hyphenation? The hyphens (block size) have a meaning, and WP:ISBN states: Use hyphens if they are included, as they divide the number into meaningful parts; the placement of hyphens varies between books. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 08:37, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Most reviewers interperate that as requiring consistency within an article. However, so long as you have consistently copied the hyphenation/spacing in the actual work I am happy. (Other reviewers may differ.)
  • Is Argentinosaurus singular or plural? I am thinking of "The fragmentary nature of Argentinosaurus remains make their interpretation difficult."
Here "their" refers to the remains, I believe, not Argentinosaurus itself. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 20:31, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Got it. OK.

I like all of your changes. One unaddressed point outstanding above, and the three minor issues immediately above. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:47, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for being so slow with this. Lately real life was quite stressful. I'm on it. Thank you so much for all those comments. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:16, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not a problem. So far as I am concerned you can take as long as you wish. And you definitely made the correct decision in commenting on my FAC rather than responding on your own. :-) Gog the Mild (talk) 20:29, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: We have addressed everything now I hope. Please let us know if there are further queries! Thanks for your help, --Jens Lallensack (talk) 10:07, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That all looks good to me. Nice work. A fine, readable and informative article. Supporting. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:49, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

[edit]
  • "Argentinosaurus is widely considered one of the largest-known land animals of all time". I do not like "widely considered". There can only be a comparatively small number of people qualified to give an opinion. I suggest deleting "widely considered".
True, removed.
  • " A scientific excavation of this site". "this site" implies that you have mentioned a site before. How about "the site"?
OK, changed.
  • "The [[horse gait|pace gait]] links to an article which does not explain pace gait.
The link takes you directly to the relevant article section "Pace" which is about the pace gait only. The section starts directly with an explanation/definition: "The pace is a lateral two-beat gait. In the pace, the two legs on the same side of the horse move forward together". Should we explain it also in the Argentinosaurus article? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:32, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest just changing "In the pace" in the target article to "In the pace gait" for clarity. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:38, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Is this even commonly referred to as a pace gait, Jens Lallensack? To quote the article directly: "However the phase difference was very small and the gaits generated were very close to a pace, particularly when the cycle time was reduced." It seems like this form of locomotion is more commonly referred to just as a pace, so perhaps we should change it in the article to just pace? I've already changed it in Palaeobiology, but I'm not sure what to do with the lead ("with a pace" sounds kind of strange). Perhaps "when pacing"? I must admit that I'm no expert on horse gait. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 21:15, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is, see [12]. Just "Pace" works as well of course, but that word also has other meanings so people may wonder what we want to say. "Pace gait" is more comprehensible, I would prefer to keep that. If we should/are allowed to change it in the horse gait article I don't know … We need much more articles on gaits anyways at some point, there is more than just horses. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:28, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I do not find "pace gait" comprehensible and I think you need to either change it in this article or specifically define it either in this article or the article you link to. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:52, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, definition is now also included in the lead, I hope it is clear now! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:18, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The specimen, the holotype of A. huinculensis, is catalogued under the specimen number MCF-PVPH 1.[4] Bonaparte and Coria described the limb bone discovered in 1987 as an eroded tibia (shin bone), although the Uruguayan palaeontologist Gerardo Mazzetta and colleagues reidentified this bone is a left fibula in 2004." This is confusing. You say "The specimen", but only explain what specimen in the next sentence, and then refer to it as a limb bone when you have been more specific above. Maybe "The holotype of A. huinculensis is the fibula discovered in 1987; it is catalogued under the specimen number MCF-PVPH 1.[4] Bonaparte and Coria described it as an eroded tibia (shin bone), but the Uruguayan palaeontologist Gerardo Mazzetta and colleagues reidentified it as a left fibula in 2004, and their interpretation has been generally accepted."
No, all aforementioned bones belong to the holotype specimen. Reorganised now, is it clearer? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:32, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For clarity, I suggest moving the sentence about the holotype to follow "the same individual." and starting a new paragraph for "Separating fossils from the very hard rock..." Dudley Miles (talk) 17:38, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Done --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 18:59, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • You mention many reconstructions. Is there any indication which are most widely accepted?
Not without diving into original research, unfortunately. Possibly the most recent one of Paul (2019) is the best, as it is the most rigorous, but only the future will tell if this is going to be widely accepted. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:32, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The second sacral rib was the largest preserved". The largest of any titanosaur?
No, just the largest in this individual/specimen. Clarified. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:32, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for this review; non-expert reviews are crucial, as only they can highlight ambiguous/confusing parts. That most of the article was too technical to understand is, however, not good news. If you could point out sections that were especially difficult, I will see what I can do. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:32, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is not any particular section, but the number of technical terms. You do link and explain them, but the sheer number of such terms is beyond me - and I think would be beyond most readers - to remember the definitions when reading the whole article. Take a sentence such as "Another contentious issue is the presence of hyposphene-hypantrum articulations, accessory joints between vertebrae that were located below the main articular processes." You link both terms but it would still take investigation for non-expert to work out what it means, and doing that for every technical sentence would make the article slow and difficult to read. The reader will also need to remember the definition of "hyposphene-hypantrum articulations" when the term is used later in the article. These are common problems with technical articles and I do not think there is an easy solution. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:38, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note

[edit]

Has there been a source review? --Ealdgyth (talk) 15:21, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not anything extensive yet. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 15:34, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

Headbomb's tool showed a low-level concern about the several Researchgate refs, so I checked those, and all seem to be of a good quality, no concerns there. All the references were of a suitably academic standard and appropriately used. I checked half a dozen and all confirmed the statements they were referencing. I couldn't see any formatting errors, so all looks good Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:28, 29 March 2020 (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 Ealdgyth via FACBot (talk) 29 March 2020 [13].

Chestnuts Long Barrow

[edit]
Nominator(s): Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:25, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about one of the Medway Megaliths, a series of Early Neolithic long barrows in southeast England. Three of the articles in this series, Coldrum Long Barrow, Smythe's Megalith, and Coffin Stone, are already FAs. Hopefully this article, which has been a GA since 2016, can now join them. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:25, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Jim

[edit]

An excellent article. Just a few nitpicks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:11, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • witnessed inhabitation—"habitation" seems more natural
  • link "iconoclastic" at first occurrence
  • silica sand—Is "silica" necessary? Sand is usually assumed to be mainly silicon dioxide unless otherwise stated
  • You mention acidic soils but there isn't much to suggest why it's acidic. Your source mentions the local geology, perhaps add a sentence
  • I fixed the capitalisation of "Amygdaloideae", but perhaps pipe as "plum family", "stone-fruit trees" or similar
  • Prior to the adoption of this name—no indication whether this was last year or 200 years ago
  • Göbekli Tepe was also built by non-farming hunter-gatherers/foragers, worth mentioning?
  • 2300 but 3,500
  • two hones—perhaps link to sharpening stone. I don't think the noun sense is much used now
  • All clear on duplinks and headbomb/unreliable tools

@Jimfbleak: - Many thanks for taking the time to read through this article and for offering your thoughts. Hope that you found it interesting. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:02, 20 ::February 2020 (UTC)

With regard to the acidity, although Alexander mentions the geology on p. 2., it's not necessarily the case that sands are acidic, although here they clearly are, so best left as is. Happy to ignore Göbekli Tepe, just happened to read it a bit about a couple of days ago. All looks good, and Josh doesn't appear to be finding major issues either, so changed to support above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:49, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Keith D

[edit]
  • Keith D "established order"? Articles on scientific topics are nearly always written with metric first, and I'm sure that you are aware that, unlike in the US, metric is taught in UK schools and frequently used in real life. I've written 70+ FAs and the only time I've put US units first is an article about a specifically US bird species always put metric first. I can't see why this should be switched to your personal preference, and I'd oppose such a change, cheers Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:00, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from JM

[edit]
  • "The Chestnuts Long Barrow, also known as Stony or Long Warren" Stony Warren, presumably? Worth spelling out.
  • I'm really not sure here. I'd actually assumed that it was "Stony", not "Stony Warren", but your comment has got me thinking. The source (Alexander 1961, p. 1) says only "its earlier name was Stony or Long Warren", which could permit either interpretation. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:43, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Archaeologists have established that the monument was built by pastoralist communities" That this monument was built by several communities?
  • No, sorry, I was asking about the claim you were making rather than making a suggestion. Is it really the case that archaeologists have determined that this particular monument was built by multiple communities? I assumed that what you wanted to say was that monuments of this type were built by pastoralist communities, without making any claim about precisely who (i.e., how many communities) built this one. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:00, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suppose the text should specify that it is monuments of this type that were built at this time, as there isn't any specific absolute dating evidence for this particular monument. I've amended the sentence accordingly. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:04, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Three further surviving long barrows, Kit's Coty House, the Little Kit's Coty House, and the Coffin Stone," It's disputed whether the Coffin Stone is a long barrow, isn't it?
  • "by medieval robbers" Earlier you suggested that they may have been robbers; why the certainty now?
  • "He suggested that these megaliths were covered with sand until the capstones were placed atop the chamber, at which the sand was then cleared" At which time? This doesn't read right to me.
  • I've changed this sentence to the following: "He suggested that the long barrow's builders kept the megaliths in place by filling the chamber with sand. Once the capstone was placed atop and the chamber was stable, he thought, the builders would have removed the supporting sand." Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:53, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in the drystone wall" What drystone wall? Also, isn't it dry stone rather than drystone?
    The wall is introduced at the end of the previous paragraph; do you think we need to expand on this in the article? The source itself used "drystone" as one word rather than two, although our Wikipedia article is titled "Dry stone". I've changed it to the two-word option (although have no particular preference either way) and have also added a Wikilink to our article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:47, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    So you did; apologies. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:00, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Back later. Josh Milburn (talk) 07:39, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Many archaeologists have suggested that the construction of these monuments reflects an attempt to mark control and ownership over the land, thus reflecting a change in mindset brought about by the transition from the hunter-gatherer Mesolithic to the pastoralist Early Neolithic." You claim many but cite one; does Hutton claim/cite many? If I was being critical, I'd say this subsection was a little heavy on weasel words.
  • I think sherd and daub are jargon. I'd recommend a link or explanation at first mention.
  • "The existence of Chestnuts Long Barrow has been known since the 18th century." Known to antiquarians, maybe? It was clearly known in the middle ages...
  • "During the late 19th century, the field in which the barrow is located was used as a paddock.[2]" Does this not belong in the "subsequent use" section? This may not be the only example of this in that section.
  • Yes, I think it certainly does. I've moved it. There are also some sentences which could be moved ("In 1953, the archaeologist Leslie Grinsell reported that several small trees and bushes had grown up within the megaliths.[102] That year, the field was prepared for horticultural use, being levelled and ploughed, although the area around the megaliths was left undisturbed.") but which chronologically slot in better in their current location. I'm not completely averse to moving these too, if you think it advisable? Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:01, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Colebrooke source - technically, I don't think you need archive or access information as the link is a courtesy link. Your citation would be fine without it - you're citing the journal, not the archived web page.
  • Your Killick reference seems to be in a different format to the others?
  • I don't really like the inclusion of publishers for journals, but I suppose it's doing no harm. If I was being really picky, I might note that a lot of them are published by university presses, rather than solely by scholarly societies.

I think this is a great article - with a comparatively full bibliography! I am taking part in the WikiCup. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:21, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, per WP:LEADLENGTH, your lead is too long! Josh Milburn (talk) 17:33, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also also, I wonder if, compositionally, the Geograph photo might be the best of the lead? It gives perhaps the best impression of the whole structure. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:35, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think you're right; it would work better in the lede. I've swapped the two images around. It's a shame we don't have any better quality photographs of the site. The fact that it is on private land and (at least at present) does not appear to be open to visitors obviously makes this more difficult. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:49, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your time and attention, Josh. I'll respond to your other two points soon. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:04, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've responded to everything now, Josh. Was there anything else that you'd like me to take a look at in the article? Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:58, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support - no further comments! Josh Milburn (talk) 14:02, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Red King

[edit]
  • Dimensions: abbreviate or don't abbreviate, 'X kilometres (Y mi)' looks amateurish (and I don't understand why it is default behaviour of template:convert!). So use either {{convert|10|km|abbr=on}} or {{convert|10|km|abbr=off}} (which produce 10 km (6.2 mi) or 10 kilometres (6.2 miles) ).
If anyone is interested, there is an explanation of why template:convert behaves as it does, at Template talk:Convert#Inconsistent abbreviation. It is intended behaviour. --Red King (talk) 23:56, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Passive voice is best avoided unless it is utterly unimportant who did it "an MRI scan was taken of the suspected area" is ok but "In 1961, it was noted" is certainly not (tagged). Whenever I see passive voice, I expect wp:WEASEL.
  • 'The chambers were constructed from sarsen,' tagged as needing citation.

My only other thought has been said already: the lead is disproportionately large. Otherwise, a well-written piece. --Red King (talk) 23:31, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for taking the time to read through this, Red King. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:39, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • I'd certainly be happy if someone was able to create a better quality image here although I don't personally have the skills or software to do so, unfortunately. That's why the maps I produce are a bit basic. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:02, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie

[edit]

I'll copyedit as I go through; please revert anything you disagree with. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:32, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think the "Name and location" section could be compressed and simplified, but I'd rather not do it myself since it will mean moving citations around. Here's a suggested rewording:
    Chestnuts Long Barrow is a scheduled ancient monument, standing on private land belonging to a neighbouring house. It lies on the slope of a hill and borrows its name from the Chestnuts, an area of woodland that crowns the hill; it had been previously known as Stony Warren or Long Warren. The barrow is located in the greensand belt, 30 metres (100 feet) above sea level. The underlying geology is a soft sandstone covered with a stratum of white sand.
I don't think you need the name of the house, which is never mentioned again, and there's no need to mention John Alexander for the old names -- that's in the citation.
  • I think you've put together a good paragraph there, and I have used it as the basis for some alterations. However, I have kept the name of the house, as I think it is potentially pertinent information. I have also made some amendments to your proposed wording to make it clear that the term "Chestnuts Long Barrow" is mid-20th century in origin. Also, as noted above, it is unclear if the barrow as known as "Stony" or "Stony Warren", so I've gone with the former to be on the safe side. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:45, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think we need caps for "Scheduled Ancient Monument", do we? I see it lowercased in sources. Re "Stony Warren": a Google search will find it that name in a Kentish Archaeology Society index; and if that's not enough, if you find "The Pilgrim's Way" by Seán Jennett on Google Books you'll see "Chestnuts, the (Stony Warren)" in the index, so I think we're safe to make it explicit to the reader. It also shows up in Everitt & Everitt, "Continuity and Colonization: The Evolution of Kentish Settlement", again via Google Books. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:53, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're right, lower-case is best here. Also, thank you for finding the reference to "Stone Warren"! (rather foolishly, I hadn't thought to google it...). I'll make the changes in the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:53, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not a big deal, but do you think we really need the quotes from Philp & Dutto, and Ashbee, about the Medway Megaliths? This isn't the overview article about those. Cutting the quotes would let you combine that paragraph with the next one which would flow well.
  • In the two paragraphs starting "The Medway long barrows all conformed..." and "These common architectural features..." I'd suggest moving the sentence about the heights up to join the other sentences about similarities.
  • I'm not sure on this one. I feel that the sentence could work in either of the two paragraphs. If you think that there is a definite advantage to placing it in the paragraph titled "The Medway long barrows all conformed..." then I certainly have no objection, but I don't necessarily see any clear improvement to this. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:28, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Up to you -- I'm certainly not going to oppose over it -- but I was thinking that it would be natural to draw the inference that the common features indicate regional cohesion after listing all the commonalities. Moving that sentence out of the way would let you combine the commonality sentence with the following "Nevertheless..." in a natural way. Perhaps "...elsewhere in the British Isles, though as with other regional groupings...". It just feels to me that the sentence where it is now interrupts that thought. But if you feel it's better where it is, that's your call.
  • In the last paragraph of the Medway Megaliths section you list various opinions about stylistic connections to other groups of megaliths; is there a reason to omit Alexander who (pp. 14-18) considers them to be "an outlier of the Atlantic Coast complex"?
  • How about including a clip of the southwest corner of this map, which is expired Crown copyright? You don't currently have a map showing the location at that scale, and it also shows Addington Long Barrow (at least, I assume that's what that is).
  • These were arranged as two trilithons. This isn't wrong, but I had to read Alexander to actually understand the layout; perhaps a bit more explanation such as "two trilithons, next to each other, so that the two lintel stones formed the roof of the chamber". Now I do understand it I'm not sure you're reflecting it correctly in the diagram. You show three wall stones on each side, but Alexander's Plan II doesn't show this -- L, for example, he considers to have been a fallen piece of V. Am I missing something?
  • On your first point, I agree. More detail would be helpful here, and I think your proposed wording will work well, so I've added that into the article.
  • On your second point; the (admittedly quite basic) plan I put together is based heavily on Ashbee's plan, itself presented as being modelled on Alexander's (page 7). However, comparing Ashbee's plan with Alexander's, it is clear that there is the discrepancy regarding the number of stones in the chamber which you highlighted. I'll work on creating a new plan based directly on Alexander. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:24, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've now redone the new plan and added it into the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:12, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    That looks much better. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:03, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In File:Chestnuts Long Barrow.png, does the test "Area in which..." label the black line below the barrow? That's not very clear, and even if it does, I'm not entirely sure what it means -- why wouldn't that be a closed shape, rather than open at the top? I think it's because the western and southern edges of the barrow weren't detectable, but what you have doesn't really convey that.
  • The wording I used on the plan was based on that in Ashbee's plan ("outline of spread barrow remnant") but considering the issue further, it seems apparent that what this area actually encompassed by the black line actually refers to is the area in which material from the chamber was found, not from the whole of the barrow. So the wording I have used is misleading here.. Would you recommend that I simply get rid of that black line altogether in the plan? Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:24, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you were right to get rid of it; details are in Alexander for those interested, and it's not the sort of thing a reader encountering the topic for the first time needs to know. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:03, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also in that picture, you describe the black stones as "found erect and in place", but Alexander records straightening at least one or two of the wall stones, so I think this needs to be hedged.
  • I think the plan PNG should have a source, since it gives explicit information not easy to cross-reference to the sourcing in the text.
  • a large stone, designated 'G' by excavators: unless I missed it, this is the only place you use the letters given by Alexander. I'd cut this if there's no other reference in the article. One place you might use it would be the photos of the site; if so I think you'd have to add the labels to the PNG plan so the reader could cross-reference.
  • A dry stone within the chamber wall would have also blocked access: a couple of problems here: "dry stone" is a building method, so I think you probably meant to say "dry stone wall"; and do you really mean "within the chamber wall"? Alexander indicated it would have blocked the west end of the chamber, didn't he?
  • You might consider using Alexander's Plate I under fair use as a "before" picture, for comparison with the two pictures you have of the current site.
  • The west-looking photo is quite poor quality. I don't think I'd oppose on that basis but if it can be improved that would be good.
  • We could certainly do with some better quality photographs. Unfortunately, these seem to be the only ones we have on Wikimedia Commons at present; I couldn't find any better ones on Geograph either, although it can be hoped that some better images might be produced in future. The fact that the site no longer seems to be open to the public in any form does not help matters. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:21, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the "Design and construction" section you use "X suggested that" a lot. How about using language like "The earthen mound was probably constructed before the chamber", or "these may have been once placed in the chamber but later removed...", with the citation providing the person making the suggestion? These are experts and their suggestions are not controversial, though we shouldn't present them as definite facts. Similarly in the earlier section that speculates about connections to other megaliths, how much value does the reader get from the names, particularly if they are unlinked, so that the reader can't find out more about them? Another example: From the excavation, archaeologists expressed the view that the barrow was probably trapezoidal or D-shaped...: I think this just refers to Alexander; could we cut this to just "The barrow was probably trapezoidal or D-shaped..."?
  • I've made the amendment you suggest here on "probably trapezoidal"; I'm not so sure on some of the other points. When it comes to the names at the earlier juncture in the article, it is possible that articles will be established about these individuals in future. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:32, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I wouldn't oppose over this, but just to clarify: my feeling is that the goal of paragraphs like these is to tell the reader what the consensus (or lack of consensus) of archaeological thought is on this sort of thing. We shouldn't add information in the middle of that explanation unless it helps the reader. If the archaeologists involved are not notable; if there's no mention of a back-and-forth debate about differing points of view; if the reader doesn't learn anything from the mention of the names, are we really doing the reader a favour? I know there's a editing reflex to attribute opinions inline, but I don't think that really applies here -- this is not "Famous singer said their spouse was cheating on them"; it's an academic statement supported by a reliable source. But if you prefer it as it is, that's fine. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:16, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the foreground of the site, excavators found: do you mean "forecourt"?
  • Is "tall-stones" a typo for "wall-stones"? I understood it but I thought the latter was the usual term.
  • Not sure how this should be handled, but since Alexander doesn't mention the fire-and-water breaking of the wall-stones, it might not have been known in 1961, which means that citing his denial of iconoclasm as a reason for the breakage is a little misleading, placed as it is after Ashbee's comments.
  • The breaking up of stones with fire and water was something that William Stukeley had recorded at Avebury, back in the 18th century (if my memory serves me correctly). While I couldn't say for sure that Alexander knew of Stukeley's reports (which had been published), it would seem likely. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:57, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Having just read the Ashbee papers I see that reference. This is bothering me a bit. Could we reverse the order and have Alexander's explanation first? Then when we give Ashbee's opinion -- and here is a case where I do think the names are relevant, because of the details of the disagreement -- we can say that Alexander does not mention the possibility of fire and water damage. Incidentally, looking through Ashbee's comments in his 1993 paper, I think his point about the Close Roll slightings having been inflicted on round barrows, not long barrows, is worth including in the discussion in the article. I haven't looked at the papers Ashbee cites on that point; it might be interesting to see how definite that distinction is, but Ashbee is quite clear on the point and I think it strengthens his argument to include it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:28, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can certainly reverse the order that we present the two arguments, that isn't a problem. I'm not so sure whether it's worth bringing in a distinction between round barrows and long barrows here. The distinction of these different monument types is a largely 20th century phenomenon, based upon developments in archaeological classification. I don't think it had much value before this period, particularly pre-19th century. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:04, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • A large number of surface finds were found: can we avoid the "find"/"found" repetition?
  • In the latter part of the 1950s, with plans afoot to build a house adjacent to Chestnuts Long Barrow, the Inspectorate of Ancient Monuments initiated excavation of the site. Over five weeks in August and September 1957, the barrow was excavated under the directorship of John Alexander. The excavation was initiated and funded by Boyle, with the support of the Inspectorate, and largely carried out by volunteers. Quite a bit of repetition here. Can we do something like this: "In the latter part of the 1950s, with plans afoot to build a house adjacent to Chestnuts Long Barrow, the Inspectorate of Ancient Monuments initiated an excavation of the site under the directorship of John Alexander. The excavation, which lasted five weeks in August and September 1957, was initiated and funded by Boyle, with the support of the Inspectorate, and largely carried out by volunteers."?
  • However, that paragraph says both that the dig was initiated by the Inspectorate and by Boyle; that needs to be clarified.
  • Following excavation, the fallen sarsen megaliths were re-erected in their original sockets, allowing for the restoration of part of the chamber and façade: not quite true, surely? He did not re-erect any façade stones, did he?

-- That's it for a first pass. Generally I think everything is here but some tweaks are needed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:52, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie: - many thanks for spending so much time carefully reading through this article. You've raised some important points and the article quality has been improved because of them. I think that I've responded to every one of your queries; if there is anything you'd like to offer a counter-response to then please do feel free to do so. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:06, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A couple of responses above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:28, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Midnightblueowl, just checking that you've noticed there are a couple of outstanding points above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:39, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Mike Christie thanks for your message. Sorry for the delay. Will get onto these shortly. I had hoped to answer them late last week but real life got in the way. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:48, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I do think the picture on p. 340 of Ashbee (2000) is better than Alexander's plate I, and I think it would improve the article to use it, but I'm not going to withhold support over that. Re the round barrows vs. long barrows point Ashbee makes, I take your point that this was a distinction not made by archaeologists till centuries after the time of the destructive behaviour, but Ashbee's opinion is pretty definite on the point and I think the article would benefit from including it. But it's a point on which reasonable people can disagree, so I'm going to go ahead and support. Are you planning a featured topic? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:30, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, Mike, the c.1925 image from Ashbee is the clearer of the two. I've made the switch. Regarding a featured topic, I hadn't given it any thought, to tell the truth. I've never created a featured topic before. There are still about four articles on the Medway Megaliths which are not yet FAs (of those, two are GAs, while the other two still need quite a bit of work). Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:36, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review.

  • The sources are all reliable.
  • I've done some spotchecking as part of the content review above and found nothing to be concerned about.
  • I can't speak to comprehensiveness, but a couple of searches conducted while doing the content review turned up nothing further of note.
  • As far as formatting goes, the only thing I can spot is that there's no ISBN on Philp & Dutto; you do have ISBNs on other books so we should be consistent.
  • Strangely, I don't think that the Philp and Dutto has an ISBN. I just checked the copy in my possession and there is no ISBN listed on the back cover. The amazon.co.uk entry does not list an ISBN either. It may be that because it was printed by a small press (the Kent Archaeological Trust) they never gave it one. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:34, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • For Colebrooke, you give 1773 as the date, but it appears you're citing a 20th century printing of it. Is there any way to indicate this in the citation?
  • For Harris, I'm guessing your citation is really to Ashbee; I don't think it's a good idea to cite a book you haven't seen, even on the authority of a reliable source. I've handled this a couple of different ways; my preferred way is to do a note, saying something like "Ashbee 1993, quoting Harris's 'History of Kent'", leaving Harris in the bibliography. I think with Harvard refs that would cause an error to show up since there wouldn't be a link. Any method that shows what was actually consulted and what was only quoted in the consulted source would work.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:43, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Midnightblueowl, I've been reading some of the articles in the Medway Megaliths group. There's a lot of overlap between the different articles on the Medway Megaliths group. I've done this myself -- see Super Science Stories and Astonishing Stories, for example, which share most of the "Publication history" section and a little of the "Contents and reception" section -- but here it's half a dozen articles, and the ratio of text to the overall article is quite high. I think it would be better to strip some of the detail from this section and do a more summary-style approach. Duplication of a limited amount of information is OK, but if a reader starts with the summary article I don't think they'd expect to read the same pageful of text half-a-dozen times as they go through the individual articles in the group. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:46, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note

[edit]

@Mike Christie: - given your above comment, what is your feeling on this article's readiness for promotion? --Ealdgyth (talk) 15:31, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ealdgyth:The relevant FAC criterion would be 4: it "...uses summary style" but normally that's invoked to say that the parent article should move material down to child articles. Here it's the other way around; I feel too much has been moved here. I don't think I can recall another FAC for which this has been raised as an issue. However, I'd be OK with it being promoted because there's nothing incorrect here; I think it's an editorial decision about the appropriate level of summarization for a group of related articles. I wouldn't do it this way myself, but I don't think it's actually wrong. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:08, 28 March 2020 (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 Ealdgyth via FACBot (talk) 29 March 2020 [14].

Tropical Storm Ileana (2018)

[edit]
Nominator(s): NoahTalk 21:35, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Tropical Storm Ileana during the 2018 Pacific hurricane season. While quite small in word count, I believe it incorporates virtually every detail out there on the storm. Please feel free to leave comments below. NoahTalk 21:35, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review—pass

[edit]

Both images are relevant, correctly arranged, and available under free licenses. buidhe 22:47, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Buidhe: Thank you for the image review. NoahTalk 23:27, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OpposeComment by Fowler&fowler

[edit]

An article, much less an FA, cannot be tacked together with primary sources. NOAA discussion numbers such as this and advisory numbers are irredeemably primary. Sorry but this is a nogo. Wikipedia has to decide that this is legal. Until then, my hands are tied. The FAC community also needs to decide whether there is a lower bound on the page size. This article has 1,000 words. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:39, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So these weren't legal? Nova Crystallis (Talk) 15:51, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's a problem with a lot of hurricane articles. I have registed my oppose. The coords can decide what weight to assign to it. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:09, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As for your size comment, many past FAs have been significantly smaller than this. A list may be viewed here (hasn't been updated in a few years). One of the smallest (at least as far as I know) is Miss Meyers with a mere 686 words today. That is over 30% smaller than Ileana is right now. If I recall correctly, SchroCat either worked on or knows someone who worked on a bunch of smaller FAs. I believe they were smaller than this. NoahTalk 16:51, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@FAC coordinators: Also pinging the coordinators for their thoughts. NoahTalk 17:13, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Primary sources are not disallowed, per WP:PRIMARY. What is disallowed is original research from primary sources. Nor is there anything in the FAC criteria that require a certain number of words in a candidate article - all that is required is that an article be comprehensive and cover all the information covered in the sources. I haven't read the article to tell if either of these situations apply - and the oppose does not touch on that either. If this article does original research from primary sources or neglects some area that's covered by sources - the reviewer needs to substantiate that. If reviewers want to change the criteria to exclude any use of primary sources or to require some minimum size, that's a discussion for another location, not on an individual nomination. --Ealdgyth (talk) 17:28, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK, Thanks Ealdgyth. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:13, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am no longer opposing the article. Thanks for the clarification. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:19, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As this is about to drop onto the older nominations list, would it be best to just archive it? Clearly, the editors have spoken and WP does not care about this article. With no actual reviews after nearly 20 days, I see no reason for the process to continue any further. This isn't a withdraw by any means. I am just stating the obvious in regards to my nomination and will let you decide on how to proceed. NoahTalk 02:04, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OpposeSupport by JavaHurricane:

[edit]

1. Please get rid of the redlinks in the impacts section.

Not done per WP:RED NoahTalk 13:37, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2. A query, should the watches and warnings be capitalised?

I made them lowercase. NoahTalk 13:37, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

3. "In the state of Mexico, heavy rains from Ileana caused severe flooding. The Anillo Periférico and several other roads in Mexico City experienced flooding. As a result of the rains, the Mexico City Metro (STC) implemented safety measures for several of its lines." I think you could merge the latter two sentences and add an also after Mexico city.

Merged, but didnt add also because those were the only roads I mentioned in the article. NoahTalk 13:37, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

4. "[...] and a Tropical Storm Watch was also issued for the southern tip of Baja California Sur from Los Barilles to Todo Santos." Remove the "was also issued", it is redundant due to the previous (unquoted) part of the sentence.

Done. NoahTalk 13:37, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

5. "Tropical Storm Irwin (1993) – a tropical storm of a similar intensity that was also incorporated into a nearby hurricane" - change to "[...] also absorbed by a nearby hurricane".

Changed, although they mean the same thing (this is simpler to understand). NoahTalk 13:37, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

6. "Ileana caused a total of four deaths in Guerrero, with two occurring in Chilpancingo and the remainder in Acapulco. Additionally, Ileana caused flooding in the Mexican states of Oaxaca, Guerrero, and Mexico." Merge the sentences.

Done. NoahTalk 13:37, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

7. "The NHC raised its development chances to 50% around 17:00 UTC on that day after satellite imagery indicated an area of low pressure had formed a few hundred miles south of the Gulf of Tehuantepec and was showing signs of organization." I don't think this sentence is needed, but take a call about it.

sentence shows how quickly the storm developed. It was rephrased. NoahTalk 14:29, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

8. "Around the same time, the NHC reported that Ileana had strong deep convection with cloud temperatures of −121 to −130 °F (−85 to −90 °C). Additionally, a banded eye feature had developed within the central dense overcast. Soon after, microwave imagery and Acapulco radar showed the emergence of an eyewall structure at the mid-levels of the system." Please merge appropriately.

9. Please expand upon the interaction between John and Ileana. I think the Fujiwara effect might warrant its own paragraph.

Not possible with the information provided by the NHC. NoahTalk 13:37, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

10. "Tropical Storm Ileana was a tropical cyclone that affected Western Mexico in early August 2018, causing multiple deaths and flooding." "Relatively weak" might do, and so might "moderate flooding".

added “small” NoahTalk 14:23, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

11. "Ileana began to develop an eyewall structure soon after, but became intertwined with nearby Hurricane John. John disrupted Ileana and ultimately absorbed it on August 7." Very abrupt. Please make appropriate changes.

12. "Ileana caused a total of four deaths in Guerrero, with two occurring in Chilpancingo and the remainder in Acapulco. Additionally, Ileana caused flooding in the Mexican states of Oaxaca, Guerrero, and Mexico." Merge please.

Merged NoahTalk 14:25, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

13. "In the Huixquilucan municipality, a sewage pipe overflowed and two homes were flooded." Rephrase the sentence to show that the pipe overflow caused the flooding.

Forgot to respond to this point... The source doesnt state that one event caused the other. NoahTalk 01:45, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

14. "The lowest rainfall total in the area, 0.46 inches (11.75 mm), was recorded at Renacimiento." Is this information really needed?

It does give a range for the rainfall since it is the lowest recorded total there. NoahTalk 14:10, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

15. "In Jiquipilas, Chiapas, Ileana caused another four deaths on August 6. A car containing 18 individuals was swept away by water currents while attempting to cross a flooded bridge. Three children and one adult were later found dead." Please merge appropriately.

combined the last two with semi colon. NoahTalk 14:10, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

16. In hindsight, I think you might want to rephrase the entire lead, as it is very abrupt.

I added some kind of transitions and did the merge for the met thing mentioned above. NoahTalk 22:56, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article isn't too bad in my opinion, but it still needs quite a bit of work to become an FA. Pinging @Hurricane Noah: in case he forgets. -- JavaHurricane 11:22, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Noah has explained some things to me on Discord, and he's doing the work. Hence, I support now. -- JavaHurricane 13:39, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Hurricanehink

[edit]
  • Nowhere in the lead do you say that there are 8 deaths. Just "multiple" in the first sentence, and that there were 4 deaths in Guerrero
  • " Over the next several hours, the disturbance quickly and unexpectedly organized into a tropical depression." - why "unexpectedly"? The NHC noted a 50% chance of development, per the MH
  • The development wasn't anticipated (at least not that quickly) because the NHC raised the 48-hour chance to 50% and it formed into a TD an hour later. Also, the TCR explicitly states the genesis was not well forecast. NoahTalk 23:14, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you mention somewhere in the first lede paragraph some mention of Ileana's proximity to Mexico? That's the reason it has an article, its effects on land
  • "Ileana caused a total of four deaths in Guerrero, with two occurring in Chilpancingo and the remainder in Acapulco as well as flooding in the Mexican states of Oaxaca, Guerrero, and Mexico. " - this could use some more grammar/love
  • "The origins of Ileana can be traced back to a tropical wave that the National Hurricane Center (NHC) began monitoring on July 26 as the wave departed from the west coast of Africa." - surely, the NHC was monitoring it as a tropical wave even before it left Africa. I don't think you need the "monitoring" part here, it's just as useful to the readers knowing that the wave exited Africa. I'd suggest saving the NHC reference to the first time you mention the development potential. And speaking of:
  • " the NHC raised the system's development chances to 50% around 1700 UTC on that day." - did the NHC assess any development possibility beforehand? You mention the NHC monitoring the system, but never mentioned when it was first introduced into the TWO

Did both. NoahTalk 02:24, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Six hours later, the structure of the depression had degraded due to wind shear from the north." - Per the TCR, you should mention that the wind shear came from the larger Hurricane John
  • Link "eyewall structure"
  • "By 21:00 UTC" - I suggest adding another date reference here, since it has been a few sentences since the last one
  • "Additionally, an 8-year-old and a 15-year-old fell into the Laguna de Tres Palos in Acapulco and drowned after their fishing boat capsized." - this should be reordered to mention the boat capsizing first - that's the event that caused the deaths, causing them to fall
  • "In Acapulco, multiple power outages occurred due to a fallen tree" - one tree?
  • "The lowest rainfall total in the area, 0.46 inches (11.75 mm), was recorded at Renacimiento." - seems unnecessary, as some areas probably recorded no rainfall from Ileana
  • "A car containing 18 individuals was swept away by water currents while attempting to cross a flooded bridge" - sounds like it was bigger than a car if it had 18 people!

All in all it's a decent little article. I looked at Tropical Storm Carlotta (2018), and Ileana's article seems slightly sub-par, with no mention of insurance claims or shelters. That info might not exist for Ileana, I'm not sure, but it's just something that stood out. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:06, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think the issue was that Ileana stayed further off the coast. There was less coverage countrywide for Ileana compared to Carlotta. NoahTalk 19:23, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Hurricanehink: I think I have addressed all the concerns. NoahTalk 02:24, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Great work Noah! I'm happy to support now. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:32, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from KN2731

[edit]

I will likely nitpick a lot more than during the GA review...

  • All NHC refs (except ref 2) are missing dates
  • Ref 2's format isn't consistent with the rest
  • Check ref 12's date format
  • Refs 14, 15, 16, 19, 20, 21 - from Template:Cite news#Publisher, "Do not use the publisher parameter for the name of a work (e.g. a website, book, encyclopedia, newspaper, magazine, journal, etc.)"
  • Ref 18 gives me Error 404 Not Found
  • I don't think an author is listed for ref 19
  • Source does not specify an author
  • Please be consistent whether you provide location of publication, currently only ref 12 has it
  • Ref 21 has "[With information from] Elizabeth Mávil" at the bottom, should probably be listed as the author
  • Added the name of the road (from the source) with a link, but I dont think the flooding in multiple places is all that important to warrant another sentence about road flooding. NoahTalk 02:07, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another thing: ref 16 mentions that the inhabitants were unharmed.
  • For sake of comprehensiveness, you could cover the issuance of orange/yellow/green alerts in addition to the typical tropical storm warnings/watches.
  • "In the Huixquilucan municipality" - remove "the"

All refs in the preparations and impact sections (with the exception of 18, which is dead) support the content as written, with the caveat that I'm using Google Translate to verify this, though it doesn't appear that anything was lost in translation. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 15:54, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Moving on to MH:

  • "50% around 1700 UTC" - missing colon
Done NoahTalk 22:24, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the depression had a well defined low pressure center" - should be well-defined
Added. NoahTalk 22:24, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Minimum pressure is missing non-breaking spaces
Added to that. NoahTalk 22:24, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since NHC ref doesn't explicitly mention Fujiwhara effect, maybe add this which quotes SMN. It may be better to cite SMN directly but I'm not sure if SMN archives their advisories/reports.

Otherwise all content in the MH is verifiable. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 15:54, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Moving to support. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 12:57, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi KN2731, I can see points re. source formatting, and notes on spotchecks for verification, but I didn't see anything specifically on the reliability of the sources -- it might be that I was meant to take that as read but I'd prefer to hear it direct. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:44, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ian Rose: all sources are sufficiently reliable. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 09:18, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Derpdadoodle

[edit]

Support from JC

[edit]

On my first read-through:

  • Tropical Storm Ileana was a small tropical cyclone - The spatial extent of the storm is not discussed in the body of the article. What's the source for "small"?
  • on August 4. Over the next several hours - Several hours beginning when? The stroke of midnight on the 4th?
  • quickly and unexpectedly organized - Source for "unexpectedly"? Given that we just mentioned the RSMC had been "monitoring" the progenitor disturbance for ten days, this might lead to some confusion.
  • well defined - Needs a hyphen.
  • Ileana began to develop an eyewall structure but became intertwined with the nearby Hurricane John. - Link for eyewall, and perhaps make the contradiction more clear; to a layreader I'm not sure "developed an eye" is immediately opposed to "became intertwined with another storm".
  • Over the next day, the circulation of the hurricane - Subject not entirely clear, so add or substitute "John"?
  • Why capitalize Western Mexico but not west coast of Africa?
  • The National Hurricane Center (NHC) first mentioned the system as having potential for development on August 3. - Clunky. "The NHC first noted the potential for development on August 3?
  • the NHC raised the system's development chances to 50% around 17:00 UTC on August 4. - Why is this change in probabilities significant among all the others? (And if kept, clarify that this is the two-day probability.)
  • Around that time, the NHC noted the depression had a well-defined low pressure center and a distinct, curved band of deep convection. - Find appropriate links for "low pressure center" and "band".
  • The low-level center of the depression had become exposed in the northwest and convection in the east and south had decreased. - This took a couple tries to parse. Also, clarify "exposed"?
  • Make sure citations are ordered numerically.
  • after which it was assigned the name Ileana - Presumably the naming occurred simultaneously with, not after, classification?
  • At that time, Ileana had a fairly symmetrical shape and a central dense overcast-like feature had developed over the system - Again, cumbersome. You could remove "had developed over the system" without harm.
  • Ileana continued to strengthen over the next day after entering an area with warm sea surface temperatures of 86 to 88 °F (30 to 31 °C) as it traveled to the northwest. - Run-on, or close to it.
  • Around the same time, the NHC reported that Ileana had strong deep convection with cloud temperatures of −121 to −130 °F (−85 to −90 °C). - Everything in this section was reported by the NHC. Why emphasize that here?
  • microwave imagery - Link, please.
  • The man had reportedly been pushing a car when a strong current pulled him down to the river where he drowned. - This was a bit difficult to visualize. You haven't yet mentioned flooding, so if he wasn't already in the river, what's the current?
  • Additionally, - No need for this. Every new fact is an addition.
  • a fishing boat capsized, causing an 8-year-old and a 15-year-old to fall into the Laguna de Tres Palos in Acapulco and drown. - "...capsized in Acapulco, causing them to drown in the Laguna..."?
  • The storm caused multiple power outages - "Multiple" doesn't offer us much. It could mean three, which is hardly worth reporting.
  • felled a tree - Is this significant? I'm not convinced.
  • ; a rainfall total of 3.54 in (90 mm) was recorded at the Acapulco International Airport. - Distinct enough to be divorced from previous sentence.
  • Wedding rings have been removed and the divorce paperwork has been put in. NoahTalk
  • a landslide that left a house buried - Is "buried" precise? I don't get that impression in looking at the source.
  • In Michoacán, the state required → "The state of Michoacán required"
  • The Mexico City Metro (STC) also implemented safety measures for several of its lines. - Like what?
  • and total of 33 structures - Missing word.
  • two trees fell - Per source, it might be worth mentioning that one tree blocked vehicle traffic.
  • a sewage canal overflowed and two homes were flooded. - Were the homes flooded with sewage?

Finally, a general comment: I'm not sure why it's necessary to copy PD text from NOAA. The article is short, and it would be trivial – and in my view, advantageous – to paraphrase. It strikes me as a little lazy. I know from experience that it's difficult to convey a compelling narrative in a brief article, and I think you've generally succeeded in that endeavor. Nonetheless, there is still work to be done here in my estimation. Looking forward to helping you push this article over the edge from good to great. – Juliancolton | Talk 05:46, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by TropicalAnalystwx13

[edit]
  • "Soon after, Ileana began to develop an eyewall structure, however, it became intertwined with the nearby Hurricane John." - Eh no, the formation of the eyewall came /while/ the storm was peaking. Move the first part of this sentence into the previous one about its max winds? And combine the rest of the sentence with the next one about John absorbing Ileana?
Done. NoahTalk 19:49, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The freshly minted depression was traveling west-northwest under the influence of the aforementioned disturbance," - Seems weird to refer to the depression as freshly minted now after you've been talking about it for the past five sentences.
Axed that bit. NoahTalk 19:49, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "At that time, Ileana had a moderately symmetrical structure and a central dense overcast-like feature" - I prefer "fairly" as used in the discussion versus "moderately."
Changed back. NoahTalk 19:49, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "All watches and warnings were gradually discontinued after Ileana was no longer forecast to strengthen." - Whether Ileana continued strengthening has no bearing on the tropical storm watches/warnings. NHC discussion number 8 mentions they may need to be discontinued because strongest winds will remain offshore. That makes more sense.

You and others have done a good job with the article, so these are all the comments I have. 🌧❄ϟ TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk · contributions) 19:25, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Supporting now. 🌧❄ϟ TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk · contributions) 20:01, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coord comment

[edit]

Has a source review been done? I do see the image review. --Ealdgyth (talk) 15:33, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ealdgyth: See KN's review and the note from Ian Rose. NoahTalk 15:36, 28 March 2020 (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 Ealdgyth via FACBot (talk) 28 March 2020 [15].

Wales national football team home stadium

[edit]
Nominator(s): Kosack (talk) 21:13, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the history of home venues used by the Wales national football team. This article was started quite sometime ago and was on my list of possible improvements for sometime before I finally got round to it. I think it makes for a relatively interesting read and is now up to the standard required to be a FA. I look forward to any comments. Kosack (talk) 21:13, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Jim

[edit]

Very comprehensive, a few comments Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:16, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • You overuse "host", sometimes twice in one sentence. I realise there's bound to be some repetition, but a bit more variation is possible
  • I've removed around a quarter of the uses and replaced them with alternatives. Let me know if there are anymore that seem particularly repetitive that I may have missed. Kosack (talk) 13:18, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • alternate venues—unless you are writing in US English, I think you mean "alternative". If the word is what you meant, say which venues are alternating - Done
  • one English newspaper—no harm to name it here
  • Crowd control was an issue again as large numbers of spectators watched the game for free—not sure that this is a crowd control issue, just free spectating
  • "Hen Wlad Fy Nhadau—perhaps a Saesneg translation too? - Done
  • dramatic drop in attendance for international matches due to Welsh results in qualifying competitions—insert "poor"? - Done

@Jimfbleak: Thanks very much for taking a look, I've addressed the points above. Let me know if there is anything else. Kosack (talk) 13:18, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No other queries, supporting above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:25, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]
  • Just doing a random sampling of online sources.
    Ref 5--Used accurately, no close paraphrasing
    Ref 8 (also checked #7 as both are paired)--Information present, used appropriately. Happy with these.
    Ref 33--Mentions the stand being destroyed by fire but I can't see any reference to thieves with explosives; where did this part come from?
    Added a source for that. Kosack (talk) 19:33, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Ref 45--Source doesn't mention that the attendance record stood for 40 years, but does state that it was a record for the venue. I would assume the length of the record may be mentioned in the previous ref (44) but this is an offline print source which I can't check. If it is, consider appending an inline citation after the "40 years" claim.
    Added an inline cite. Kosack (talk) 19:33, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Ref 67--On its first use, it's used appropriately, but it might be worth noting why the Taylor Report lead to a decrease in capacity (converting standing to all seated) as this information is in the source to be used. Second use is appropriate too.
    Added the conversion to seating info. Kosack (talk) 19:33, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Ref 83--Not sure of this one. The article specifically mentions success in the 2016 Euros which the source doesn't specify ("In the intervening seven years, fans have packed the smaller Cardiff City Stadium to create a fervent atmosphere, which has been an important factor in recent Welsh success", but that doesn't attribute anything to any one tournament). This may need either reworded or an additional source used to back up the specific claim.
    Added a source that mentions the atmosphere as a positive during the qualifying campaign. Kosack (talk) 19:33, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Ref 85--Seems fine. Perhaps a degree of reading between the lines for the claim of Cardiff's capacity being an issue but it does mention increased crowd size definitively and the claim of future matches for large crowds is there in black and white.
  • Seems like there are a few issues which could be looked at here; I can take another look at this once these have been addressed. Gʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ˣ 11:49, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Grapple X: Thanks for taking a look, I've addressed the points above. Let me know what you think. Kosack (talk) 19:33, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The additions seem fine; AGF on the new print source as always. I'll check another few at random shortly just to make sure nothing else has slipped through the cracks. Gʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ˣ 21:06, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Round two:
    The current ref 83 (Grauniad article) points to a "page not found" error. It might be possible to relocate it on their site or try an archival link.
    Fixed url. Kosack (talk) 13:27, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Ref 9--fine
    Ref 71--fine
    Ref 68--Source doesn't mention the claim that "the side suffered its first defeat at the site of the National Stadium since its original incarnation in 1910".
    Added further cite. Kosack (talk) 13:27, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Ref 6--Source doesn't mention Hampden Park nor when it hosted any international matches; only that the Racecourse is the record-holder.
    This was actually from the previous ref but a copy editor suggested splitting the refs to separate sentences. I've moved them back together now so this covers the info. Kosack (talk) 13:27, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Having taken two passes at the sources here, it unfortunately seems to me that although this article is well-researched and put together, it isn't necessarily reflective of its sources--I'm sure a lot of this information is true but it's been fairly common to see information attributed to sources which make no mention of it. Gʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ˣ 12:02, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it's a little unfair to suggest that given the points I've addressed in the second pass. A handful of positioning fixes has fixed the majority of your points, that doesn't suggest the sources are not reflected correctly. Kosack (talk) 13:27, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, every instance raised has been addressed so far but there have been several instances of sources used to cite information which they don't mention, which is more than a "positioning fix". I haven't gone as far as opposing, as the prose and comprehensiveness all seem more than good enough, but it's at least fair to point out the teething problems with sourcing so any passing co-ord can judge whether they're satisfied that it's been adequately addressed. Gʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ˣ 13:29, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Grapple X: I've gone through every reference in the article over the last two days (both online and offline) and tightened where possible, adding extra refs for anything remotely borderline and splitting extended page numbers into more precise sections. I'd appreciate if you could take a further look which will hopefully change your mind. Kosack (talk) 09:20, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Lee Vilenski

[edit]

I did the GA review of the article, and outside of the comments I made then, there's not much to show this isn't suitable for promotion. The only thing I would like is either all the images to show on one side, or that they alternate. Nothing stopping me from supporting though. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:38, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note

[edit]

This still needs an image review and further comprehensive commentary before we consider for promotion. I've listed at FAC Urgents but if we don't get much more in the next week or two I think we'll have to archive. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:24, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Image review - pass

[edit]

All images are appropriately licenced, positioned, captioned and alt texted. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:00, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Epicgenius

[edit]

I will make a few comments here.

  • I take it that this article is about the different locations of the Wales national football team home stadium.
  • Might want to be aware of WP:CAPFRAG.
    I thought I was adhering to that, can you point out what bits need addressing? Kosack (talk) 20:22, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I misread these, and though there was one caption that wasn't a full sentence. All of these are now fully compliant with CAPFRAG. epicgenius (talk) 20:25, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ninian Park (which hosted its first international in 1911) and Vetch Field (which hosted its first in 1921) - where are these fields, respectively? Same with Millennium Stadium.
    Added. Kosack (talk) 20:22, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are a bunch of parenthetical comments in the history sections, which I think might be better integrated into the text using other punctuation. E.g. Buoyed by the income, the FAW arranged a second South Wales match for England's 1896 visit (the first time a team other than Ireland had been hosted away from the Racecourse) could use a comma instead of parentheses. There are a bunch of parentheses in the article itself, which interrupts the flow a little.
    These were added by a copyeditor when I submitted the article for review. I wasn't overly keen on them really but let them slide. However, I've reverted many of them back to their original form now. Kosack (talk) 20:22, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I have for now. Overall it's a pretty good history of the different venues of the stadium throughout the years. epicgenius (talk) 16:49, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from TRM

[edit]

This review is a WikiCup submission.

I'll also review shortly to prevent stale closure. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 16:48, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Two, Ninian Park..." maybe worth noting the locations of these two (Cardiff and Swansea). - Added
  • " grounds (including the Cardiff City Stadium and the Liberty Stadium). The Cardiff City Stadium was" maybe " grounds including the Cardiff City Stadium and the Liberty Stadium. The former was..." to avoid quick repeating the name of the stadium? - Done
  • " The Racecourse has held more matches than any other venue (94 by January 2020). Its total is twelve more than " -> " The Racecourse has held more matches than any other venue with 94 by January 2020, twelve more than " - Done
  • Would the Old Racecourse not be notable enough for an article since an international football match was played there?
    Possibly, I'm not really sure of the notability criteria for a stadium. Kosack (talk) 21:12, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "host international matches, and it has hosted more Welsh international matches" repetitive prose. Not sure right now how to fix it but quick repeats of host and international matches is clunky.
    Removed the latter part, I don't think it fits the timeline of the prose really and can be descerned elsewhere. Kosack (talk) 21:12, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In fact you use "host" five times in three sentences there which is a little jarring.
    Dropped one with the previous point and changed a second. Let me know if you think anymore need dropping. Kosack (talk) 21:12, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Wales' only matches were played " odd "only" here, maybe move to "Wales' matches were played only" - Done
  • "its 5,000 total attendance" -> "its attendance of 5,000" - Done
  • "a second South Wales match" potentially confusing, perhaps "a second match in South Wales..."? - Done
  • "a large crowd rewarded " no numbers? And no year given for this match in the prose. - Added
  • "Ninian Park and the Racecourse Ground alternated matches " -> "Matches alternated between Ninian Park and the Racecourse Ground..." - Done
  • "Vetch Field hosted.." caption, could use a "pictured in ..." date for context that this is a different looking Vetch Field to the one mentioned in the caption! - Added
  • "area (including Ford, Ivor Allchurch and Ray Daniel), and Allchurch contributed" -> "area including Ford, Ray Daniel and Ivor Allchurch, the latter contributing..."? - Done
  • Consider linking FIFA. - Done
  • "World Cup qualifying match against Denmark at the Racecourse the following year, the lowest crowd ever recorded for a Wales World Cup qualification match" again, lots of repetition here. - Reworded
  • "to Anfield in Liverpool by the FAW;" Liverpool is over linked. - Removed
  • "against England in" in the caption, England is over linked. - Removed
  • National Stadium and Finland also overlinked.
    I can't find a repeat link of the National Stadium, do you mean the Arms' Park pipe? If so, I thought this was worth including given the change of name even though the site was essentially the same. Finland repeat removed. Kosack (talk) 21:31, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Welsh rugby-union side" I've not seen rugby union hyphenated.
    Not sure how that happened, fixed. Kosack (talk) 21:31, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "an all-seated stadium" I usually refer to this as "all-seater"? - Done
  • Graham Williams needs a comma in his redirect. - Added
  • "£121 million[77] (including a contribution from the FAW). " odd ref placement, could easily go at the end of the sentence. - Fixed
  • Finland and Brazil are over linked. - Removed
  • Trinidad and Tobago prefer and to &. - Fixed
  • Col scopes could be used in the summary table. - Added
  • Minor note: once sorted by any column, the original order can't be restored, i.e. the grounds with one match don't re-order as you have them to start with. If it was me, I'd order the table in chronological order to match the article prose, not initially in order of most matches. Something to consider?
    I think I've fixed the sorting issue now and the original listing can be restored. Kosack (talk) 20:42, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could also consider putting thumbnails of each stadium (where available of course) in the table.
    Aside from the Stadiums already pictured, I'd only be able to add images for two more grounds. Feels like I'd be repeating somewhat. Kosack (talk) 20:42, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refs: is it BBC Sport or BBC Sport? - Fixed
  • Convert ISBNs to 13-digit if possible.

That's all I have. I am obliged to note this review will be part of my WikiCup submission, but that has no impact on this candidate nor the calibre of my review. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 10:28, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: Thanks very much for taking a look, I've addressed all of your points above. Let me know what you think. Kosack (talk) 20:42, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
All good Kosack, a nice piece of work and always good to see a football article in such great shape going for FA. Well done. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 10:23, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Support by KJP1

[edit]

A marker for review. Will get to it later today. KJP1 (talk) 09:01, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Absence of an) Infobox
  • Slightly surprising at first sight, but understandable as I'd struggle to think how to populate it, given the article covers multiple stadia. Are there any precedents for other national stadium histories? For the avoidance of doubt, not suggesting for one minute that it's an FA requirement!
History - Early years
  • "The ground included a separate tent for women and their male escorts" - in 1911! Very broadminded, especially for North Wales. "companions"?
  • "The venue, provided by George Douglas-Pennant, 2nd Baron Penrhyn (who was present at the match), was on the grounds of Penrhyn Estate" - "was in the grounds of Penrhyn Castle"? - or link to the castle if you want to keep estate. - Linked
  • "generating a £147 profit for the FAW" -I know that the inflation templates aren't that accurate, but they do give an idea, (equivalent to £21,143 in 2023)". Unhelpfully, I can't find the right inflation converter at the moment - this isn't it - but the BoE converter puts £147 in 1894 at just shy of £20K today (£19,250). Now helpfully found by John of Reading.
  • "The FAW returned its attention to North Wales" - I suppose you can return attention, but it reads a little oddly to me. "turned its attention back to NW"? - Done
History - Move south and pre-war success (1900–1945)
  • "25 North Wales clubs signed a letter of complaint to the FAW and requested a general meeting with the governing body" - not sure what the "general" signifies. EGM or just "meeting"?
History - Post war success and decline (1946–1990)
  • "saying that "the appropriate authorities at Swansea had not found it convenient to meet with the wishes of the council" - this is a bit oblique. Does Stead not explain what the disagreement was about?
  • "Ninian Park hosted the first foreign international side to visit Wales the previous year" - the word order threw me bit here. Perhaps, "The previous year Ninian Park hosted the first foreign international side to visit Wales, when Belgium were defeated..."? And, a minor point, is it Belgium were or Belgium was, i.e. is the national side singular or plural? - Reworded, amended to singular
  • "When Israel's political status prompted several sides to refuse to play against the nation, however, Wales received another chance to qualify; according to FIFA rules, a team could not qualify for a World Cup without playing a match. In a two-legged play-off,..." - this is not easy for a non-specialist to understand. I had to head off and read the bluelink, twice! So Wales failed to qualify, Israel did, but couldn't proceed as they'd had passes in all three of their qualifying matches. Wales was then randomly selected for a play-off, which they won. Is that it? Not really got a suggestion but it would help if it could be clarified.
  • In a nutshell, yes. Israel had three byes which FIFA weren't happy with so they arranged a playoff against a European team. Belgium were actually drawn first but also refused the tie, Wales were drawn second and accepted. I've expanded slightly to (hopefully) make it clearer. Kosack (talk) 13:24, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The traditional British anthem "God Save the Queen" - I'm assuming the bit on dropping God Save the Queen is sourced to Stead. As an aside, the Hen Wlad article suggests that God Bless the Prince of Wales was sung along with GSTQ until then. Not saying a change is required.
  • "and was infuriated when the flag of his home nation was not raised before the game" - again, just a query from a non-specialist. Is it usual for the flag of the referee's home country to be flown before a match?
Not in the modern game, I'm unsure if it was common practice during this period. The Independent states that it was the wrong flag that was raised, while WalesOnline and Stead only describe his ire being caused by the lack of an East German flag. Kosack (talk) 19:22, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
History - Search for a new home (1990–present)
  • "The decision to move the tie was criticised by Wales assistant manager Graham Williams" - so, who made the decision for Anfield, if the Welsh were opposed? UEFA?
  • "The decision was cited as a major factor in the team's success" - I'm not quite getting this and I've read both the cites. Is it saying that the smaller ground, which was filled closer to capacity than the Millennium would have been, created a better atmosphere for the team?
List of venues
  • The thing that confused me here is the separate listings for The Arms Park, the National Stadium and the Millennium Stadium (Principality Stadium as of 2016?), particularly as the National Stadium links to The Arms Park. Given that they were/are (nearly) all on the same site, would a brief footnote setting out the, rather complicated, history be of use to readers? I say this as a non-specialist who nevertheless used to live in a flat in Riverside with a splendid view of, but unfortunately not in to!, the old stadium. KJP1 (talk) 11:35, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The National Stadium/original Arms Park link is an odd one for me. Personally, I would have a standalone article for The National Stadium but we don't have that. I've added a note at the first mention of the National Stadium to hopefully define the link. I'm not sure if there can be any confusion with the Millennium though, I would say it's a well known place in its own right. Kosack (talk) 19:52, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sources
  • All look good to me.

A very-well written and comprehensive article that, aside from a couple of queries noted above, is easily accessible to the non-specialist. Look forward to supporting after the comments/suggestions above have been reviewed, but not necessarily actioned. KJP1 (talk) 12:00, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are not. A fine article which I'm pleased to Support. KJP1 (talk) 21:41, 27 March 2020 (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 Ealdgyth via FACBot (talk) 28 March 2020 [16].

Æthelred I, King of Wessex

[edit]
Nominator(s): Dudley Miles (talk) 19:41, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Alfred the Great's elder brother, who led the resistance to the Viking attempt to conquer Wessex until his early death allowed Alfred to become king. Æthelred's reign is also important numismatically. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:41, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Mike Christie

[edit]

I'll copyedit as I read through; please revert anything you don't like.

  • I see there are many references listed that are not used in a citation -- normally these get separated into a "Further reading" section. I don't think that's a FAC requirement but as a reader I'd prefer that.
  • Wessex and Mercia were close allies when he became king, and he carried the alliance further by adopting the Mercian Lunettes design: I know what you mean, but I think "carried the alliance further" isn't the right way to put this.
  • Yes I had difficulty finding the right wording. How about: "Wessex and Mercia were allies when he became king, and the alliance became closer when he adopted the Mercian Lunettes design"?
    I had a look in Grierson and Blackburn and they just say "There seems to have been a political motive underlying the adoption", which "established a common coinage in Wessex and Mercia". That speaks to Aethelred's motives, but not to the state of any alliance. However, the quote you give in the body of the article from Lyons and Mackay supports what you have, so I'm going to strike it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:45, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • he was believed to be a paternal descendant of Cerdic: I seem to recall Yorke at least, and perhaps Kirby, saying that the genealogies back to Cerdic were likely to have been deliberately constructed to include Cerdic, as a political requirement for a candidate for the throne of Wessex. In other words it's not at all clear anyone "believed" this. If I'm remembering this correctly, some softening of the statement would be good, even if just in a footnote.

-- More later, probably tomorrow. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:03, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • You describe the Kingdom of Kent as including Essex. Kirby (p. 190 in my 1992 un-revised edition) says Sigered was independent of Kent in 825, and Ecgberht may not have taken control until 829. Perhaps it's a digression to define Kent inline? Maybe a footnote could be used, which would make it easier to cover the unknowns. Abels, p. 31, describes the inclusion of Essex in "Greater Kent" as an effort of Wessex's after the conquest of Kent.
  • This is a difficult one. I think it is important to make clear to readers that when the article mentions Kent it is not just the modern county. Historians disagree about the details of the conquest - Edwards in DNB mentions Sussex not Kent as conquered later. I have deliberately been vague about the timing and I think it is beyond the scope of the article to go into further details. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:16, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    If your sources support what you have, that's fine -- personally I would make it the uncertainty a bit clearer to the reader, but perhaps you're right that that takes us too far afield. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:06, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The alliance between Wessex and Mercia was sealed with the marriage of Æthelwulf's daughter, Æthelswith, to King Burgred of Mercia. I think you can cut this. Abels doesn't really support "sealed", which implies the finalization or completion of a process, but in any case you don't need the sentence -- we've already discussed the alliance between the kingdoms and this doesn't add much to our understanding of Æthelred. If you do keep it, I would either move it up in the paragraph to be adjacent to the other mentions of the alliance, or (perhaps better) down to where you mention Æthelred attesting a charter issued by Æthelswith, as context for that sentence.
  • Wulfthryth had two known sons, Æthelhelm and Æthelwold. She may have been Mercian or a daughter of Ealdorman Wulfhere of Wiltshire, who forfeited his lands charged with deserting King Alfred for the Danes in about 878, perhaps because he attempted to secure Viking support for his elder nephew Æthelhelm's claim to the throne against Alfred. This needs rewording -- Æthelhelm was Alfred's nephew, not Wulfhere's.
  • The town was between the Thames and Kennet rivers: a minor point, but Reading is still between those rivers. If you could find a smooth way to eliminate the past tense that would be good. Perhaps something like "They occupied Reading on around 28 December, and set about building a ditch and rampart on the southern side of the town, between the Thames and Kennet rivers"?
  • I've never really tried to use the Fitzwilliam coin database, but I had a go just now to see if I could improve on your "152 coins by 2007". Either they don't include everything or I don't know how to query it properly. This search seems to find at least a couple post-2007, assuming the EMC number starts with the year of the find. No need to do anything about this, unless you can figure out how to make the query find all 152 your source mentions.

That's it for a first pass; looks very good, as usual. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:10, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Mike. Replies on sources to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:16, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support. The unstruck points above are just personal opinion. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:06, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review.

  • All sources are reliable. Peddie isn't a professional historian, but Keynes supports using him for military matters so I think that's OK.
  • You have locations for all publishers except for Keynes/Lapidge Alfred the Great.
  • Whitelock (1955) has an ISBN so you probably should add an orig-year parameter.
  • This is a mistake. The isbn is for the second edition, but my source is a 1961 reprint of the first edition. I have changed to the oclc and assume it is correct to give the original publication date. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:03, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yorke is linked twice in the bibliography; it's usual to only link the first occurrence.
  • There are stray closing braces at the end of the Beaven citation.

Otherwise sources are fine. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:15, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Don't use fixed px size

FunkMonk

[edit]
Ah, I assumed Genealogical Roll of the Kings of England had an article, but it doesn't. Do we have any approximate date that could be mentioned in the caption of the coin? FunkMonk (talk) 23:18, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have labelled it as an early Four Line design although the evidence is indirect. All three images in Category:Coins of Æthelred I of Wessex are clearly of the same coin and the first image shows both obverse and reverse. The numismatists Lyons and Mackay have a picture of the reverse labelled Four Line, which I take as showing that the same applies to the image of the obverse in the article. A bit of a stretch but I trust not too much. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:03, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps both sides could be shown? FunkMonk (talk) 23:02, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:57, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
All changes look good, one last point, perhaps the coin could be shown as a double image with a single caption? See for example the images on the left here:[17] FunkMonk (talk) 14:04, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link Welsh and Danish? You do link other mentioned ethnicities.
  • "Æthelwulf died in 858... Æthelbald only survived his father by two years" What did they die of?
  • "the first recorded naval battle in English history" Seems signficant, no article to link to?
  • Æthelberht is linked twice in successive sections.
  • Wulfthryth had two known sons" Wulfthryth and Æthelred? Otherwise it could read as if she already had these sopnd by the time she was married to Æthelred.
  • In the intro you say "Great Viking Army", but in the article body you say " Great Heathen Army", probably best to be consistent for clarity. Or otherwise somehow make the connection between the names ("also called the" or similar).
  • "marched on York and conquered Northumbria", same with East Anglia and Nottingham in the article body; you link other places, why not these?
  • Not sure if this is only for science articles, but should you give metric conversion for miles mentioned?
  • On a side note, I wondered whether "æthel" meant the same as my native Danish "ædel", and sure enough, both mean noble (as I just noticed you state in the intro).
  • "an unknown location which was probably the scene of the murder in 757 of King Cynewulf." How is this known, and what is its significance? Could warrant a footnote.
  • Several historians have made this suggestion as both took place at Meretun. However, one historian said that the location is unknown because Meretun is such a common place name, which makes it less of a coincidence so I have deleted the reference to Cynewulf. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:57, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Between one and one and a half million Æthelred I Regular Lunette coins were produced" How is this known?
  • I am not sure but as I understand it numismatists make the calculation based on finds of single coins (which are thought likely to be a representive sample, unlike hoards). Numismatists estimate total production based on the number of coins typically produced by a die, the number of different dies represented in the coins found, and the number of coins produced by the same die. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:57, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review FunkMonk. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:57, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mirokado

[edit]
  • Lead
    • Add an explanation that "Æthel-" is the Old English word for "noble" (see Ethel)?
  • The article did have an explanation but I deleted it as I could not find a reliable source. The Ethel article does not have one. I have now found a translation of his name in the DNB article on Æthelred the Unready as "noble counsel" (Æthel-ræd). Thus un-ræd means no counsel and is a pun on his lack of wisdom. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:06, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • wl Mercia on first occurrence, as for Wessex earlier in the lead
    • "and the reform coinage of King Edgar the Peaceful a century later.": "Reform coinage" was not familiar to me, but I find usages via Google, for Saudi Arabia or Ukraine for example. The linked article about Edgar I has an image of some of his coins which seems unrelated to any content, but does not mention any coinage reform (probably a deficiency in that article). I suggest wikilinking thus: reform coinage. Reaching the notes, I see that the current note "j" gives a good background, so you could also add a second callout to that note here.
  • Background
    • I've edited the first references to Æthelwulf, to link and explain whose son on first mention.
  • The Viking Invasions
    • Perhaps point out (since the section mentions that Æthelred delayed entering the battle to take Mass) that this is not Æthelred the Unready? I was left wondering why the epithet had not been mentioned (shows how much English history I don't know!)
  • Coinage
    • The term "Floriate Cross" appears without an example. This is an image of the reverse of an Offa penny showing the design.
    • "Lunettes" also appears without an explanation of the term, and I could not find a good wl. The main article for this section also does not really explain what "Lunettes" refers to (but does say they are "very difficult to organise or categorise in any meaningful way.") I did find this image of another Offa coin. It's not clear whether the image in the article also illustrates this, but I suspect not.
  • This is a very difficult area. We really need someone who understands numismatics to write an article on Anglo-Saxon coinage design. One problem is that whereas you can copy a photo of an ancient manuscript in a modern book, you are not allowed to copy a photo of a coin. (According to the rules of Commons, a photo of a 2D image is OK, but not of a coin which considered 3D and requiring skill to photograph, so the copyright belongs to the photographer.) Dudley Miles (talk) 20:06, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think it would be too much of a distraction to try to describe these stylistic details here: as you say other articles dealing more directly with the subject need to be created or improved. --Mirokado (talk) 18:10, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

-- Mirokado (talk) 00:42, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've struck the talk page question, still thinking about Four Lines, Floriate Crosses and Lunettes. --Mirokado (talk) 20:58, 7 March 2020 (UTC) Support: The coinage section is now OK after your work with FunkMonk (above). --Mirokado (talk) 18:10, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Kaiser matias

[edit]

I only have one comment to make, and that is regarding the following sentence: "When Æthelred's grandfather, Ecgberht, became king of Wessex in 802, it must have seemed very unlikely to contemporaries that he would establish a lasting dynasty." This part comes across as speculative to me, and not really necessary. While I do understand the purpose, I don't think it really adds anything, and removing it wouldn't detract from the overall background of the situation. Other than that I don't see anything else that really stands out. Kaiser matias (talk) 19:05, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment. This comment is in several other FA articles on Æthelred's father and brothers and was not objected to by reviewers, and I think it does make an important point. However, I take your point that it sounds speculative. How about if I attributed as "Æthelred's grandfather, Ecgberht, became king of Wessex in 802, and in the view of the historian Richard Abels it must have seemed very unlikely to contemporaries that he would establish a lasting dynasty."? Dudley Miles (talk) 20:57, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That certainly works for me. Kaiser matias (talk) 15:59, 23 March 2020 (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 Ealdgyth via FACBot (talk) 28 March 2020 [18].

Battle of Drepana

[edit]
Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk) 19:11, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

When I nominated an article on a naval battle from the First Punic War - Battle of Cape Ecnomus - FunkMonk commented "hope it becomes a series!" And so, specially for them, this account of Carthage's only naval victory of the 23-year-long war. I feel that it is ready for the rigours of FAC, but realise that if anything can be found fault with, it probably will be. All commentary gratefully received. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:11, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]
  • Be consistent about the Cicero date
Oops. Fixed.
  • Be consistent about using full name or initials for authors
Done.
  • Sources appear reliable + are (otherwise) correctly formatted
  • Source checks:
    • Checked Konrad. I had trouble verifying because in my version from Cambridge Core, note 30 appears on page 200. Could you quote exactly what text in the source supports the claim?
The note number is correct, the page number was wrong - apologies and now changed from 199. The text relied on is the second sentence from note 30 "Tarn (ibid.) surmised, plausibly enough, that Claudius knew already before the battle of Carthalo's reinforcements being on their way – indeed, that this intelligence had prompted him to launch the attack on Drepana before they could arrive there."
Thanks. I'm not sure that supports" several sources speculate", however.
Ah, I see your point. I can't recall, but I think that I misread the full stop in "Carthalo had just arrived at Drepana with 70 ships (Polyb. 1.53.2), and Adherbal's fleet may be estimated at anywhere between 100 and 130: see Tarn (n. 18), 54; Thiel (n. 3), 90; Lazenby (n. 3), 133. Tarn (ibid.) surmised, plausibly enough, that Claudius knew already before the battle of Carthalo's reinforcements being on their way – indeed, that this intelligence had prompted him to launch the attack on Drepana before they could arrive there." and took Thiel and Lazenby to also be supporting this. Whatever, thank you for picking me up on this. That means that we have Tarn, and Konrad saying "plausibly enough". So how about if I change it to "Two modern historians have speculated that Pulcher may have been aware of ..." and explicitly add Tarn as a source? (I have done this, as it makes sense to me, but it is easily undone or amended.)
I'm not sure it's fair to say that Konrad is speculating, he mentions Tarn's hypothesis in a footnote. I would just attribute to Tarn and cite both.
@Buidhe: I can't say that I am that bothered by it, but I would consider his interjection of "plausibly enough" to be agreement with it - as speculation. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:48, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

buidhe 14:27, 6 March 2020 (UTC) buidhe 13:09, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Buidhe and thanks once again for stepping in. Your points addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:48, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Buidhe: Good catch and apologies. See my response above. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:12, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review—pass

[edit]

FunkMonk

[edit]
  • What can I say, other than thanks! I'll have a look soon. FunkMonk (talk) 20:24, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wonder why the text under the infobox map is so small? Would be easier to read if it was the same size as the rest of the text.
It would, but IMO it would then look incongruous, being larger than the rest of the text in the infobox. It is the same size as the text in all other infobox text on Wikipedia. No, I don't know why infobox text is smaller, such things are above my pay grade.
  • "Battle of Aegates" Link at first mention instead of second?
Done.
  • "along with their capital" Maybe say "along with their capital, Carthage", for clarity, and since the name isn't mentioned in the article body earlier?
Good point. Done. (And in a couple of other articles, including a FA *red face*.)
  • Link more names and terms in image captions?
OK. (IMO most people overlink, so I may not have added enough for your taste.)
  • "trireme" is linked twice in successive sections.
Gah! Fixed. (This is what happens when I cut and paste.)
  • I wonder whether, as in Battle of Cape Ecnomus, the section Operations in Sicily should come before the section on ships? Now it takes quite a while before the reader gets an idea of what this battle was about, and I think the ships used would logically be secondary to that.
Logically, I think it works better as it is; but in practice I think you have the right of it. And as I am all for anything that gets the information into the reader more smoothly, done.
Ok, it seemed that the ships used would be relevant as the preparation for the battle itself, and that the lead up to the war would therefore chronologically come before which ships were used in the battle itself. Anyhow, I think it looks fine now, but now the corvus is only presented long after it is first mention, so the presentation of it might be moved to first mention? FunkMonk (talk) 01:19, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That may have been why I swapped the sections around. I don't want to go off on a tangent of technical detail in the middle of a description of operations. IMO the technical aspects of the ships need separating from getting across the operational background. I have shuffled around a lot of sentences, and added a little extra detail, and I think that it now flows. See what you think. Jens Lallensack, this also goes to your first point.
Good solution, I think! FunkMonk (talk) 19:58, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi FunkMonk: One way to entice a reviewer - dedicate the article to them :-) . Your points above are all addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:48, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, you can be pretty sure I'd reviewed it anyhow! FunkMonk (talk) 01:19, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe right align the image under Prelude, since it now clashes with an above image?
Done.
  • "moved against the main Carthaginian base on Sicily of Lilybaeum" Had to read it a few times to get it, maybe "main Carthaginian base on Sicily, Lilybaeum" or "moved against Lilybaeum, the main Carthaginian base on Sicily", to avoid confusion?
Changed to "the Romans moved against Lilybaeum – which was the main Carthaginian base on Sicily." Better?
  • "Sources other that Polybius" Than?
Oops.
  • "Location Off Drepana (modern Trapani), Sicily" Link Depana in infobox?
Done
  • "It was Carthage's greatest naval victory of the war" Only stated in the intro.
What an idiot! Fixed and sourced.
@FunkMonk: Your additional points all addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:44, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks FM. There is one more to go. The grand finale to 23 years of war. If you want a sneak preview, it is at ACR right now. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:06, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jens Lallensack

[edit]
  • Corvus should be linked and explained at first mention, not later in the text.
Fair point. Can we discuss it together with FunkMonk's similar comment above?
  • manoeuvrable . – one space too much.
Done.
  • carried a crew of 300: 280 – I took some time to understand this colon here, first thought it is some ratio. Not sure if it should be combined with the semicolon that follows later in the same sentence. Maybe put "280 oarsmen and 20 deck crew and officers" in brackets or use "including".
You are quite right; it was difficult for me to see because I knew what it meant anyway. Changed to 'A quinquereme carried a crew of 300, of which 280 were oarsmen and 20 deck crew and officers' Does that work?
  • although hexaremes (six oarsmen per bank), quadriremes (four oarsmen per bank) and triremes (three oarsmen per bank) are also occasionally mentioned – This sounds like if in a hexareme six oarsmen would sit next to each other on a bank together, at a single oar. The article Hellenistic-era warships describes it differently: Two on each level, summing up to six taking the three levels together. Is this known for certain for the Roman warships after all?
A bank would be three oars, one above the other, with five oarsmen; or six for hexaremes. The image is meant to help visualise this. There was a fair bit of discussion as to how best to communicate this at Battle of Cape Ecnomus. We ended up with "The generally accepted theory regarding the arrangement of oarsmen in quinqueremes is that for each file there were three banks of oarsmen, one above the other, with two oarsmen on each oar of the two uppermost levels and one on the lower, for a total of five oarsmen per file." I trimmed it as getting off topic, but that may have been a mistake. If I put it back in, would that address your comment?
I am still confused. Shouldn't it, in the present article, be "file" rather than "bank"? Above you say "The generally accepted theory regarding the arrangement of oarsmen in quinqueremes is that for each file there were three banks of oarsmen". In the article you say "triremes (three oarsmen per bank)". Isn't that contradicting? Should't it be "three oarsmen per file"? A definition of "bank" would really help here. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:33, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies Jens. I was being slow on the uptake. I see your point, and yes - "bank" is an ambiguous term. Technically the explanation I give is accurate, but I can see that it is not easy reading. How about

The generally accepted theory regarding the arrangement of oarsmen in quinqueremes is that there would be sets – or files – of three oars, one above the other, with two oarsmen on each of the two uppermost oars and one on the lower, for a total of five oarsmen per file. This would be repeated down the side of a galley for a total of 28 files on each side; 168 oars in total.

Gog the Mild (talk) 15:01, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This would be perfectly clear, yes! Thanks. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:37, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No Jens, thank you, for spotting this flaw, bringing it up, and insisting that I make it clear. I appreciate it. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:07, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jens, it is very good of you to look at this. Your usual insightful comments, thanks. Your points all addressed above. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:44, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
supporting now. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:37, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM

[edit]

Little to quibble about here. A few comments:

  • suggest introducing Drepana in the first sentence ie "near Drepana (modern Tripani)" and just go with Drepana in the second para
Strange how you miss these thiings when you are too close to them.
  • when mentioned, state that the Battle of the Aegates was the final battle of the First Punic War
Done.
  • perhaps added (modern Agrigento) to Akragas
Done.
  • then perhaps they were thirsty. ("Bibant, quoniam esse nollent.")→then perhaps they were thirsty ("Bibant, quoniam esse nollent.").
OK. Done.
  • chivvy is a bit colloquial (and highly Brit Eng-centric). encourage the stragglers? drive the stragglers?
I have no idea what I was thinking there. I have gone with "possibly so he could discourage straggling."
  • suggest "and he immediately ordered them to take on board the garrison as marines,"
Good idea. Done.
  • suggest "passing between the city and two small islands to reach the open sea"
Done.
  • suggest deleting "although it is impossible to reconstruct to what extent" as we already have estimates of the numbers of ships on each side
Done.
  • "the coasts of Roman Italy in 248 BC"
Oops. Done.
  • Battle of the Aegates is duplinked
Fixed.

That's all I could find. Nice work. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:44, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Peacemaker67, appreciated. Your points all addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:29, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie891

[edit]

Not too much from me, but here goes.

  • "Adherbal was able to lead his fleet out to sea before it was trapped " maybe rephrase to clarify meaning? My first reaction was 'They got trapped while on the open sea?!' but now I see it was to avoid being captured.
Good point. Changed to "Adherbal was able to lead his fleet out to sea before it was trapped in harbour". Does that work?
works for me
  • "Since 2010 a number of artefacts have been recovered from the nearby site of the Battle of the Aegates, the final battle of the war, fought eight years later. Their analysis and the recovery of further items are ongoing. " does the discovery and analysis have any bearing on the information in this article? If not, what's the point of including it?
Weell now. Yes and no. I take your more general point and I have deleted it.
  • "The modern historian Anne Curry asserts that " "The galley expert John Coates suggested " Why is the former written in present tense ('asserts'), whereas the other is in past ('suggested')?
Because I'm a crap writer? (I struggle with the convention of pretending that all writing is in the present tense.) Fixed.
  • "full deck " I'm not immediately familiar with what a 'full deck' (as opposed to a half or quarter deck?) is outside of the connotation with card playing. Is this a well known term? Is there something we could link to or explain?
Simples - it's what I write without. Another good point. Sadly, there is no link I can find; despite the vast number of nautical terms in such articles as glossary of nautical terms. Does "Vessels were built as cataphract, or "protected", ships – that is, fully decked over – so as to be better able to carry marines and catapults." convey the meaning better?
Works much better for me, thanks
  • "In 255 BC the Roman fleet was devastated by a storm while returning from Africa, with 384 ships sunk from a total of 464 and 100,000 men lost" is there no article or section about such a great loss of life? Perhaps even a red link we could add?
Would you believe that there is not? It is usually considered as a part of the aftermath of the Battle of Cape Hermaeum. (If you click on that you will see that there is no article on it and it redirects to something pretty unrelated.) Even if the article on the battle existed I would be loath to link without mentioning the battle itself in this article, which seems to be getting off topic. I may write something brief on the battle and the storm one day, but not today. In short, I am inclined to leave it unlinked to anything. (I have just moved it to my formal "to do" list.)
well then, that's fine. Seems like quite the gap in our coverage, but that's for another article... Maybe I'll poke around my local library (perhaps put my rusty Latin to work) and see if I can find anything this weekend.
  • "but were defeated losing most of their elephants" should this be "but were defeated, losing most of their elephants"?
Done.

Not much, and pretty much all arguable or subjective, but great work as always on your part.Eddie891 Talk Work 20:21, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Eddie. No. All were to the point - hence my immediately going with most of them. Wikipedia relies on editors diligently insisting that other editors write sense. I think that I am passable at checking other's work, but know that I am rubbish at checking mine. I rely on the community for that, so thank you for helping prevent me present a faulty piece of work.
Your points all addressed, a couple with queries. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:08, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from JennyOz

[edit]

G'day Gog, just a few...

  • between a Carthagian fleet under - is there a word "Carthagian" or should this be Carthaginian?
There isn't, it should.
  • and Cape Hermaeum (255 BC). [44] - remove space before ref
Done.
  • The immediate cause of the war was control - "cause" doesn't seem best word here, maybe motivation, purpose, aim, objective or similar? or
  • The immediate cause of the war was control - maybe swap "of" to 'for', or add 'for' before "control"
I am not sure I see the issue, but have changed to "The immediate cause of the war was the issue of control of the Sicilian town of Messana" Does that help?
  • Bibant, quoniam esse nollent - match quote marks, one is outside template, the other inside. (poor chickens "gone to sleep with the fishes"}
Sorted. And I removed a superfluous full stop. (Yes. To this day they occasionally catch feathered fish off the west coast of Sicily.)
  • Is Carthalo the linked army officer definitely same as Carthalo the redlinked admiral you had til 23 Feb?
How embarrassing. No, he is a red linked admiral. Fixed.
  • Adherbal brought his command up to 100 and sent him to raid - swap the "his" or "him" to Carthalo?
Done.
  • Can you pls check the 3 links: [[Carthage (state)|Carthagian]], [[Carthage]] and [[Ancient Carthage|Carthage]] are all intentional?
    • What I should have said was that Carthage (state) redirects to Carthage. Is that intentional or o'link?

That's all, no ref orders:) JennyOz (talk) 15:31, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I could move some around for you if you would like? Ha ha.
G'day Jenny and thanks for your usual thorough service. All done. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:12, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Minor clarification above but not a bother so I am happy to support. JennyOz (talk) 12:37, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jenny. Yeah, I kinda knew that was a bum link, but somehow it snuck through. Thanks for picking it up. Both instances fixed. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:33, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request to coordinators

[edit]

Good morning Ian. Given the above, I wonder if is permissible for me to let the next one out of the trap? Gog the Mild (talk) 11:12, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, pls do. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:13, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Ian. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:21, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from T8612

[edit]
  • "More broadly both sides wished to control Syracuse, the most powerful city-state on Sicily". Goldworthy doesn't say that in these two pages (74-75). He says the Romans took advantage of the situation with the Mamertines' call for help, then they faced Carthage and Syracuse and fought for the domination of the Island.
Weell, he says "Syracuse was the main target... " etc, but let's not get hung up on it, it's not that important. How would you feel about 'More broadly the Carthaginians wished to expand their influence on Sicily[Goldsmith p. 68] while the Romans foresaw loot and military glory.[Miles p. 172]'?
The immediate cause of the war was indeed the personal ambition of Appius Claudius Caudex, but the war was also the clash of the two main powers of the area. For the ref, "A series of episodes created some mutual suspicions and the two sides drifted into war. When the minor states between them had been eliminated or assimilated the two great powers of the western Mediterranean suddenly found themselves face to face across the Straits of Messena." HH Scullard, Cambridge Ancient History, vol. VII-2, pp. 544-545. T8612 (talk) 20:25, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to get too side tracked into something which happened 15 years before the battle, and I am not keen on "drift into war" which, it seems to me, is just not what happened. How about 'Rome's expansion into southern Italy probably made it inevitable that it would eventually clash with Carthage over Sicily on some pretext.'? Which I can source to Miles, p. 166-7.
Yes, it's much better. Your previous suggestion was a bit unfavourable to the Romans ("loot and military glory"). You should also amend your other articles that use the same sentence. T8612 (talk) 13:15, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The episode of the sacred chicken has been doubted by T. P. Wiseman (in Clio's Cosmetics) and I suppose other historians. Wiseman says that this story was invented by an annalist hostile to the Claudii, whose inventions were then reproduced by his successors, like Livy. Polybius doesn't mention the story. It should definitely be added to the article.
Miles and Goldsworthy simply report it as fact, and Lazenby seems inclined that way. I am also aware of Wiseman's reputation: as Mary Beard politely puts it "a capacity for bold historical speculation that takes him right to the edge of (and in some cases beyond) what the surviving evidence can reliably tell us". However, I have noted the doubters, and cited this to Lazenby. "Polybius does not mention this, which has caused some modern historians to doubt its veracity."
In that case, it's not Wiseman's imagination. Others have doubted it as well; F. W. Walbank says "the anecdote may be genuine, but is more probably a later invention, to explain the Roman defeat." (Commentary on Polybius, vol. I, p. 113). I suggest including a reference to Walbank, who is the authority on Polybius. T8612 (talk) 20:25, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you would like an additional citation - I don't see why, but I am fine with it - it may be easiest for you to insert it yourself. I cannot find Walbank doubting the account: eg the Cambridge Ancient History, p. 562, retells the account as fact. (Although that is by Scullard.)
Alright, I've done that. T8612 (talk) 13:15, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reference to Cicero in the bibliography is strange because it uses a book from 1917, which makes the reader believe that Cicero was a modern author. The formatting found in academic sources is: Cicero, De Natura Deorum, II. 7 (not page numbers). I would therefore separate the entry for Cicero and place it in an "ancient sources" subsection of the bibliography (then you can link it to Perseus website). An entry for Polybius would also be required here. I've done something like this here.
Resolved by removing the Cicero cite, and the Latin it supports. I am not fond of primary sourcing and on reflection including the original Latin more shows off my erudition than informs a reader. This is, after all, the English Wikipedia. Thanks for forcing me to think about it.
  • You can also mention that Roman casualties can be seen in the census of 247 BC, which shows that there were 56,000 less Roman citizens than in the previous census of 252. See sources here. T8612 (talk) 13:20, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I mention that in other articles but am not convinced that it is relevant here. Where would you suggest putting it? (And why?)
I would say something like "Roman casualties were not exaggerated, the census of 247 BC show etc.", but it's not essential. T8612 (talk) 20:25, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am inclined not to, as I don't see a reason to suggest to a reader that they might be exaggerated. And at 20,000 they seem plausible to me.
Hi T8612 and thanks for bringing your expertise on the period to bear. Your comments above all addressed, some with queries. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:58, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again T8612, responses to your responses above. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:06, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@T8612: Done. Anything else? Gog the Mild (talk) 13:33, 28 March 2020 (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 Ealdgyth via FACBot (talk) 28 March 2020 [19].

Barren Island, Brooklyn

[edit]
Nominator(s): epicgenius (talk) 18:20, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a former island in Brooklyn, NYC, one of the "Outer Barrier" islands. Through the present day, it has been isolated from the rest of New York City, leading to its primary use as an industrial neighborhood in the 19th and early 20th centuries, complete with a small but thriving community of up to 1,500 residents. The island no longer exists because it was connected to the rest of Brooklyn in the 1920s to create the now-defunct Floyd Bennett Field.

This was promoted as a Good Article about two years ago thanks to an excellent GA review from The Rambling Man. After much-appreciated copy edits by Reidgreg and several others, I think it's up to FA quality now. I look forward to all comments and feedback. epicgenius (talk) 18:20, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Shearonink

[edit]

Just a few comments for now. Generally the article looks to be in very good shape - I'll re-read it a few more times and come back with any other possible issues. Shearonink (talk) 15:02, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Shearonink: Thanks for the comments. I have clarified the sentence about the piers (only one of them was built, despite the city giving the go-ahead), and added a short description and alts. epicgenius (talk) 18:11, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
epicgenius I am going to read through the article a few more times over the next day or two, but unless something new comes to my attention?, at this time I intend to Support for FA. Shearonink (talk) 16:22, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Full Support as indicated above in my header. Shearonink (talk) 19:55, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ref check...pass

  • References are a mix of Harv cites/sfn & cite news/web/etc. WP:FACR's 1.C requires consistent citations.
  • All the NY Times refs need to be checked for "Subscription required" notices, for instance - Ref 88/"US Takes Airport Tract" has no subscription notice. Is the use of the separate {{subscription required}} template discouraged? I missed the fact that several of the refs have the embedded code because I clicked on them too quickly.
  • Personal preference: Refs #92 & #93 both refer to the beachcombing or mudlarking that some folks are doing on the eroding landfill at Dead Horse Bay. That aspect of the articles is more interesting to me than "The coast contained many exposed broken glass bottles and other non-biodegradable material." Also, contained looks like it is the wrong tense, shouldn't it be "contains"? Shearonink (talk) 19:07, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Shearonink: Thanks for more comments. I disagree that we need to have CS2 references & harv references to be separated, though - the FAC page only mentions using a consistent style of shortened footnote and/or full-length reference, rather than using exclusively shortened footnotes or exclusively inline references. Examples of FAs which use a mixture of both include Statue of Liberty and The Cloisters. I may be incorrect, though, and I am open to converting these in-line references to shortened footnotes if you think this is important.
    • As for the other issues: I have fixed the instances of NY Times references without subscriptions, and I added the mention of beachcombing to the article. epicgenius (talk) 19:24, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"The coast contained many exposed broken glass bottles and other non-biodegradable material, and as such, the site was used for beachcombing." Is there a reason you used the past-tense? Shearonink (talk) 03:52, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, I have fixed that. epicgenius (talk) 21:22, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Oh. I did go back and looked at the criteria and at the other two FAs you mentioned above, I was under the impression that all the refs had to be in stylistic agreement with each other but these other 2 FAs have a mixture... Shearonink (talk) 19:45, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Shearonink: I just saw this comment. I can go with either this version with only shortened footnotes, or this version with a mixture of both. epicgenius (talk) 20:29, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Epicgenius Oh ok, but if you don't mind, let me think about it...I'll go over the FA criteria a bit more etc. If it's not necessary for you to change things per the criteria I'd rather you wouldn't have to. Shearonink (talk) 21:05, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Epicgenius I am fine with the 2 different styles. Shearonink (talk) 05:22, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support. The refs pass, my prose concerns were addressed, and I found no image issues. Shearonink (talk) 19:15, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spot check - pass

Shearonink has sub-contracted the spot checking of the references to me, so here goes.

  • Bibliography: "JAMAICA BAY: A HISTORY" should be in title case.
  • Cite 1 a - fine.
  • Cites 92 and 93 - fine.
  • Cite 31 c - I cannot find support for "though after the facility was destroyed by fire in 1861"
epicgenius - looks like the year is wrong, the year should be 1859 (see page 29/22 of the ref). Shearonink (talk) 14:13, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cite 50 c - the text is supported, but why is Schneider a RS?
  • Cite 61 a - fine.
  • A lot of the links are dead -[20]
Gog the Mild & epicgenius - In this case the dispenser.info gadget ("A lot of the links are dead") is incorrect - All the New York Times refs that it is flagging as "dead" - (the first # is the dispenser.info #, second is the ref # in the article)#15/46, 16/49, 21/55, 22/57, 20/54, 24/63, 25/65, 26/66, 28/71, 31/82, 32/84, 34/88 - are valid, they are available through the NYTimes (subscribers only) or through the Times' archives (sometimes subscribers only, sometimes not) "Time Machine". Shearonink (talk) 14:13, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Shearonink. I confess that when I tried Blakemore in the Bibliography and both the link and the archive failed I then ran the link tool and just assumed that the others were also faulty. I'll let epicgenius run there eye over them and then actually click on each one. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:23, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That all seems fine. Except that for Blakemore neither the PDF link nor the archive of it will connect for me - still. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:35, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: That's strange. This is a long 230-page PDF and the archive works fine for me. Maybe try this instead. epicgenius (talk) 14:38, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Even deader. Shearonink, does it work for you. If it does, I will AGF that there is some weird issue at my end. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:46, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, both links work for me. Shame you can't see it, what a great resource. Maybe try a different browser? Could be the sheer size of the pdf is bollixing things up for anyone across the pond. Shearonink (talk) 14:57, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Clearly some technical issue at my end. Not one I have had before. Anyway, everything seems tickity boo with the sourcing, so I am passing the spot checks.

Nb. I wasn't intending to, but given how long this has grown, I intend tio claim points for this review for the WikiCup. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:34, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Gog the Mild. I haven't participated all that much at FAC and appreciate all your time & attention to checking the refs. Shearonink (talk) 16:22, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's probably enough for now. I'll have another look when these have been addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:00, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Gog the Mild: Thanks for the source check. For 31c, the relevant text is "The Cornell factory was burned in 1859 and the operations moved to Flatbush" (page 26) - I had the wrong year by accident. For cite 50, the New York Times is generally considered a reliable source for info relating to NYC history, unless I'm missing something, in which case I will remove it. For NY Times sources in general, TimesMachine is frequently marked by bots as a dead link, even though it is still visible to subscribers like me. I've also fixed the title case of the Black source. epicgenius (talk) 14:27, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have clicked on each TimesMachine link and confirmed they all still work. Also added another source to back up the claim about no running water or fire department, which is supported by 50(c). epicgenius (talk) 14:30, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Support by Lee Vilenski

[edit]
Support from Hurricanehink

Oh, Brooklyn, I was hoping to move up there this fall. And now... it's the epicenter of a pandemic. Fun times y'all. Anyway, I came here from my FAC, so I figured I'd review this.

  • Its name is a corruption of Beeren Eylandt, the Dutch-language term for "Bears' Island". - Link corruption and/or Dutch language?
  • "and landfill was used to unite the island with the rest of Brooklyn." - link Land reclamation?
    • Done.
  • "70 acres (28 ha)" - link these units on their first usage
    • Done.
  • "In 1818, Barren Island was described as having dunes and scattered trees." - who described it? (not sure if relevant)
  • "The water adjoining the northern and western coasts was heavily polluted." - I'm guessing that's also in the 1920s?
  • " the homeland of the Canarsie Indians" - not a fan of the usage of "Indians" here
  • "The name "Barren Island" is a corruption of the Dutch "Beeren Eylandt"" - you put the Dutch name in italics in the lead, but in quotes here. Not sure if intentional
  • "According to a study by the State University of New York, historians believe that the Canarsie Indians who originally occupied the area used Barren Island to fish." - I get what the point is here, but I think the writing could be stronger. For example. "Historians with the State University of New York believe the indigenous Canarsie [people] used Barren Island to fish." Indigenous is a good substitute for "originally occupied the area".
  • "In 1664, New Netherland became British New York and Amersfoort was renamed Flatlands." - I was just going to edit it and add a comma after "New York" (it could use one), but I thought of a nitpick. Would it be appropriate to call it "British"? England didn't link up with Scotland until 1707
  • "At low tide, people on "mainland" Brooklyn" - why the quotes?
  • "Around 1800, a man named Dooley established an inn and entertainment venue" - was that his whole name?
  • "as well as for "fertilizer plants" that processed offal products" - why the quotes?
  • "By the late 1850s, two plants had been built on the island,[37] The plant" - did you mean for a semicolon here, or a fullstop?
  • "The 1892 census recorded" - not 1890?
  • "The unstable land along the coast caused numerous instances of landfall from 1890 to 1907" - do you mean landslide instead of landfall? I'm used to hurricanes here, so this might be right
  • Link garbage scow
    • Done.
  • Should you mention when the island (and Flatlands) became part of NYC?
    • Done.
  • Why wasn't Robert Moses able to expand the island in the 1950s?

It's a good read, I appreciated the in depth history you provided. I hope none of my comments are too arduous. Let me know if you have any questions. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:32, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • By chance, would you mind checking out one of the hurricane FAC's? We always have a tough time getting outsiders to review our articles, and I personally want to make sure they are understandable to non-storm experts. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:46, 24 March 2020 (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 Ealdgyth via FACBot (talk) 28 March 2020 [21].

Bill Kibby

[edit]
Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:25, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Kibby is the latest in my series on South Australian service personnel awarded the Victoria and George Crosses. He performed three separate actions during the prolonged Second Battle of El Alamein of the WWII North African campaign, the last of which cost him his life. The article has gone through GAN and Milhist ACR, so hopefully most of the rough edges have been filed off. Have at it! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:25, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Support from Gog the Mild

[edit]

NB. It is my intention to claim points for this review for the WikiCup. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:26, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have done a little copy editing, which you will want to check.

  • Any chance of replacing one of the "inspirational"s in the second paragraph of the lead?
  • "accompanied him on an occasional sketching trip" Is that one trip, or several?
  • "after his commander had been killed" I am not sure if "his" → 'its' might not work better.
  • "several times under intense fire. On 30–31 October, the platoon came under intense machine gun and mortar fire." Optional: rplace one of the "intense"s.
  • "Most of them were killed or wounded" If you are going to use "them", the previous sentence needs something like 'the men of the platoon'. Alternatively, 'Most of the members of the platoon were killed or wounded'.
  • "At one point during the last night". "the last night"? 'his last night'? Or 'the night of 30–31 October'?

And that's all I can find. A fine little article. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:26, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Gog. All done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:11, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:17, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Lead says he emigrated to Australia at 11, but text says only early 1914 - is there a source confirming it was after his birthday?
  • AWM and the Archives are publishers not works
  • Not convinced you need to include ACT for Canberra, but if you're to do it it must be done consistently
  • Your two Advertiser refs are differently formatted. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:17, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Kaiser matias

[edit]

Having reviewed a few of your other VC recipient article, figured I could do it again here. Not a lot I see:

  • "...was a British-born Australian recipient of the Victoria Cross, the highest award for gallantry in the face of the enemy that could be awarded to a member of the Australian armed forces at the time." It doesn't specify when "at the time" is here, so perhaps note he was a "recipient of the Victoria Cross during World War II" or something to that extent?
  • "The citation was partly based on a note found in the pocket of his dead company commander." Just want to say I found this particularly interesting.
  • "The award was gazetted..." It should clarify it was done in the London Gazette.
Thanks for taking a look, Kaiser matias! All done. I hope you are keeping well. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:05, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent, have my support now. Another quality article. Kaiser matias (talk) 14:46, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by JennyOz

[edit]

Hi Peacemaker67, great to see another in this series. I only have a few minor comments and suggestions...

  • After recovering, Kibby joined the brigade training battalion in August 1941 and also attended the infantry school to complete a weapons course - any locations for these?
  • George was invalided back to Adelaide early in 1943, and was able to pass on to Mrs. Kibby some of her husband's works - this looks a little odd here out of chron order, perhaps move to Postscript? (eg In early in 1943 Esmond George was invalided back to Adelaide and was able to pass on to Mrs. Kibby some of her husband's artworks.) (Both were exhibited. FFCF=Fighting Forces Comforts Fund?)
  • counterattacks v counter-attacks
  • At the Second Battle of El Alamein, during the... - this is a long para with no refs til end - maybe add one at "Distinguished Conduct Medal after this action, but was killed"? (ADB Gammage'd do)
  • On 30–31 October - over, during? or are you talking of the night, if so, slash instead of dash?
  • the fighting was over the total fighting strength of the battalion - any way to reword to avoid 2 x "fighting"?
  • and individually reburied the men - and reburied the men individually?
  • refs / news, journals / House for V.C's Dependants - add the dot after "C"
  • London Gazette - typo "attack attack". Actually, the first line of the citation is a little different eg punctuation missing comma after 1942 and is missing "Ridge"
  • At one point during the night of 31 October/1 November, - he died 31st so this looks strange. Maybe insert 'before midnight'?
  • (side question) Gammage and AWM have his year of birth as 1903, and according to this Winlaton baptism mention that is the correct year so why would he attest to it being 1905 (per the NAA ref)? Obviously I've heard of younger volunteers putting their dob back. Did older ones do the opposite? Just curious for future reading, not suggesting adding to article.)

Hope my comments make sense. Regards, JennyOz (talk) 01:07, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All good, thanks very much for taking a look, Jenny! Hope you are keeping well. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:21, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
All good indeed! Thanks PM. Yes, I am well thanks and being very sensible as I trust you are. JennyOz (talk) 05:31, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: this looks good to go, can I have dispensation for a fresh nom please? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:18, 28 March 2020 (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 Ealdgyth via FACBot (talk) 28 March 2020 [22].

1974 White House helicopter incident

[edit]
Nominator(s): L293D (☎ • ✎) 01:48, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A strange incident in which a helicopter mechanic, Robert Preston, stole a helicopter and flew around Washington D.C., then back to Maryland, being pursued by police in helis and cars. He turned back towards D.C. and actually landed on the south lawn of the White House while under fire from the secret service. I got interested in this when reading about it in a monthly Air & Space magazine, then forgot about it for a while, until I saw it again on WP's Main Page in the OTD section. After a complete rewrite from Start-class, a good article review, and an A-class review, I think it is ready for FA. Thanks! L293D (☎ • ✎) 01:48, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review—pass

[edit]
  • Daily Collegian — this is a student newspaper, what makes it an RS?
  • Other sources look good. Formatting OK. Source checks not done due to nominator's history. buidhe 01:31, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Suggest adding alt text
    • Done.
  • File:Preston_helicopter.jpg: possible to say something more useful than "dunno" for date? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:23, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I really wish I could have a date, but I've done a lot of digging and the image has no exif data. If you feel it's really important I think the only thing I can do is email Air & Space and ask them. L293D (☎ • ✎) 03:01, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Welp, I looked for about an hour and all I found was that 160219 is in the URL, so if I had to guess it would be February 19, 2016, but I really have no idea. You could always try to email Air and Space and see if they have any more information. Kees08 (Talk) 06:59, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've added that as the date: the url "04b_am2017_botzum160219" contains 04 and 2017, and the article is from the April 2017 magazine. The 160219 very strongly suggest that the image was taken on February 19, 2016. Not that it is really important, but that's settled. L293D (☎ • ✎) 03:11, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

[edit]
  • To my eye the lead seems unduly long relative to the length of the article. Optional: consider trimming it.
  • "On February 17, 1974, Army Private Robert K. Preston" As this is introducing the topic, it would be helpful to specify which army.
    • Says "US Army" now.
  • "Preston was returning to Tipton Field on leave south of Fort Meade where 30 Hueys were fueled and ready to fly" This doesn't really work to my eye. Perhaps two sentences? One describing Tipton Field's location and the aircraft there, and a second describibg Prestons actions?
    • Sounds better like this? "Shortly after midnight, Preston, on leave, was returning to Tipton Field, south of Fort Meade. Thirty helicopters at the base were fueled and ready to fly; he took off in one".
  • "This amounted to a six-month sentence, since he had already been in prison for six months at the time." This does not seem to be factually correct. Do you mean something like 'This meant that Preston had to serve an additional six months, since he... '?
    • Clearer like this: "The duration of his court-martial was given to him as time served; this resulted in a further six months in prison"?
  • The source you cite does not seem to support "downhearted due to ... his lack of success in his military career".
    • The source, Air & Space, says: "the 20-year-old private, despondent over his muddied future and a failed relationship, was on his way back..."
Yes, I did check it. The quote mentions "a failed relationship" - fine - and "his muddied future". The article addresses his past "lack of success in his military career".
  • Replaced with "unclear future in his military career".
Hmm. OK. Close enough I suppose.
  • "He caused one police car to crash with a head-on pass just a few inches above its roof" Suggest 'He caused one police car to crash by executing a head-on pass just a few inches above its roof'.
    • Good idea.
  • "then followed the Baltimore–Washington Parkway once again towards Washington, planning to surrender personally to U.S. President Richard Nixon. Preston flew back towards Washington" The second phrase in italics seems redundant.
    • Cut that part out.
  • "Shots hit Preston's foot, but he was able to regain control" "regain control" - it hasn't been stated nor suggested that he lost control.
    • Expanded on this.
  • "for overnight treatment" I am not sure about "overnight". Perhaps delete, or perhaps 'for treatment, and stayed there overnight'?
    • Removed.
  • "his resulted in a further six months in prison. He eventually served two months of hard labor at Fort Riley, Kansas before being granted a general discharge" I am confused. Was the two months in addition to or instead of the 6/12 months previously mentioned?
    • That was instead; I've replace "eventually" with "instead".
  • "The Secret Service increased the restricted airspace around the White House." It may be clearer to say 'The Secret Service increased the size of the restricted airspace around the White House.', if that is what is meant.
    • Done.

Overall, a nice piece of work. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:24, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That all looks good. Just the query over the interpretation of the source left. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:40, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Looks good to me. Supporting.
Nb, it is my intention to use this review to claim points in the WikiCup. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:11, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5

[edit]
  • On February 17, 1974, U.S. Army Private Robert K. Preston stole Link private and the US Army.
  • Link Fort Meade?
  • climbed into one of the helicopters, serial number 62–1920 The infobox uses an en dash while this sentence uses a minus hyphen.
  • Remove the citation in the infobox because it's already mentioned in the body.
  • South Lawn, 300 feet (91 m) from the mansion.[2][5][6][7][3] Re-oder the refs here.
  • Pipe President to the US President.
  • He died of cancer on July 21, 2009, while living in Ephrata, Washington What kind of cancer?
    • Source doesn't say, and I don't think it particularly relevant to the incident as whole.

That's it I think. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 19:09, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Epicgenius

[edit]

Hello, I will leave some comments. I plan to claim WikiCup points for this review.

  • two police Bell 206 JetRanger helicopters - shouldn't "police" be before "helicopters"?
    • Good catch.
  • United States Secret Service should be in the lead as well.
    • Done.
  • This meant he had to serve six additional months, since he had already been in prison for six months at the time. - I suppose this can be flipped around: "Since he had already been in prison for six months at the time, he only had to serve six additional months."
    • Done.
  • "Towards" is used in the lead but "toward" in the Background section. It should be consistent.
    • That was a typo.
  • Preston left a dance hall and restaurant downhearted - I feel like there should be a comma after "restaurant".
    • Done.
  • It would make me feel better because I love flying". - since this is a complete sentence, the period should be before the quote. The page already has a comma before a quotation mark - in the same sentence actually - so this should be changed for consistency.
    • Nice catch.
  • Secret Service policy at the time was to fire at aerial intruders, but when and how to do so was vague - this also reads strangely to me, specifically "when and how to do so was vague". There should be a better way of wording this.
    • Removed "when and".
  • Washington National Airport (now known as "Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport") - genuine question, do we really need the parenthetical note? It doesn't seem important to the narrative.
    • It's in the link so I don't think it is important.

I have to go somewhere but will continue these comments later. So far, it looks good, even if a bit short. epicgenius (talk) 15:22, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here are my remaining comments:

  • car-top level - the roofs of the cars?
    • Yes.
  • At the time of the incident, President Richard Nixon was traveling in Florida, and First Lady Pat Nixon was in Indianapolis, visiting their sick daughter, Julie.[8] - This paragraph is only one sentence. Usually these should be combined with longer paragraphs unless there's a good reason.
    • Merged with previous para.
  • It was evaluated by army personnel and found to be flightworthy despite its many bullet holes, and it lifted off in front of cameras from many major TV networks and reporters shortly before noon. It was extensively photographed as part of the investigation, then was repaired and returned to service. It was later put on display at Naval Air Station Joint Reserve Base Willow Grove.[2] - I suggest replacing some instances of "it" with "the helicopter", otherwise the wording gets repetitive.
    • Done.
  • equivalent to $518.42 in 2019, equivalent to $12,442 in 2019 - Generally a source is needed for stuff like this, but you can use inflation-fn in this case.
    • Done.
  • Can you link time served?
    • Done.
  • this resulted in a further six months in prison - should be rephrased. Because of his time served, he only had six months remaining in his sentence. The current wording implies that six months was appended to the 1-year sentence, which isn't the case.
  • The Secret Service increased the size of the restricted airspace around the White House - from what size to what size? Only if you feel this is important, but the previous size of the restricted airspace may be interesting.
    • I do feel it is important, but I can't find a source right now.
  • Citation 4, Public Report of the White House security review, Federation of American Scientists. Archived December 2, 2006, at WebCite needs a {{cite web}} or other CS2 template for consistency with other refs.
    • Done.

These are all my comments. Otherwise this looks good. epicgenius (talk) 17:51, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support by PM

[edit]

I went through this article in detail at Milhist ACR and have reviewed the changes since. I consider it meets the FA criteria. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:29, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Kees08

[edit]

I have read through this a couple times for curiosity's sake, happy to see it here. Have not seen any glaring issues and will give it a full review shortly. Placeholder in case I forget so someone can ping me. Kees08 (Talk) 18:31, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Kees08: - L293D (☎ • ✎) 14:19, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

  • Currently using two author name formats (last, first; first last) in the references; consolidate to one
    • changed all to last, first
  • If I squint my eyes I think I see an author for "Soldier Lands Stolen Copter on White House Lawn" in the screenshot of the newspaper. I can check it and others through my free local library if you do not have a way. So this is a general comment that all references with authors should have authors
    • I would be really nice if you could do this for me, maybe my computer screen is too small, but I can't see any author. I've checked all the other news cite websites; all but the NYT have extra high resolution but I can't see any authors. Is there a standard place to look for the article author that isn't in the news piece itself?
      • Added (and the others were AP so added those). I can get on NYT easy enough, I just have to enter my library card number, go through a little tutorial thing, and it is valid for one day at a time. No worries, this point is resolved. Kees08 (Talk) 05:17, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Using webarchive within cite web makes the output different; suggest using archive-url, archive-date, and url-status parameters instead
    • Done, standardized.
  • I would add via=Google News to the Kentucky New Era citation
    • Done.
  • Is the external link the same as the Federation of American Scientists link?
  • Assassinations, Threats, and the American Presidency: From Andrew Jackson to Barack Obama seems like a good RS to include. You might have to ask at the resource request, Google Books only has one page in the area available.
    • Judging by the top and bottom the page, it seems to be the only page related to Preston.
    • In that short section it says that it is believed Preston inspired Byck. Byck's article says the same thing. Is that something that warrants inclusion in your opinion?
      • Yes, I've added a short mention.
  • My Extraordinary Journey with Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, and Ford also has a mention. Have you done a source search for books? I was surprised to see no books in the sources, I figured RS's had written about the incident and from a cursory look it seems like they have. My other concern was that most of the sources are contemporary and at least some could possibly be replaced with newer book sources.
    • I did some research on google books, but most of the works I've found only include passing 1-paragraph mentions. From what I've seen, they don't contradict the contemporary sources, most of which are more detailed. However, I understand that at least some sources should be new, so I've included the two books you've suggested. L293D (☎ • ✎) 13:36, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear on the book point, I doubt you will find new information on the incident and I do not think it will be a big deal. Just want to make sure we included recent RS's if available. From WP:FASOURCE Are the main sources reasonably up-to-date, and therefore likely to represent the most recent scholarship? Older sources, particularly contemporaneous primary sources, are often appropriate, but the nominator may need to explain why they've been chosen. (which although an essay, provides good advice). I think the article is in very good shape overall. Kees08 (Talk) 21:52, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Content

  • The dollar sign is usually not wikilinked (looks like once in the intro and once in the body right now)
  • Your choice to rephrase stole a Bell UH-1B Iroquois helicopter (commonly known as a "Huey") from to stole a Bell UH-1B Iroquois "Huey" helicopter from
    • Yeah, done.
  • Could go without 'only' here he only had to serve six additional months.
    • Okay.
  • Is there any more information? I assume it was a private pilot's license flying airplanes, but a teeny bit of additional information here, if available, would help the article IMO He earned a pilot's license
    • Changed to "private pilot's license for single-engine, fixed-wing aircraft", from the NYT.
  • Could go without the United States Army Airfield wl to avoid two back-to-back; it just goes to a list of airfields of which Tipton is one
    • Good catch.
  • It sounds like in the prose that he served hard labor instead of six more months; in the intro it sounds like he served six months
    • This is a bit of a contradiction, because the Kentucky New Era, also claims Preston was originally sentenced to six months of hard labor, where all the other available sources say six months of jail. If that's okay with you, I've removed the "hard labor" mention entirely.
      • Sounds fine, might want to adjust the intro to match what happened. Kees08 (Talk) 20:00, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ajust how? The lead doesn't say he did forced labor, it doesn't go into the specifics of his trial and sentence. L293D (☎ • ✎) 20:53, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • The lead says Since he had already been in prison for six months at the time, he had to serve six additional months. After his release,. Which is twelve months total. The prose says The duration of his court-martial was given to him as time served; this meant he had to serve a further six months in prison.[11] He instead served two months at Fort Riley, which is eight months total. Kees08 (Talk) 21:05, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
            • The lead says he was sentenced to serve six more months, the body goes into more detail and explains that he actually only served two. In the US, you almost never serve the full duration a prison sentence, there's all sorts of appeals and paroles, so it's fairly standard for the sentence to be way different from what the dude actually served. I can go into more specifics in the lead if you feel it would be useful to the reader. L293D (☎ • ✎) 22:14, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
              • I'll leave it to you as to which is better. It could go either way so not a big deal. I think I remember another editor commenting on length of the intro so I get keeping it concise. Kees08 (Talk) 22:22, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • This might be a good 'see also' link List of White House security breaches
    • Sure, that works.

I think that's all for now. Kees08 (Talk) 20:16, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Supporting now, there are no dedicated books on the incident and the ones that have a bit more detail in them are included in the article. Source formatting is good, images are the best available, seems well-written and provides the complete story without going into too much detail. Might want to address the one note I just added about the intro but that is it. Kees08 (Talk) 20:00, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments support by Pendright

[edit]

Next in the queue! Pendright (talk) 00:58, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Pendright: does that mean it's the next one to be promoted? I'm still somewhat unfamiliar with the FAC process. L293D (☎ • ✎) 19:02, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is intended to mean that I’m next in line to review the article once the previous review is completed. Now that it is, I’ll start my review. Thanks for asking! Pendright (talk) 20:52, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lead:

  • The U.S. is spelled out with its first use
  • Done.
<>A further review of MOS indicates that common abbreviations need not be expanded even on first use. I withdraw the comment and add my apology!
  • Most English dictionaries do not define the word stole in the context in which it is used here. Consider a substitute word that means what you intend.
  • Changed to "Preston took off in a Bell UH-1B Iroquois "Huey" helicopter".
<>How about - Preston took off in a [stolen] Bell UH-1B Iroquois "Huey" helicopter?
Sure, that works for me. - L293D
  • Was he a private or a private first class?
  • I want to keep the first sentence clear and concise. His specific rank is stated in the body. He was a private first class.
<>I can appreciate your desire to keep it clear and concise, but your lead is supposed to be the summary of the body of the article. So if he is a PFC in the body, logically, he is a PFC in the lead. I’m sure you’ll agree that consistency is important in article writing as well as for the Wikipedia readers.
Sure, changed. - L293D
  • ... but he did not graduate from the helicopter training course and lost his opportunity to attain the rank of warrant officer pilot.
Link warrant officer
  • Done.
  • ... and he was sent to Fort Meade as a helicopter mechanic.
Link Fort Meade here and unlink in the next paragraph
  • Done.
  • He then flew back towards Fort Meade pursued by two Bell 206 JetRanger police helicopters and police cars.
  • Add a semicolon after Fort Meade to join the two independent clauses.
  • Do you really think that a semicolon is needed? I've changed it to a comma for now, I feel it's more appropriate.
<>The sentence does have two independent clauses. So, according to rule, a comma and a coordinating conjunction, such as and, or a semicolon can join two independent clause
Well, I reworded it so I didn't have to write it weirdly like this. - L293D
  • FYI - Towards and toward mean the same, but toward is the preferred spelling in American English.
  • Okay, changed now.
  • After a chase over Maryland, he reversed course towards Washington again and entered the White House grounds.
Did he actually enter the grounds in the way we generally understand the word enter?
  • Yes, I'm pretty sure he entered the grounds in the way we generally would think a person in a helicopter would.
  • In a plea bargain at his court-martial, Preston pled guilty to "wrongful appropriation and breach of the peace", was sentenced to one year in prison, and was fined US$2,400 (equivalent to $12,442 in 2019).
  • Replace "In a plea" with In the plea - it's specific!
  • Sure.
  • Add and after the second comma before was - when a comma separates two independent clauses it must be accompanied by a coordinating conjunction such as and.
  • Reworded, do you feel is it well written like this, or should I separate the sentence into two.
<>It's a long sentence, but it does flow well. I would consider changing fine to fined because sentenced is past tense.
The word fine is used as a noun. I don't see why writing "he was sentenced to a fined of $2,400" would be better. - L293D
  • Deleting the last comma after prison will state his entire sentencing without interuption.
  • Done.
  • (equivalent to $12,442 in 2019) - Are these equivalents (here and in the body) reported by the source, or was a U.S. Inflation Rate Calculator used?
  • A automatic conversion template is used, the conversion is the same in the lead and body.
<>Great, sorry I missed the conversion!
  • Preston received a general discharge from the army,
Link general discharge
  • Done.

Background:

  • After enrolling in the U.S. Army in 1972, he trained to become a helicopter pilot, flying a Hughes TH-55 Osage at Fort Wolters, Texas.
  • Enlisting is the common nominclature used when volunteeing for a military service.
  • Already done by someone else.
  • After flying, change the indefinte article to the definite article.
  • Okay.
  • He enrolled in the Junior Reserve Officers' Training Corps program at Rutherford High School
One of your sources says he also - "studied aviation management at Gulf Coast Community College." Is this worth adding?

Incident:

  • I don't think so, I haven't seen that in other sources so I have doubts about the accuracy of that statement.
<>You'll find it under your Reference note 2, the first web link.
Good point, I've added it to the article. - L293D
  • On February 17, 1974, shortly after midnight, Preston left a dance hall and restaurant, downhearted due to a failed relationship and his unclear future in his military career.
Given the incident that followd, I suspect Preston was more likely to have been angry or irate, rather than downhearted? Does the source describe his emotinal state at the time?
  • Air & Space, my best source, says "despondent over his muddied future and a failed relationship"
<>Fair enough!
  • He returned to United States Army Airfield Tipton Field south of Fort Meade, where thirty Bell UH-1 Huey helicopters were fueled and ready.
  • Wouldn't "He returned to Tripton Field" say the same thing in a more direct way?
  • I've cut out "United States", but I do feel it's important for the reader to know exactly what Tipton field was, given that it became an airport later.
<>Fair enough!
  • Place a comma after field - this phrase is not essential to the meaning of the sentence.
  • Sure.
  • ... and started pre-flight checks.
Preflight is one word
  • There's some disagreement in dictionaries over this one, but fine.
  • Preston flew low over the restaurant he had visited earlier, then briefly touched down in a nearby field, where his hat was later recovered.
why the comma after field?
  • Removed.
  • [The] Secret Service policy[,] at the time[,] was to fire at aerial intruders, but when ...
Add items in brackets [ ]
  • Okay
  • The helicopter was suddenly illuminated by [the] floodlights, and [the] Secret Service agents opened fire with automatic weapons and shotguns.
Add items in brackets [ ]
  • I kinda disagree on this one. Why that so many "the"s? The floodlights were not mentioned previously.
<>The definite article (the) is used before singular and plural nouns when the noun is specific or particular. I suppose one could argue about the first definite article, but the second one leaves no doubt about its appropriateness.

Aftermath:

Sure, I've added a the in the second case. - L293D
  • It is believed that Preston's actions influenced Samuel Byck to attempt to hijack a plane five days later, carrying a .22 cal revolver and a gasoline bomb.
Spell out caliber
  • Sounds fair.
  • His lawyers arranged a plea bargain in which all civil charges would be dropped if the case was transferred to the military.
Change was to were

Pendright (talk) 19:59, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve finished reviewing your responses to my original comments. You’ve covered most of them already, but there are a few left. Thanks for being so prompt. Pendright (talk) 08:58, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All of my comments have had a response - supporting! Pendright (talk) 05:04, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: Is this ready to be promoted, or is some more support necessary? L293D (☎ • ✎) 03:24, 28 March 2020 (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 Ealdgyth via FACBot (talk) 28 March 2020 [23].

Herbert Maryon

[edit]
Nominator(s): Usernameunique (talk) 23:18, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

When the Queen asked him what he did, Herbert Maryon responded that he was a "back room boy at the British Museum." This humble (or, perhaps, deer-in-headlights) comment belied the fact that Maryon, at Buckingham for his appointment to the Order of the British Empire, had only just embarked on his second career; a sculptor, metalsmith, and archaeologist for the first half of the 20th century, Maryon joined the museum's research laboratory at the end of the war and immediately set to work on the treasures from Sutton Hoo, one of Britain's greatest archaeological finds. In other work, he excavated one of Britain's oldest gold artefacts, restored a Roman helmet from Syria, and influenced a painting by Salvador Dalí. When nearly 90 he retired for the second time—then left for an around-the-world museum and lecture tour (where at least two Wikipedians, Peter Knutsen and AJim, heard him speak in 1962).

This exhaustive article has been built over the last three years. It is easily the most comprehensive take on Maryon's life and contributions, collecting information from hundreds of sources, and spawning a number of related articles (e.g., Works of Herbert Maryon). It was reviewed by KJP1 last May and recently given a fresh copyedit by me, and is ready to be nominated here. --Usernameunique (talk) 23:18, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
  • As per Commons, signatures are eligible for copyright protection in the UK
  • This page doesn't reflect an official policy and as far as I can tell, its UK commentary merely reflects one user's opinion from 12 years ago. None of the sources mentioned offer more than a line or two of analysis, and the one court decision mentioned in the UK is significantly mischaracterized, which makes me question the sweeping declaration that UK signatures should not be used on Wikipedia. A better analysis, I think, would ask whether the signature does more (and/or is intended to do more) than fulfill a utilitarian purpose; here, there is no question that it is simply a utilitarian signature.
  • This is a good example of the dangers of taking legal advice from a Wikipedia article—let alone one with three hat notes warning the reader of a lack of sources. After all, that article used to say the complete opposite, and even now, it uses what an edit description refers to as "a book about british law" to say that signatures are also copyrightable in the United States. I'm willing to believe that a signature that is intended as an independent creative expression—and that exhibits a degree of labour, skill or judgement—can be copyrighted. Kurt Vonnegut, for one, may have a case. But there is a reason that courts refer to signatures as "copyright management information" (definition); the vast majority of signatures are essentially nothing other than metadata. Or, as the unquoted next paragraph in the "book about british law" says, "It should be remembered that copyright only subsists in works which are the product of skill, judgment and labour. An everyday signature of a rudimentary nature is unlikely to satisfy these requirements." --Usernameunique (talk) 19:09, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Newcastle Libraries only posts images to Flickr that they understand to be in the public domain (link).
  • Added.
  • Yes. Both were published in 1954, so—assuming life +70 applies—the earliest either of them could enter the public domain is around 2024.

Thanks for the image review, Nikkimaria. Responses above. --Usernameunique (talk) 19:01, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FunkMonk

[edit]
  • "Herbert Maryon studied from 1896 to 1900" I assume his name is repeated in full here to separate him from his siblings mentioned before?
  • Exactly.
  • "Memorial to Bernard Gilpin in St Cuthbert's Church" Could you specify it is by Maryon and when? Perhaps that image should moved a paragraph down to where it is mentioned?
  • Added. I'll probably eventually move it two paragraphs down and add a second photograph (of an earlier work) above, but have left it where it is for now.
  • "The University of Reading War Memorial" Likewise, the caption establishes no context or date.
  • "Three other commissions in silver—a loving cup, a processional cross, and a challenge shield—were featured in The Studio and its international counterpart." Any dates for these?
  • Added "Three other commissions in silver—a loving cup, a processional cross, and a challenge shield—were completed towards the end of Maryon's tenure and the school and featured in The Studio and its international counterpart". I've left a specific date out since while they were presumably done in 1904—Maryon's last year at the school—they weren't featured in the magazines until 1905 (The Studio) and 1906 (International Studio).
  • "along with an altar cross designed by Maryon for Hexham Abbey" Any of the crosses seen here?[24][25]
  • Yes, right in the middle: it's the one seen here. It might be possible to get a photograph from Hexham Abbey of just the cross, which I need to follow up on.
  • "vade mecum" Could this be explained in parenthesis?
  • Why not full name for Cellini as everyone else?
  • Only because he's frequently referred to by his last name only, but that's not a particularly good reason. Now given as Benvenuto Cellini
  • Why not spell out W. G. Collingwood and G. M. Collinson? All other names are.
  • W. G. Collingwood because he seems to have gone by his initials, but I've changed it for the sake of consistency. I haven't been able to find the full name of G. M. Collinson.
  • "Three years later he witnessed" Could a year be given instead for simplicity? Wouldn't want to break up the flow by making the readers calculate, hehe...
  • Done.
  • "teaching at sculpture at Armstrong College" Is the first "at" needed?
  • Nope, removed.
  • "While there he published his second book, Modern Sculpture: Its Methods and Ideals." Date?
  • 1933, added.
  • "These included at least two plaques, memorialising George Stephenson,[18][127] and Sir Charles Parsons" Dates?
  • "The statue was the subject of "adverse criticism" Why?
  • Because it's ugly? Unfortunately I haven't been able to find the answer to this, despite a fair amount of searching. The footnote I've just added adds some depth; works by Jacob Epstein had recently been tarred and feathered, so the tarring of Maryon's was presumably a copycat event. Yet while that indicates where the students likely got the idea of tarring and feathering, it does not answer why they decided to take it out on Statue of Industry. A librarian at Durham University also found a brief excerpt in the November 1929 issue of the college's magazine The Northerner, but it doesn't shed much light either: "Angry critics of our 'industrious' raggers suggested that they should be punished by being splashed as they splashed the statue. They would then have been 'moist with their own – betarred.' [Tut! Tut! – ED.]". There are a few other ways I’ve been meaning to look into this—by emailing a few more libraries, and by trying to nail down the universe of newspapers/school magazines the statue might have been mentioned in—but so far it’s unclear.
  • "when he was 64 or 65" Maybe bypass this irritating uncertainty by just saying mid-60s?
  • Done.
  • "He spent the World War II years, from 1939 to 1943, engaged in munition work." Any further details on this?
  • Nothing, unfortunately. I've spent some time looking for this, but haven't been able to find anything beyond how Maryon described that time in a later bio, which is "Munition Work, 1939–43".
  • "One of the gold ornaments from the Kirkhaugh cairns" Again, some context? Maybe add "excavated under Maryon in 1935" or similar?
  • Now One of two gold ornaments from the Kirkhaugh cairns, matching the one excavated by Maryon in 1935
  • The paragraph under "British Museum, 1944–61" is a massive wall of text, could it be broken in two?
  • Done.

Many thanks, FunkMonk. Responses above. —Usernameunique (talk) 06:11, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • "to T. D. Kendrick" Full name?
  • Done.
  • "in the modern-day city of Homs" Odd phrasing?
  • Now The Roman Emesa helmet had been found in the Syrian city Homs in 1936. I was been trying to indicate that Homs was once called Emesa (without repeating the word Emesa), but it was a bit clunky, and risked making it sound as if "Homs" is a recent name.
Ah, sorry, I misread the text the first time and didn't see the "of" somehow. I actually thought I had removed the comment, but there we go... FunkMonk (talk) 19:00, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "D. E. L. Haynes" Full name?
  • Done.
  • "Not only the pose, but even the hammered plates of Maryon's theory find [in Dalí's painting] a clear and very powerful expression." Who said this? Long wuotes like that could use in-text attribution.
  • Done: "Not only the pose," wrote de Callataÿ, "but even the hammered plates of Maryon's theory find [in Dalí's painting] a clear and very powerful expression."
  • "W. S. Gilbert" Full name?
  • Done.
  • You mention Toronto twice, only linking it the second time
  • Fixed.
  • I wonder if the intro is a tad too long (a fourth)? The article itself isn't that long in relation.
I'll read the intro once this is answered, then I should be pretty close to support. FunkMonk (talk) 19:00, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've shortened it by about 12%—does it still look too long? It's a bit hard to chop it down, given how many things Maryon did; each careers seems to have produced at least half a dozen things worth talking about.
  • " J. C. Orelli's" Full?
  • Done.
  • "tin are very brittle,"" Should the quotation mark not be before the comma?
  • Impressed you made it that deep into that footnote. Fixed.
Thanks for the review, FunkMonk. I think I've responded to everything above. --Usernameunique (talk) 02:32, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Last tiny issue, I don't see this specifically stated in the article body: "and began an around-the-world trip lecturing and researching Chinese magic mirrors".
Ah, I read it as if the trip around the world was for researching Chinese magic mirrors and lecturing about them. Maybe the text can be clarified a bit. Anyhow, no big deal. FunkMonk (talk) 12:29, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]
  • Avoid having more than three citations in a row, especially in the lead; it's distracting.
  • I've cut down on these considerably, although have left a few places where the citations are independently useful. These are: different types of sources for newly discovered helmet fragments (see below), four sources which together support the general number of Maryon's publications, a variety of contemporaneous death notices, and in footnote 2, where the relevant literature (four articles/chapters) for a particular subject is listed.
  • Footnote 8: The vast number of news sources is completely unnecessary. List one or two per country explicitly stating which country. That's much more useful and better for showing "international attention".
  • How does it look now, with the cites now as external links rather than footnotes? Numerous newspaper articles were published, including in the United Kindom, Canada, and the United States. See § Colossus articles.
  • Is it really necessary to cite five different obituaries? Just one probably suffices for this information. Move others to external links if they are providing unique info not in the article already. (per WP:EL) buidhe 02:11, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Necessary is perhaps the wrong word, but (I think) they add some interesting color. As I mention below, the five citations are hardly pretty, but it's a collection of all of the immediate notices of Maryon's death: two in The Daily Telegraph two days after his death (likely paid and unpaid notices), two versions of the story picked up by The Canadian Press, and Maryon's probate. It's somewhat interesting to see how his death was dealt with by the papers, and I figured that's the best place to put those particular sources, given that the later obituaries are more detailed retrospectives on his career and are thus included earlier.
  • Per WP:NOT and standard practice, we should not host an exhaustive list of Maryon's articles. Only keep those that are cited in the article or meet some other defined criteria.
  • This might make more sense with someone who has more publications, or whose list of publications is widely accessible online. In Maryon's case, however, the list gives a sense of the breadth of his studies and interests; helpfully provides links to all but nine of his articles; and lists some contributions, such as early articles in obscure journals, that would otherwise be overlooked. The three articles in Goldsmiths Journal, for instance, are not even mentioned online, and are only able to be listed because I found a copy of Maryon's cv in the Penn Museum's archives, and Serial Number 54129 then dug up copies in the British Library.
  • Although personal preferences certainly vary, the list is something that I think adds value, and that (in keeping with my prior practice—see for example Caroline Brady § Publications and D. H. Turner § Publications) I would prefer to add. And though WP:NOT does not appear to say anything about the issue, WP:MOS § list of works actively supports its inclusion: "Complete lists of works ... are encouraged, particularly when such lists are not already freely available on the internet."

More to come. buidhe 14:08, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • "by 1954 Herbert Maryon had spent 60 years tracing back the history of the family." is cited to a self-published source which doesn't meet WP:SPS. Nominator added this back after it was removed by another user. buidhe 03:55, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Buidhe, I’m sorry if you thought I meant to overlook your thoughts regarding the self-published work that you removed. I realize that undoing an edit is sometimes an overly abrupt maneuver, and I could have been more clear about why I did it. Did you happen to see my edit summary? I agree that it could be problematic to rely on it for whatever genealogical records are recorded within; I only meant to rely on for the discrete fact that Herbert Maryon had, as of 1954, spent some 60 years researching his family’s past. I don’t think it’s a controversial point—he probably just told the author as much in a letter, and the copious amount of material at the Essex Records Office makes clear that Maryon was indeed an amateur genealogist. But please let me know if you see it differently. By the way, I hope to respond to your other points later today. Best, —Usernameunique (talk) 12:23, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Buidhe, one of the explicit exceptions to the general disfavoring of self-published sources is for uncontroversial information about which an author would be expected to have personal knowledge. The spirit of that exception would seem to hold true here. But rather than belabor an exceedingly minor point, I've removed that source and sentence. Hopefully that will allow us to turn to any further comments on the article you may have. --Usernameunique (talk) 02:56, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from JM

[edit]

I have to head off imminently, but a few quick comments to start with... Josh Milburn (talk) 22:04, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sorry to be a bore, but... Could you say a little more about the Life Archive from which the lead image is taken? Are the images for sale? I'm just thinking about the not-often-mentioned non-free content criterion 2.
  • I would hardly expect you to forget one of the NFC criteria! In 2008, Life and Google partnered to digitize the magazine's photograph archive, which Google published online. Google did the same for each issue of Life. Although copyright of the photographs remained with Time Warner, rights were made entirely "free for personal and research purposes" (see press release). The images are also available for purchase (see the image's page, which has a "Buy framed image" link); as one article mentioned at the time (link), the commercial benefit to Time Warner is that the photographs, by being made widely available, are now widely monetizable.
What you are presumably getting at is that the best way to uphold NFCC #2, "Respect for commercial opportunities," appears to be to use the photograph at its full resolution as available via Google. That way it can be given greater visibility, and those interested in purchasing the image—in original resolution and/or for commercial use—are more likely to see it. I'm glad you noticed that; it means that we can find synergy between the interests of readers and of the copyright holder, by using the image at its higher resolution.
  • In the lead, you refer to him as a "teacher" - given that he's publishing books as well, and some of his positions were at major research universities, would "academic" or "lecturer" not be preferable?
  • Changed "while a teacher" to "while teaching," although he is still referred to as a "teacher" elsewhere. In his own 1960 bio (link), he is referred to as "Teacher of Modelling and Crafts, University of Reading, 1908-27; ... Master of Sculpture and Lecturer in Anatomy and the History of Sculpture, King's College." I chose teacher partly because of that description, and partly because it is the most general; considering the many, frequently overlapping corners of Maryon's career, it seems incorrect to pin him down as an "academic" or a "lecturer." Meanwhile, I just realized that among all the many descriptions in the first sentence, teacher is not one of them. Might have to add a seventh...
  • "coined the term pattern welding to" Words as words; you should use italics.
  • Done; good catch, I had no idea that was a thing.
  • Added. I've considered that one for a while, especially as it is singled out in the article, although hadn't until now because a) it doesn't come out all that well at small size, and b) I have my eyes set on another piece that I would like to get a photograph of. But this should do the trick for now.

Ok, more:

  • Is "The Jewelers' Circular" a periodical? If so, italics? And one of what? The critical notes?
  • italicized, and changed to One such note.
  • "led the one-time secretary of the Metropolitan Museum of Art to label Maryon not" If you're not naming the secretary, shouldn't that be a one-time secretary? Surely there's more than one.
  • Yep, done.
  • "teaching at sculpture at Armstrong College" ??
  • Fixed.
  • "The book received mixed reviews.[115]" Can you say that while citing one source? Or is that a source that specifically says that the book received mixed reviews?
  • It's a bit of a mixed review itself, so is being used more as an example than as support. I figured it's as good a place as any to cite that review.
  • "with brown umber, this was also used to fill the in-between areas" Comma splice - also, what does the this refer to, here? Brown umber, or the mix?
  • The plaster, actually, which leaves us with (I think) a grammatically correct but confusing sentence. How does it sound as: Finally, the fragments were permanently affixed with white plaster; this was mixed with brown umber, this was also used to fill the in-between areas.
  • Meant to say "which was also" there but edited too quickly, but that is also problematic. How does Finally, the fragments were permanently affixed with white plaster mixed with brown umber; this was also used to fill the in-between areas. sound?
  • Does this mixture was also used to fill the in-between areas do the trick?
  • Yes, sorry. Have been busy and edited too quickly. Meanwhile, that that also proves your point about it being unclear! I've changed it to Finally, the fragments were permanently affixed with white plaster mixed with brown umber; plaster was also used to fill the in-between areas.
  • "Yet as Bruce-Mitford wrote" Is it fair to present this in Wikipedia's neutral voice? It reads like editorialising.
  • No, that's a good point. Changed to Yet "[m]uch of Maryon's work is valid", Bruce-Mitford wrote. "The general character of the helmet was made plain."
  • "while a 1948 paper introduced the term pattern welding to describe a method, employed on the Sutton Hoo sword and others,[27] of strengthening and decorating iron and steel by welding into them twisted strips of metal." I understand your desire to have references following punctuation, but I'm struggling with the commas here
  • The awkward phrasing is more an attempt to keep the subject matter consistent, with Sutton Hoo mentioned in the prior sentence. How does Several of Maryon's earlier papers, in 1946 and 1947, described his restorations of the shield and helmet from the Sutton Hoo burial.[181][215] In 1948 another paper introduced the term pattern welding to describe a method of strengthening and decorating iron and steel by welding into them twisted strips of metal;[29][216][217] the method was employed on the Sutton Hoo sword among others, giving them a distinctive pattern. sound?
  • Could you perhaps make clear who claims that the hollow statue ideas were "great"?
  • Clarified: Although "great ideas" according to the scholar Godefroid de Callataÿ. We could get more specific, although "according to the professor of Arabic and Islamic Studies at the Oriental Institute of the University of Louvain Godefroid de Callataÿ" is a mouthful.
  • This is only a half thought, but it seems strange to talk about marriages and children only at the end when wives and sons have been alluded to earlier.
  • Let me know if you have a better suggestion, but I've spent some time thinking about this and I'm not sure how else to put it. There isn't a particularly logical place to put the 1903 marriage in the Keswick section (although "Mrs. Herbert J. Maryon" is mentioned there, and is presumably said wife, that relates to something that happened in 1906). And his son John is mentioned earlier—but in the last sentence of the preceding section. I think it might be easier to integrate the personal details into the rest of the article if we had better information, but all I've really found is names and dates.
  • At least some of your footnote references probably need some italics without them being there.
  • Is there a type of citation that you're noticing that needs them? I've italicized all of the newspaper and journal titles; are you thinking of things like "Mapping England" and "Historic England"?

Great read - I'm seeing very few issues. Please double-check my edits. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:13, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you've come to expect this comment from me, but, for the record... Per WP:LEADLENGTH, the article's lead is too long. Josh Milburn (talk) 07:46, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Milburn, yes, I was surprised to see your initial comments touch on only two thirds of the fair use/logical quotation/lead length trifecta! I’ve taken some more out of the first paragraph, although as noted above, I’ve had some difficulty in shortening it further; the guy did a lot of things in his 91 years & 2 careers, and a lot of it is noteworthy. Is there anything In particular you would consider removing from the lead? —Usernameunique (talk) 06:13, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Images (again, sorry): Josh Milburn (talk) 08:00, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm happy with your explanation for the lead image. If we've definitely no free image, that one's probably usable.
  • File:University of Reading War Memorial.jpg: If this is a Maryon-designed building, we probably need a FOP tag. I think there's some confusion about "Andrew Smith" on the image page.
  • Done. And removed the "Andrew Smith" link; looks like a bot put that in 2012.
  • Done.


Hey J Milburn, just wanted to see if you have any further comments on this. Thanks, --Usernameunique (talk) 02:01, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Usernameunique: The Winged Victory image will need a FOP tag - as well as some details about its location! Josh Milburn (talk) 14:43, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
J Milburn, I'm not sure we'll need a FOP tag for that one, as any copyright appears to have lapsed through publication. Its style—taken from Maryon's teacher Alexander Fisher—was published at least as early as 1900, and the one distinguishing characteristic of Maryon's design—the cast of Nike—was published in 1904. --Usernameunique (talk) 02:46, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If the work is PD, that's fine - you're right that no FOP tag would be required. But perhaps you could explain that on the image page? Josh Milburn (talk) 07:26, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
J Milburn, done. —Usernameunique (talk) 18:12, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning support on prose and images. I still think the leads too long (and by the letter of WP:LEADLENGTH, it is) but that concern doesn't seem to hold as much water at FAC as some others. I've not looked into the lengthy bibliography, further reading, etc. sections, so this support is basically conditional on checks there coming back OK. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:55, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt

[edit]
Interesting reading. A few things.
  • The word "memorial" is used three times in a short span in the second paragraph's final sentence, once as a proper noun, once as a common noun and once as an adjective. Suggest avoiding one of them.
  • I've cut and moved this sentence significantly, and it now only contains one use of the word "memorial."
  • "At the end of 1899 he displayed a silver cup and a shield of arms with silver cloisonné at the sixth exhibition of the Arts and Crafts Exhibition Society, an event held at the New Gallery that also included a work by Maryon's sister Edith.[51]" Unless there is some reason not to, I would move up the Maryon to before "displayed" and substitute "his" before "sister".
  • Reworded.
  • "At the following year's exhibition the Manchester School of Art purchased a copper jug he designed for its Arts and Crafts Museum.[78]" Slight ambiguity, since it could be read to say he designed the jug for the museum, something which seems unlikely.
  • Reworded: At the following year's exhibition a copper jug he designed was purchased by the Manchester School of Art for its Arts and Crafts Museum.
  • "He was also the warden of Wantage Hall from 1920 to 1922.[9][10] " A link to the intended use of warden might be useful for American readers.
  • "and more helmet fragments were discovered during the 1965–69 re-excavation of Sutton Hoo;[190][155][191][192]" I note the refs out of order, if you are doing them in numerical order, but also are four refs needed for such a short passage?
  • I've cut down on the use of four refs as commented on above, although here I think there is some value to them here. [190] is a report of the 1965–69 excavations while they were still in progress; [155] is an article (technically, a chapter) published after the excavations; [191] is the finalized report; and [192] discusses the new fragments in the context of the helmet reconstruction.
  • "royal bronze effigies.[212]" I might reverse the adjectives.
  • Done.
That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:47, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review, Wehwalt. Responses above.

Support from Comments by Tim riley

[edit]

Just booking my place. I'll be back with detailed comments after a proper read-through. (I happen to be working on an overhaul of Canon Rawnsley's article at present, and so this article is of particular interest.) Tim riley talk 08:57, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support. This is a splendidly researched article, focused on the subject with no excessive digression. The sourcing is wide and looks impressive. The illustrations are spot-on. I read the text with pleasure. A few very minor quibbles, which don't affect my support but you may like to consider:

  • I might prune the formulaic "tendered her resignation" to plain "resigned".
  • Done.
  • I wonder why in the same sentence The Bookman and The Spectator have a capitalised definite article but the Staggers doesn't.
  • Fixed.
  • "Maryon's time at Armstrong coincided with an interest in archaeology" – it isn't immediately obvious that the interest was on Maryon's part rather than that of the world in general.
  • Reworded: Maryon's expressed an interest in archaeology while at Armstrong.
  • "He spent the World War II years, from 1939 to 1943" – given that the World War II years were from 1939 to 1945 it might be smoother to redraw on the lines of "During WW2 he spent the years 1939 to 1943" or some such.
  • "Trustees of the British Museum to serve as a Technical Attaché" – rather a lot of capital letters there. Not sure trustees, technical and attaché need capitalising. There are a few other (over-reverential?) capitalisations elsewhere, such as "Director" in footnote 4. I do not press the point.
  • It's a valid point—I generally kept the capitals from the sources, but that—if not over-reverential—preserves what is probably overly self-important. I've changed them except for "Technical Attaché," which perhaps(?) makes clear that it was his title, rather than a description. But I'm not wedded to that, and if you don't think it adds anything am happy to change it.
  • "Harbor" – surely "harbour" in a BrE article?
  • Fixed.
  • As a G&S buff I really, really wouldn't refer to Frampton's subject as "Sir William Gilbert". "W. S. Gilbert" is what is wanted here, I am quite sure.
  • Done. I changed a few of these due to FunkMonk's point about consistency (either initials or full names), but if people went by their initials, that makes sense to me.
  • Removed.

Those are my meagre gleanings. Nothing there to stop me adding my support. A fine article, fully meeting the FA criteria in my view. An interesting and remarkable man, and the nominator has done him justice. Tim riley talk 22:24, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for the review and support, Tim riley. Responses above. --Usernameunique (talk) 22:55, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent! I look forward to seeing Maryon on the front page in due course. Tim riley talk 23:38, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

[edit]

I won't pretend I checked every one of the numerous works, but here are my comments. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:57, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't much like links that don't go to any viewable content, eg "The Bernard Gilpin Memorial in Kentmere Church". Personally I only link to text that is either free to read or paywalled, but not to non-pages
  • This may depend on one's location. In the US, where that source has spent decades in the public domain, Google Books allows one to view that content.
  • As far as I can see, all the sources are appropriate, I looked at a few and they were correctly used.
  • Two refs read identically as "statue". The British Museum Collection Online. The British Museum. Retrieved 8 January 2020. but link to different pages, perhaps add the museum number to differentiate
  • I've changed to "Statue (Comedy)" and "Statue (Tragedy)".
  • Arwidsson 1942, p. Taf. 1. I don't know what Taf means and I can't see the content, perhaps write in full/translate or whatever
  • It's the German abbreviation for "Tafel", i.e., "Plate". In English, it would be "Pl." Here, given that the citation is in a photo caption, and the photo itself shows the abbreviation ("Taf. 1"), I think it's probably fine as is.
  • p. 312 & n.4. elsewhere you have separated non-consecutive pages with commas
  • This cites to content in both page 312, and footnote 4 on page 312.
  • There seems to be massive overlinking of people like Rupert Bruce-Mitford, and titles like "Studio Talk: Keswick" and The Studio. . Not clear why you aren't linking just once, per MOS
  • Links seem to be treated differently in an article body, and in a bibliography; in the latter case, hardly any people read straight through, but rather look at sources selectively based on which citation brought them there. The long line of Bruce-Mitford citations does stand out, although I'd be hesitant to change the overall style based on one outlier.
  • Review of Der Überfangguss. Ein Beitrag zur vergeschichtlichen Metalltechnik perhaps add translation of the German, but your call
  • No objection to doing so, although I wouldn't trust my own translation of this. It also looks as if "vergeschichtlichen" might be a typo (for "vorgeschichtlichen"). Gerda Arendt, do you have any idea how this would be translated?
  • Check title case, eg "Colossus of Rhodes Is Described As Hollow Sham". which has of...Is...As. In fact, several of the Colossus titles are incorrectly title cased, best check them all, need changing even if you have followed the original formatting
  • Done.
  • Done.
  • Schoolboys unearth golden hair tress more than 4,000 years old". other titles use title case
  • Done.
  • I may have another run through later, easy to miss something with so many

Thanks for the review, Jimfbleak. I've now responded to all your points above. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:54, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All looks OK now, I'll leave the translation with you, since that's your call anyway, good luck Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:43, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SG

[edit]

Not ready; the overcitation in the lead needs attention, as does the WP:NOT list of works at the bottom of the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:53, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia, I've already responded to these specific points above. If you have any further comments about the content of this article, I would be happy to address them. Thanks, --Usernameunique (talk) 02:00, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing that out, but I don't agree on either point. The lead is overcited (does it not properly summarize the article?) and WP:NOT should be respected. Wikipedia isn't a webhost. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:05, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
SandyGeorgia, the MOS says that "The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article." Do you take issue with that, or is there another section you think is more relevant? Likewise, could you please point to the section of WP:NOT that you think guides against a comprehensive list of a subject's publications? --Usernameunique (talk) 02:18, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see the overcitation is throughout the article, not just the lead, and there are prose issues ... I will review further tomorrow as this will take more time than I have now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:43, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for the delay; starting over now, as there is more to address here than I realized on my first pass. My usual procedure is to start review at the bottom of the article first, since some reviewers never make it down there. I also prefer to address the lead last. In process now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:49, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Citations
  • There are two Harvard Ref errors (at Bruce-Mitford1983b and Pudney2000). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:07, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fixed.
  • Could you please explain the citation style? Perhaps I am just missing it, but here are just a few samples from only a few of the citations (please review throughout, this is only a sample list): SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:07, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is inconsistent use of last retrieval dates. Journals do not require a last access date, but some newspapers have them while others don't?
      • I've removed about half of these, for the ones that have a stable underlying source (primarily a piece of paper such as a newspaper which will never change). I've left them for the other sources—mostly websites, including a few newspaper websites where I'm not sure what the print version (if it existed) looks like.
    • There is inconsistency on Volumes/Issues in the citations: most citations include volume when available, while the first citation for example (Annual report on Royal Ontario Museum) leaves it off.
      • Added. I think that one was missing due to unfamiliarity with using the {{cite report}} template. I didn't see another journal/report/similar missing volume information, but I've added volume/issue information for a number of newspaper articles.
    • Some citations use roman numerals for volume, even when the source does not: example https://www.jstor.org/stable/865852?seq=1
      • I use what the actual journal used. So if you look at the title page for that one, it uses Roman numerals. I've actually put a fair amount of time in trying to figure out how each journal numbers itself; every so often I'm unable to find the answer for a particular journal/date (some change over time), and in those cases I default to Arabic numerals.
  • See WP:NOTCATALOG on this source. Since this is only covered in a Note (not in text), and there is independent coverage, the sales catalogue is not overly problematic, but you might consider whether to remove that link and stick with the independent source. I'm not fussed either way on this, other than noting external criticism that FAC needs to keep a better eye on WP:NOT, which we have historically neglected.
    • It's not a big deal, but the main add for that source is that it gives a color photograph of the casket. Theoretically it could also serve to give the sale price, but I've been unable to retrieve that information so far as I don't have a subscription to the website.
  • What makes K Simon a reliable source? [26] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:07, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also not a big deal, but it adds another work by Maryon, with a nice photograph to boot. The fact that the citation is being used for ('Maryon made this work') is also uncontroversial, especially since "H Maryon" is visible at the bottom right of the photograph. But feel free to push back if you disagree.
    • On second thought I've taken this out. Given that the date of the plaque isn't known, it's too speculative to group it in with the 1929/1932 plaques; it's better suited in Works of Herbert Maryon for now.
  • A large amount of the citations are to Maryon himself: it might be helpful to have Ealdgyth or Johnbod review that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:07, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is discussed more directly below, but what are you suggesting the review look for?
Works and Layout
  • See MOS:BIB. One expects to find a list of works in the article, before See also, Notes and References, per WP:LAYOUT and MOS:ORDER. MOS:WORKS discusses books, but never mentions journal articles (curiously), but it does say "Complete lists of works, appropriately sourced to reliable scholarship (WP:V), are encouraged". There are instances in the article where the relevance of his publications are mentioned, and others that are sourced to himself (example, and in 1939 he wrote articles about an ancient hand-anvil discovered in Thomastown,[145]; Maryon published the finished reconstruction in a 1947 issue of Antiquity.[180])
    The article says, "He also wrote some thirty archaeological and technical papers.[2][4][9][10]" so although I cannot access those sources, there is apparently some reliably sourced scholarship about his list of Works. Considering his theory on the Colussus was rejected by others, I am unsure if the entire list of his publications is warranted, but at minimum, could you follow LAYOUT and move it all to a Works section (as it initially read to me as a long WP:NOT list of External links). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:07, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you have any suggestions for how to structure this? The reason it's at the bottom is so that the "Maryon 19##" references link down (like everything else), not up. But a few upward links may be worth it, especially here, where his works are somewhat hidden. One possibility would be to move "Publications" to after "Personal life", with books/articles/other becoming subsections of "Publications". Another possibility would be to make "Works by Maryon" a standalone section after "Personal life"; that would create a bit of redundancy in section titles, but be more in line with what you are suggesting.
Taking your other points in order, most of not all of the cites to Maryon's articles could be supplemented with another cite saying he did, indeed, write them. But they are uncontroversial points, the main utility of the cites is to give an interested reader a way to find the article, and there are certainly enough citations as it is. Paraphrased, sources [2][4][9][10] just say 'he wrote approximately # papers', sometimes mentioning one or two of them; they don't list them, giving extra utility to the list in the article. And it may be more fair to say that the Colossus article didn't catch on, than that it was rejected (see the bottom of footnote 9), but in any event, I'm not sure why scholarly disagreement over a nonetheless-influential paper would be a reason to not list an author's other publications.
MOS
  • Please have a look at MOS:OVERLINK and review throughout. For example, San Francisco, World War (either; probably the most overlinked terms on Wikipedia-- everyone knows what World War I, and no one is likely to click on that article from this one) are low-value links that are not likely to be clicked on. Tailor is probably understood to most English speakers, as is a world fair. This is not a big deal or something I would oppose over, but it should be reviewed; please doublecheck throughout. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:07, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Checking image captions, which look fine, but I encountered "The Valsgärde 6 helmet was one of the few published exemplar helmets at the time of Maryon's reconstruction." It is confusing that this helmet is never mentioned in the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:07, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's a subtle point, but compare it with the image and caption in the infobox; it's the same helmet (in fact the very same photograph in the very same book) that Maryon has open in front of him.
  • I added samples of WP:NBSP; please review throughout.
    • I assume links are automatically non-breaking, so no need to do so for WWI/II/Elizabeth II? "25 workers" now has one, as do "350 odd", "356 plates", "1300 years", "500 pieces", and "526 examples". There are probably some other places they could be added (e.g., dates), although personally, breaking spaces have never annoyed me; the occasional break where there shouldn't be a space (e.g., when a quotation mark and the bracket that leads off the quotation find themselves are separate lines) are more of an issue.
  • MOS:LQ generally looks fine, but could you check this one: yet added that "[b]y a system of grouping, however, according to some primarily aesthetic aim ... their inclusion is justified."
    • Will do, although it might take me a day or two to pull the source. What looks off about it?
    • Well spotted; what caused you to catch that? With the sentence before and after added, it reads in full: Apart from similar wise sayings his book is remarkable for its extraordinary catholicity, admitting works which we should find it hard to defend, often cheek by jowl, in the illustrations, with works of great merit. By a system of grouping, however, according to some primary aesthetic aim—as unity of line, on the one hand, or by historical or literary connexion, on the other—their inclusion is justified; and we agree with Mr. Maryon when he says that, though literary qualities alone cannot make great sculpture, they can make a work of sculpture more widely understood and appreciated. As he says, in conclusion, "The strongest roots of art are to be found, not in technical problems, but in life itself."
      • Ha, you think I can remember how I spotted something five days ago ?  :) :) Generally, at this stage, I am just scanning the page for the standard stuff I check. Are you all caught up and should I kick up the speed here? My plate is full today, but I should be able to step up the pace tomorrow. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:13, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I will continue in a bit with prose and citations, then to the lead; out of time for now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:07, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Prose

A bit more time now for some prose redundancy checking.

  • There are 20 instances of the word also (almost always redundant), including one paragraph with three instances of the word. Some are useful/necessary, but many are redundant. (Watch for "in addition", too.) Some samples only:
  • Now down to only 10 uses of the word. The remainder are predominantly used to try to maintain flow, although I'm open to any suggestions you may have on rewording those.
  • Maryon's four-year tenure at Keswick was assisted by four designers who also taught drawing:
  • four other drawing designers?
  • Designing and teaching are distinct roles here: the former was about creating designs for the school to produce en masse, and the latter about teaching others how to draw. How about Maryon's four-year tenure at Keswick was assisted by four employees who created designs and taught drawing:?
  • He also had the help of his sisters:
  • Removing this one seems to interrupt the flow; the "also" is used to provide continuity with the preceding sentencing, which also discuss the role of assistants at the school.
  • Maryon was also frequently in conflict with the school's management committee,
  • Reworded: Maryon was often in conflict with the school's management committee
  • The word subsequently. The article has nothing like the dreaded "He was mortally wounded and subsequently died" (d'oh), but not all of the uses are needed:
  • Perhaps not, although "subsequent papers ... followed" isn't much better! --Usernameunique (talk) 07:01, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • He has subsequently been termed "[o]ne of the finest exemplars" of a conservator with a deep technical, as well as artistic and historical, understanding of the objects he worked with. (also, passive voice in the lead)
  • Reworded: He has been remembered as. In my mind the passive voice helps focus on the point of the sentence (Maryon), rather than the less important part of who's doing the remembering (which is specified lower down).
  • Maryon's account of the excavation was published in 1936, and subsequent papers on archaeology and prehistoric metalworking followed. … subsequent … followed, redundant.
  • Removed.
  • Much of his work has seen subsequent revision, … revision has to be subsequent, it can't be prior.
  • Removed.
  • … in 1951 a young Larry Burrows was dispatched to the British Museum by Life, which subsequently published a full page photograph of the helmet alongside a photo of Maryon. Subsequently adds nothing here.
  • Removed.
  • Its importance had not been realized during excavation, however, and no photographs of it were taken in situ …
  • Changed to "Yet its importance..."
  • Other opportunities to vary the prose:
  • frequently … frequently: Maryon was also frequently in conflict with the school's management committee, which was chaired by Edith Rawnsley and frequently made decisions without his knowledge.
  • Now "often ... frequently".
  • exhibited … exhibition: Maryon exhibited a child's bowl with signs of the zodiac at the ninth Arts and Crafts Exhibition Society exhibition in 1910
  • Now "displayed ... exhibition". "Exhibition Society exhibition" remains a bit ugly, but perhaps unavoidable.

These are samples, to be checked throughout. More as I have time, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:09, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Overcitation

Starting at the bottom of the article, with one sample, so we can work up to the lead. The "Personal life" section has five sentences of what appear to be basic fact, and fifteen citations:

In July 1903 Maryon married Annie Elizabeth Maryon (née Stones).[278][279][2] They had a daughter, Kathleen Rotha Maryon.[280][281][282] Annie Maryon died on 8 February 1908. A second marriage, to Muriel Dore Wood in September 1920,[2][283] produced two children, son John and daughter Margaret.[34][284] Maryon lived the majority of his life in London, and died in his 92nd year at a nursing home in Edinburgh.[34][285][286][287][288]

None of that looks controversial or difficult to source; is it? What are the excess citations adding? I cannot access many of the sources, but why add primary sources-- or multiple sources-- when secondary sources are available? Independently, is there a source for Annie's death date? Also, I can't find any mention of either her father's name or mother's name in Margaret Sawatksky's obit to verify who she is; possibly it's there and I'm just not seeing it, but that source doesn't seem to verify the text. Why does the final sentence need five sources? Several of the sources seem to say the same thing. If I can understand the citation here it might be a time-saver before digging in to other sections. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:31, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

None of that is controversial; rather, the different citations combine to provide extra information. The recurring theme here and elsewhere is citations used not just to support the facts in the article, but to provide a gateway to further information. See WP:CITE (noting the benefit of using citations to "help users find additional information on the subject").
Here, in the first string ("[278][279][2]") the first two citations are closer to the event in question, and (though there are no discrepancies), probably generally more reliable than the third, Who Was Who. The third nevertheless gives the imprimatur of a secondary source. In the second string ("[280][281][282]"), each citation provides different information; the first gives familial/occupation information, the second gives background information, and the third is a good secondary source with some added details. I've added the best source I can find (so far) for Annie Maryon's death. The third string ("[2][283]") is controlled by the same logic as the first. In the fourth string, ("[34][284]") 34 sustains the facts in the clause and 284 is background information on Margaret Sawatksky; among other details both sources mention her first husband's name (George Bowman), demonstrating that Margaret Sawatksky was the daughter of Maryon. The five-citation fifth string is hardly pretty, but it's a collection of all of the immediate notices of Maryon's death: two in The Daily Telegraph two days after his death (likely paid and unpaid notices), two versions of the story picked up by The Canadian Press, and Maryon's probate. It's somewhat interesting to see how his death was dealt with by the papers, and I figured that's the best place to put those particular sources, given that the later obituaries are more detailed retrospectives on his career and are thus included earlier. --Usernameunique (talk) 08:27, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable sources

I have just come across this post, which leads to this chart, which calls into question whether ancestry.com should be used here. Are all uses of ancestry.com backed by a secondary source where appropriate, or can their use be minimized? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:57, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We're lucky with Maryon that much of the information available in primary sources is also reflected in secondary sources. A prominent example of this from the article is the phrase Mildred Maryon, who the 1901 census listed as living with her sister [Edith],[77][78]; the second citation is to the census, and the first is to a secondary source which states Edith's sister, Mildred (born c.1881) is listed as an art student, designer and living at the same address in the Census of 1901. The half-dozen ancestry.com sources thus do little independent work, but serve to confirm secondary sources, show their work, and provide launching pads for interested readers. That is to say, the article would be substantially the same without them, but is marginally better with them. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:59, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from KJP1

[edit]

Not entirely sure where this has got to, but I wanted to add my Support. It's beautifully written, comprehensive and immaculately sourced. I shared my concern regarding the over-citation, and the over-listing of articles particularly in relation to the Colossus, at the GA, which I did, and I think the adjustments that have been made subsequently have much improved it. There may still be a few instances where there are more than I'd personally use but, for me, that's not a deal-breaker. KJP1 (talk) 10:54, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for the review, KJP1, and the support. Though it’s steadily worked its way down the page—which I assume is what you mean by not being sure where this nomination has got to—I think it’s in fairly good shape overall. All the comments so far have been addressed; fingers crossed, but I think the only open issue is whether SandyGeorgia has further thoughts. —Usernameunique (talk) 00:25, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on the lead and overcitation

[edit]
The Coords may consider all of my other nitpicks in my section above to be well enough addressed; I have procrastinated on returning to this FAC because I have not found the words to express my discomfort and confusion about why the lead is written as it is. My discomfort would be much easier to express if Usernameunique weren't such a nice person and fine writer :) It would be so much easier to be opposed to a FAC if the nominator were a poor writer and an uncooperative person, but such is not the case here. Nonetheless, I feel I must go on record as being dissatisifed with the lead here.
Usernameunique, one of the main reasons I engaged this FAC was what you wrote in the FAC introduction:

When the Queen asked him what he did, Herbert Maryon responded that he was a "back room boy at the British Museum." This humble (or, perhaps, deer-in-headlights) comment belied the fact that Maryon, at Buckingham for his appointment to the Order of the British Empire, had only just embarked on his second career; a sculptor, metalsmith, and archaeologist for the first half of the 20th century, Maryon joined the museum's research laboratory at the end of the war and immediately set to work on the treasures from Sutton Hoo, one of Britain's greatest archaeological finds. In other work, he excavated one of Britain's oldest gold artefacts, restored a Roman helmet from Syria, and influenced a painting by Salvador Dalí. When nearly 90 he retired for the second time—then left for an around-the-world museum and lecture tour (where at least two Wikipedians, Peter Knutsen and AJim, heard him speak in 1962).

That-- written free-form by you without the need to carefully cite and overcite each clause-- drew me in. It did the main thing a lead is supposed to do; it summarized to me why this fellow was interesting and worth knowing about and cultivated my interest in reading on.
But then, I hit the article and found a lead that did no such thing, and forced me to read around boatloads of little numbers, making me wonder why this fellow was so controversial and what the problem was. LEAD neither requires nor discourages citation, but it does tell us to "balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material". No balance has been struck here, we go the opposite direction in helping the reader when we give them too much, and the result is text that is a chore to read, compared to the brilliant introduction to this FAC. By writing it that way, it feels like you (the writer) have been constrained, and could not deliver the compelling introduction that you have at the top of the FAC. I visited all of your older FAs, and found this is atypical for your style-- the other leads were excellent-- and I cannot understand why you have chosen to do this here.
I have procrastinated to the point of rudeness in returning to this FAC, but I feel that I must oppose on the spirit of WIAFA: "A featured article exemplifies our very best work and is distinguished by professional standards of writing, presentation, and sourcing. A lead like this does not exemplify Usernameunique's best work, or Wikipedia's best work. I am concerned that the Coords will see that as a non-actionable oppose, but the overriding principle of WIAFA should count as much as any individual point. If this overcited lead passes FAC, FA writers in the future will point to this citation as acceptable and hold it up as an example and think they should write this way. And after all this time, I still can't discern what it is accomplishing. I can't see why this is necessary and why we would want to encourage others to write a lead like this. It would be such a pleasing article if the lead read more like what you wrote freeform at the top of this FAC. I wish you all the best, and leave it to the Coords to decide what to make of this comment vis-a-vis WIAFA. (This is the hardest thing I have ever had to write at FAC.) Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:35, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My issue with the list of Works is similar; what does this mean an an example for future FA writers? We have a guideline page that tells us about how to list Works (and the writers of that guideline probably had books in mind, not every single thing ever written by a given author). On the other hand we have a policy page at WP:NOT that tells us Wikipedia "does not aim to contain all data or expression found elsewhere". I have two highly reliable sources indicating that James F. Leckman took the reigns of Tourette syndrome research and is one of the most highly published authors ever on TS:

  • Robertson MM, Eapen V (October 2014). "Tourette's: syndrome, disorder or spectrum? Classificatory challenges and an appraisal of the DSM criteria" (PDF). Asian J Psychiatr (Review). 11: 106–13. doi:10.1016/j.ajp.2014.05.010 PMID 25453712.
  • Mariam N, Cavanna AE (October 2012). "The most cited works in Tourette syndrome". J. Child Neurol. 27 (10): 1250–9. doi:10.1177/0883073811432887 PMID 23007298.

so should I add all 473 papers written by James Leckman to his article?[27] I have a clear case, backed by highest quality sources from experts in the field, about how significant James Leckman's body of work is. If I interpret the guideline pages as is being done here, I can create a web directory of all of Leckman's work. If I do that on an FA, everyone will then do that. I am still unclear what is being accomplished by listing all of those works, particularly when the premise behind a huge bunch of them was ultimately rejected. I don't want to stand in the way of the promotion of this article, but I just do not understand what is being accomplished here, and worry what it will mean as an example for future FAs. If an overwhelming reason for the need to do this were explained, perhaps I could get on board. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:55, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yeah, again I have to concur with SG (also see my comments above). I also think that NOTDIR should usually trump the MOS in cases like these. buidhe 14:48, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • SandyGeorgia, if I'm reading you correctly, your advice is to write worse FAC blurbs so as to lessen the expectations of reviewers? Joking aside, the reason that most of my other featured articles don't have citations in the lead (if not all) is because this isn't a hill I have much interest in dying on; so please see this edit.
I'm more surprised to see your renewed comments regarding the list of Maryon's works, which I had thought covered in your line above that The Coords may consider all of my other nitpicks in my section above to be well enough addressed. Maryon, of course, does not have 473 publications; nor does he have 400, or 300, or 200, or 100, or even 50. If he did have as many publications as Leckman, handling them would require some thought. But his 48 books, chapters, and articles represent barely a tenth of that output, and while there are two handy non-Wikipedia articles cluing one in to all of Leckman's works, there is no such list for Maryon absent the one here. On a broader level I understand the reluctance to have citations in the lead, as it is the first thing a reader sees. Yet there is no such danger that a reader is going to make it down nine sections in the article, then suddenly be turned away because the publications section lists 48 works, not 35. --Usernameunique (talk) 16:42, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Most happy to see the overcitation gone from the lead: I would offer you my first-born, but I think I have already given him to about three other editors :) OK, on the remaining issue (the list of Works), how will we answer the medical bio editors who do attempt to add every published paper from a researcher if they can then point to this FA as an example? This is a serious problem in POV-pushing medical bios. Give me a compelling reason that will work across the board for this not to become an example that others might follow? Why not make it just the books and the most significant publications? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:15, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
SandyGeorgia, phew—I hear those things are expensive. I think the way we answer it is easy: this article stands only for the proposition that when a) a subject has fewer than 50 works, b) a list of those works is not available elsewhere, and c) there are no concerns that a list of works is behind used to advance a particular point of view, then including a complete list may be acceptable. If one of those factors is not met, then an alternative may be appropriate. Taking Leckman as an example, he fails the first two (and perhaps third) factors; an easy solution would be to include a curated list of significant works and link to his cv for the remainder. --Usernameunique (talk) 18:50, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK, having something like that on record would satisfy me, so we would have a place to point if someone tries to do same in the future for someone with hundreds of entries. Now, we need to ask @FAC coordinators: how to get more feedback to this aspect of this FAC, or if this is enough to satisfy them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:58, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Ceoil

[edit]

Nearing support and enjoying reading up enormously. This seems odd -

  • He had both an older brother, John Ernest, and an older sister, Louisa Edith, the latter of whom preceded him in his vocation as a sculptor. One brother and three sisters would follow—in order, George Christian, Flora Mabel, Mildred Jessie, and Violet Mary—although Flora Maryon, born in 1878, would die in her second year. - "both" and then "the latter" only explained...and then we say four others followed into sculpture? Or were they just younger? "follow—in order" is a bit vague. Ceoil (talk) 22:11, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have read through it all now, and made trivial edits along the way. Very impressed. My only remaining comment is re over citing, similar to Sandy above. I see why you are dong it (to direct readers to relevant sources), but it hampers readability, sets a poor precident, and per Johnbod's Law, undermines the claims. To take a random eg "Maryon scheduled the trip to end in Toronto, where his son John Maryon, a civil engineer, lived.[156][227]". Could not be less contentious, but as stated I auto think, hmm. Your assembled sources already stand as an excellent biblography for those that want to read deeper. Ceoil (talk) 22:52, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also I would seriously trim the external links, especially on the colossus. Separating the wheat from chaff is a worthwhile editorial activity. Ceoil (talk) 23:01, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the praise, Ceoil. Fair point re: citations. I've gone through again and taken a look at each time three or more refs are stacked. I've been able to cut back on a decent number of these, and certainly some of the uglier ones. Two citations, on the other hand, doesn't bother me; in the example you give above, [156] is the primary driver of the sentence but [227] is needed for the name of Maryon's son. --Usernameunique (talk) 06:51, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • ps I agree with Josh above that the lead is a little long. Not because it contains too many claims, but that they are a bit wordy (eg "Maryon published two books while teaching, including the standard Metalwork and Enamelling"...you cant say "two" and then say "including X & Y"), and "numerous utilitarian and decorative Arts and Crafts works, etc
  • Removed the second part, and some other pieces. "Metalwork and Enamelling" is actually one book (despite the "and"); the other book is "Modern Sculpture," which is not mentioned in the lead. --Usernameunique (talk) 01:06, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article size is 139,086 bytes, but contains only 4,500 words...mostly due I guess to the large biblio and ext links sections. Recommend that you spin there out to a separate article. Ceoil (talk) 16:20, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note to coordinators

[edit]

@FAC coordinators: Not to unduly push this along, but I think there has been a consensus for some time in favor of promotion. Is there anything else you would like to see? Thanks, --Usernameunique (talk) 21:33, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Time that isn't buried in stuff that HAS to be done? I'll try to get to this either late tonight or (more likely) tomorrow. --Ealdgyth (talk) 21:50, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Ealdgyth. Not sure what you mean by the first sentence, but let me know if there's anything I can do. --Usernameunique (talk) 21:55, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It means life outside wiki is being very busy and very very demanding of me. --Ealdgyth (talk) 22:03, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, got it. But the real world is so peaceful and relaxing right now... Kidding aside, no rush in taking a look here if you're tied up; I mostly just wanted to ensure this nomination is not languishing for want of some sort of action on my part. --Usernameunique (talk) 22:16, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Usernameunique is entitled to ask, the last support was registered 10 days ago, understand that the world has changed, but it has for all of us; as a general call, can we be less bighty. If there is shut down, just say it. Ceoil (talk) 23:52, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Hi, there's a bit to go through above so I won't promise closure soon, but I wouldn't have an objection to you kicking off a new nom if have one ready. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:24, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Ian Rose and Ealdgyth. Much appreciated. --Usernameunique (talk) 16:14, 28 March 2020 (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) 15 March 2020 [28].

Battle of Marshall's Elm

[edit]
Nominator(s): Harrias talk 20:15, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Another early skirmish of the First English Civil War. In fact, according to some historians, the first action of the war (though the fighting during the first Siege of Hull could also be given the same tagline.) A large group of raw Parliamentarian recruits were marching through Somerset when they were spotted by a Royalist scouting party. Despite being outnumbered in the region of 10 to 1, the Royalist cavalry routed the raw recruits (described as nothing more than farmers by one historian). The skirmish was of little significance, as the overwhelming antipathy towards the Royalists in Somerset forced them to withdraw to Sherborne Castle in neighbouring Dorset.

The article underwent a GAN and recently passed a MILHIST A-class review. As always, all feedback will be gratefully received. Harrias talk 20:15, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass

[edit]

Source review - pass

[edit]

The sources used are all solidly reliable. I am unable to find any other sources which would materially add to the content of the article. The sources referred to seem to support the text cited, insofar as I have checked them. I found no unattributed close paraphrasing. I consider the sources to be current, as these things go. A reasonable mix of perspectives are represented. Everything that I would expect to be cited, is. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:35, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM

[edit]

Very little to quibble about here. A few comments:

  • link ambush in the lead
  • could you add something like "In preparation for/Given the likelihood of conflict with the Parliamentarians, Charles appointed..." Otherwise the build-up to fighting breaking out is lost
  • suggest linking levying to Conscription#Medieval levies
  • decap Royal assent
  • what is a "a collection of arms"?
  • suggest The Parliamentarians' superior recruitment→The success of the Parliamentarians' recruiting
  • no first name for Sands?
  • link South Petherton
  • link Street, Somerset
  • drop the comma from "and the experienced soldier, Henry Lunsford"
  • suggest "Among those captured were two of the Parliamentarian officers, Captains Preston and Sands"
  • "crossed the Mendips" is this the hills or a stream? If the former, suggest "the Mendip Hills"

That's all I could find. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:13, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Peacemaker67: Thanks for the review; I have adopted each of your points as suggested, other than where I have provided a note above. Harrias talk 08:57, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, Harrias, I'm not seeing these edits? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:19, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Peacemaker67: How bizarre. Tried again. Harrias talk 08:40, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
All good, supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:46, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FunkMonk

[edit]
@FunkMonk: Thanks for the review; I have responded to each point above. Harrias talk 09:58, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

[edit]
  • "during the build-up to the First English Civil War." It would be helpful to give the date the war started.
  • "In 1642, disagreements between the English Parliament and its monarch on religious, fiscal and legislative matters had been ongoing for over half a century." I am doubtful about "over half a century". This implies an increase in disagreements late in Elizabeth's reign, and there is no evidence for this that I can find.
  • @Dudley Miles: I'm happy to be corrected on this. To provide some context, the source provided states "Since the later years of the reign of Elizabeth I (r. 1558–1603) English Puritans had been agitating for change in the rituals and doctrines of the Church of England." and "The solutions that she crafted worked well for most of her reign, but by the 1580s and 1590s the Puritan movement had gathered increasing strength in Parliament." Looking through it, I have possibly introduced an inaccuracy through my attempts at brevity, and conflated increasing general tensions with increased tensions between Parliament and the monarch. Would your suggestion to be to reduce the time-frame, or rephrase the statement? Harrias talk 12:44, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • You obviously know more about the period than I do, but my impression is that even though support for Puritanism was rising, the causes of the civil war were rather the belief of the Stuart kings in the divine right of kings and consequent attempts to be absolute rulers raising taxes without the consent of Parliament. If so, the tensions between king and Parliament should be dated to James I's accession - if you agree and have a good source. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:08, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Modern historians tend to agree that the conflict was multi-causal, with both taxation and religious reformation as driving forces. How much precedence is given to each varies depending on historian. Essentially, our conversation is a microcosm of one of the biggest academic debates about the topic; what weight should be given to short-term and long-term causes. Tim Harris wrote an excellent journal article about it in 2015, but sadly, it doesn't really bring us any closer to an answer.
    As a compromise, because I've written and re-written this reply countless times over the last hour, how would you feel about:
  • "Disagreements between the English Parliament and its monarch on religious, fiscal and legislative matters had been ongoing since at least 1603."
The current source would still work for that, mostly because of the "at least" get-out. Harrias talk 14:15, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fine, though I would profer "conflict" to "disagreement" as there have always been disagreements - a point which did not occur to me before! However, I will leave you to decide. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:32, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Ruby2010

[edit]

What an interesting topic! Just adding some comments here; happy to discuss/clarify further in case of disagreements:

  • Is there any way you could split up the first sentence into two? Or perhaps omit "on August 22" I'm not sure how much that last part adds to clarity of the topic.
    • "on August 22" was actually added in response to a point raised by Dudley above. I have rearranged this to fit in the second sentence, where hopefully it is less busy, and make more sense. Harrias talk 12:40, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...the historian David Underdown criticised the decision... I think perhaps this should be present tense.
  • On 30 July, the Parliamentarians... Remind the reader what year we are in?

Minor quibbles, really. Mostly I think the article is in good shape, and am prepared to support. Well done! Ruby2010 (talk) 02:32, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ruby2010: Thanks for your review; I have replied to each point above. Harrias talk 12:40, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. I support this nomination for promotion. Ruby2010 (talk) 18:55, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note

[edit]

Hi Harrias, I was looking to promote this but reading through I feel we should hear about Pyne's fate as leader of the Parliamentarian formation. It sounds like he was with the main formation while the vanguard caught the ambush but a sentence about it might help -- unless I missed something... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:42, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ian Rose: There is no specific mention of Pyne made in the immediate aftermath of the skirmish. We know that he was present at the gathering at Wells on 5 August though; from which it is clear that he was not taken prisoner. I have added a line in the aftermath section: "Pyne, who had evaded capture during the skirmish at Marshall's Elm, held joint command of part of the force with Strode.". Harrias talk 21:53, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, forgive me for asking -- I thought I could get a download of the book to see for myself -- but does that source explicitly say he evaded capture at Marshall's Elm or does it only say he held joint command at Wells? If the latter then best we just say that and let the reader work out the rest for themselves. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:41, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A reasonable point. I've trimmed it down to "Pyne held joint command of part of the force with Strode." Harrias talk 07:58, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Tks, that all goes some way to addressing my concern and we can't say more than the sources allow us. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:35, 15 March 2020 (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) 15 March 2020 [29].

Battle of the Defile

[edit]
Nominator(s): Constantine ✍ 14:48, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Battle of the Defile was one of the largest and most important battles of the late Umayyad period. Along with the Battle of Marj Ardabil a few months earlier (and arguably the Battle of Tours a year later), it marked the end of Umayyad expansion. The casualties suffered also helped undermine the Umayyad regime, increasing disaffection in Khurasan and removing many of the regime's most loyal forces from the metropolitan regions to the frontier, thus paving the way for the Abbasid Revolution. We are also fortunate to have one of the most complete accounts of a battle preserved in al-Tabari, and we can reconstruct events with more detail than usual for the period. The article was written in 2012, and passed both GA and MILHIST ACR back then, but I've kept working on it since, and I think the time has come to put it forward for FA. Constantine ✍ 14:48, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM

[edit]

A great article. I have a few comments:

  • when mentioning the conquest of Transoxiana by the Muslims, perhaps indicate that this was under the Umayyad Caliphate and link at first mention in the body
    • Good point, done
  • suggest "led to the abandonment of most of Transoxiana by the Caliphate's forces except for the region around Samarkand." rather than the current sentence structure
    • Good point, done
  • might it be better to use Umayyad consistently rather than Muslim or Arab when referring to the army? I initially thought this was a third force, not knowing much at all about early Muslim and Arab history
    • That is a common complaint, I know. I have tried to explain this when introducing the Umayyad Caliphate, although it is somewhat awkward.
  • is there any estimate of what size Junayd's army was when he set off towards Samarkand?
    • Nothing in the sources, AFAIK, and the evidence is scattered. There were 50,000 men sent as settlers when Khurasan was first conquered, but they don't appear to have much increased. Under Qutayba ibn Muslim, there were 47,000 Khurasani Arabs and about 20,000 native levies. Junayd clearly did not have as many available, either because they were sent on other missions, in garrisons (12,000 in Samarkand alone), or simply not called up. But the initial force before the desertions cannot have been much larger than 30,000 men.
  • is there any record of how many Türgesh circled around to attack the baggage train and stragglers near Kish and who their commander was? I assume this wasn't part of the main Türgesh force attacking within the pass?
    • No. The Türgesh are mostly portrayed as the typical faceless horde by the Arab authors, only when the Khaghan or some other senior leader was active did they mention it (and often "the Khaghan" is a stand-in for the Türgesh as a whole). TBH, I doubt the Arabs themselves knew exactly who was attacking them. Tabari merely mentions the Arab commander and that he "suffered martyrdom".
  • link counterattack
    • Done
  • did Sawra survive the relief debacle?
    • No he did not, it is mentioned that he perished in the fire with his companions. Clarified in the text
  • suggest "The events of the Defile"→"The battle"
    • Good point, done
  • should it be Khurasani's rather than Khurasanis'
    • Why? "Khurasani" is an adjective like "German". The sources use "Khurasanis" for the plural throughout.
  • suggest "In the aftermath of the setbacks of this battle"
    • Hmmm, since I give the name of Marj Ardabil next, I prefer to use the name here as well.
  • Suluk is mentioned as the commander of the Türgesh in the infobox, but was he present at this battle? If so, perhaps mention that when the Türgesh force is first mentioned?
    • I can't believe I missed that. Clarified that Suluk was the khaghan.

That is all I can find. Nice job. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:42, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Peacemaker67, I've addressed the points you raised. If there is anything else, please let me know. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 20:29, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
All good, supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:16, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FunkMonk

[edit]
  • I'll have a look soon. FunkMonk (talk) 19:48, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link terms and names in image captions.
    • Done.
  • Suluk is duplinked.
    • Done.
  • "in al-Tabari's History of the Prophets and Kings, which in turn draws upon the work of the earlier historian Abu'l-Hasan al-Mada'ini, written about a century after the events." Which work does "written about a century after the events" refer to? You could give the time for both works here.
    • Done.
  • I had never seen the word "defile" used in this way before. Is it a synonym of pass? Now it is first used in the article body at "Junayd used the diversion to break through to Samarkand, but as his army exited the defile". Is there a way the term could be used earlier in a context that makes it clearer what it is?
    • Done and linked to wiktionary.
  • It is also a bit confusing that you say both "Defile" and "defile".
    • Capitalized is for the battle, changed to the full name now to avoid confusion.
  • You use Arab and Muslim interchangeably throughout. Were the armies predominantly Arab at this time, or did they not also contain many converts of other ethnicities? For example "the Arab losses at the Defile led to a rapid deterioration of the Muslim position in Central Asia".
    • This is a bit complicated. Indeed, Umayyads, Arabs, and Muslims are used interchangeably, although they are obviously not entirely coterminous. However, this reflects the practice in the sources and is also a way to keep reminding the readers that the Umayyads were an Arab Muslim regime, and that a retreat/advance of the Umayyads also represented a retreat/advance of Islam. The army certainly did contain allied contingents and native converts, but in most cases they are not mentioned except when they had some role to play. For the events described here, allied rulers are completely absent from the sources for the Umayyad army, whether because most native rulers had switched over, or because they were not part of the campaign (Junayd left for Samarkand with the army of the Khurasani Arabs) or because they are ignored. The native converts or mawali are seldom differentiated from the bulk of the Khurasani Arab settlers, chiefly because they were a) subordinate and b) affiliated with the Arab tribes. Also see the note regarding the army's composition.
  • You mention way down in the end that the local Khurasani warriors were also Arabs, I wonder if it should be mentioned earlier, I thought they might have been recruits of local ethnicities until that point.
    • Good point, added a footnote as I couldn't find a good way to segue into a diatribe on that subject in the main body.
  • "This was especially the case with the powerful Syrian army, the main pillar of the Umayyad regime" Maybe it should have been stated earlier that the Umayyads were themselves based in Syria?
    • Good point, done.
  • "to attack the Türgesh in the rear" At/from the rear? "in the rear" reads a bit, err, awkwardly.
    • Indeed, done.
  • "which one of the most detailed accounts of the entire Umayyad era" Only stated this strongly in the intro, which should not have unique info.
    • Very good point, fixed.
  • It is only stated in the intro that the Türgesh were Turkic.
    • Good point, done.
  • It should probably be mentioned in the intro that the aftermath of the battle led to internal turmoil, since this is an important part of the legacy section.
    • Good point, done.
Hi FunkMonk, thanks for taking the time and for the suggestions. I've tried to address your concerns, please have a look. Constantine ✍ 09:38, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass

[edit]
  • "File:Caliphate 740-en.svg" The description is interesting, and I don't doubt the map's accuracy - but it needs to be based on a verifiable RS.

Gog the Mild (talk) 17:33, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: Phewww, this is problematic. As stated, it derives from Califate 750.jpg, which comes from a RS, namely William Shepherd's atlas. I've also added the two modern atlases I've used, but be advised, this is not lifted directly from any of them. It is a first draft attempt at making a somewhat accurate overview map, and it will change over time, as modifications are made (wiht sources). Right now, it is merely a correction of the more egregious erros of the old Shepherd map (which is reproduced even in modern atlases), but with some corrections (for example, the area around Kabul is shown as not controlled by the Muslims in the Brill atlas, but the Routledge atlas shows it as conquered. The problem is mainly that the early Islamic period is covered in a couple of overview maps in most works, and detail gets lost quickly there.Constantine ✍ 20:34, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not a problem. So long as it is tied back to RSs, which it now is. Some interesting divergences from my trusty Muir's, mostly, I suspect, explicable by the factors you outline.
All images are appropriately licenced, positioned, captioned and alt texted. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:34, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass

[edit]
  • MOS:BQ states "Format a long quote (more than about 40 words or a few hundred characters, or consisting of more than one paragraph, regardless of length) as a block quotation, indented on both sides." Eg "after the Day of the Defile, many Khurasani tribal surnames never again appear as part of the army in Khurasan, leading one to suppose they had been annihilated or their men had given up fighting. Some Khurasani troops remain, of course, but their divisions are now paralleled by Syrian ones. Thus it appears, particularly from Tabari's emphasis, that the Day of the Defile was practically a turning point in the war with the Turks, at least as far as the Khurasanis were concerned [...]."
  • Cite 41: "p." → 'pp.'.

Gog the Mild (talk) 17:33, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The sources used all appear to me to be reliable. I am unable to find any other sources which would materially add to the content of the article. The sources referred to seem to support the text cited, insofar as I have checked them. I found no unattributed close paraphrasing. I consider the sources to be current, as these things go. Everything that I would expect to be cited, is. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:34, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note

[edit]

Ye gods, the weeks fly past when the world is gripped by panic... I did list this at FAC Urgents, to no avail it seems, but I'm still reluctant to pull it when it looks like one more comprehensive review might do the trick -- Gog, can I trouble you here? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:20, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

[edit]

I am going to have to get the word "MUG" removed from my forehead. Yes, of course I will Ian; right on it. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:07, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately Constantine has not edited for three weeks. So, rather than leave my usual list of niggles, I have boldly copy edited the text myself - [30]. IMO the article conveys the facts well, readably, reasonably succinctly and from an impeccable set of sources. The information presented is balanced and to the point. In other words it is up to Constantine's usual standards and I am happy to support the article for FA. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:37, 14 March 2020 (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) 15 March 2020 [31].

Second Silesian War

[edit]
Nominator(s): Bryan Rutherford (talk) 18:26, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is the second in a series of four I've written about the Silesian Wars of the eighteenth century. It has already been through a Good Article Nomination and a Military History A-Class Review, and I've tried to proactively incorporate feedback the previous article received in its recently concluded FAC. I'd love to get some more constructive feedback on this one and try to get the whole series to featured quality. Thanks in advance to all reviewers and coordinators! -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 18:26, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Emicho´s Avenger

[edit]

I support this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emicho's Avenger (talk • contribs) 20:02, January 15, 2020 UTC (UTC)

Hi, thanks for stopping by but, for the record, declarations of support without accompanying commentary that addresses the FA criteria don't carry weight when it comes to determining consensus for promotion. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:34, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Noswall59

[edit]

Are the following publications not relevant to this article?

  • Reed Browning, "New views on the Silesian Wars", Journal of Military History, vol. 69, no. 2 (2005), pp. 521-534.
  • Michael Hochedlinger, Austria's Wars of Emergence: War, State and Society in the Habsburg Monarchy, 1683–1797, Modern Wars in Perspective (London: Longman, 2003). (Especially that part of chap. 11 on the Second Silesian War, pp. 257-9).

Browning's article is historiographical and cites quite a number of works, mostly in German. I don't know how relevant they are. Cheers, —Noswall59 (talk) 11:48, 16 January 2020 (UTC).[reply]

"New views on the Silesian Wars" is already cited in First Silesian War and Silesian Wars to discuss Frederick's motives for seizing Silesia, as well as to confirm that the historiography has always considered the wars to have ended in Prussian victory. I felt that since this war merely defended the territorial status quo ante bellum it would be less relevant to include a detailed discussion of why Prussia wanted to control Silesia (beyond obvious points like taxes and manpower); if reviewers here feel strongly that more should be added, I can try to adapt some of the material from "First Silesian War", but I figured that that material made more sense in that article. I'll look into "Austria's Wars of Emergence" and see if there's anything new. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 15:23, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There were a few good bits in that book! I've added a citation from it to this article (as well as a couple in other articles in the series), and I'll keep looking for bits it has to offer that weren't in my other sources. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 19:12, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, I've added a citation from Browning to support the general consensus that the outcome was a Prussian victory. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 16:05, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

[edit]
  • The map and the infobox image do not have alt text.
The infobox image currently has the alt-text "Painting of Prussian infantry marching in formation across a field at the Battle of Hohenfriedberg"; the map's alt-text was accidentally missing the "alt=", which has now been fixed. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 04:12, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "By the middle of 1743 Austria recovered control of Bohemia, drove the French back" Should that not be 'By the middle of 1743 Austria had recovered control of Bohemia, driven the French back ... '?
Yes, I suppose the perfect is better there. Changed. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 04:12, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which established a new "Quadruple Alliance" among Austria, Britain–Hanover, Saxony, and the Dutch Republic" I am not sure that "among" works here; perhaps 'between'?
This seems to be a vexed issue. Style guides pretty much all agree that "between" is typical for two items and "among" for more than two, but it seems that "between" can be preferred when the items are specific and "among" when they are more generic. I incline toward the more concrete rule relating to quantity, but I could live with either word if the consensus among other editors is that "between" sounds better. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 04:12, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My vote is for 'between', but it's "your" article.
Changed to "between". -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 04:10, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "not long after relocating there, however, the Emperor died on 20 January" Is "however" necessary?
I've restructured the sentence to make it unnecessary. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 04:12, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in late April Austria prepared for a more forceful invasion of Silesia" "more"? More forceful than what?
Quoting from our previous conversation about this phrase (in the A-Class review): "The point is that all through the winter Upper Silesia had been probed and harassed by Austrian light troops, but what occurred at this point was more of a proper 'invasion', meant to take and hold territory, although Austrian troops had already been in a sense 'invading' the region intermittently for months. I'm open to suggestions for an adjective that would better convey the distinct character of the 'invasion' of spring 1745." -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 04:12, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merely a suggestion: 'in late April Austria prepared for a large-scale invasion of Silesia'. or 'full-scale'?
Changed to "large-scale". -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 13:36, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a major Prussian victory, sending Prince Charles's army retreating in disarray back into the mountains they had just crossed" Getting a little word-to-watchy. Consider losing "major" - its importance seems clear enough from the context - and "they had just crossed" - a reader knows that, you told them in the previous sentence.
Respectfully, this is the battle that decided the outcome of the war, and I don't think it's peacocking to describe it as a "major" victory, though I've changed it to "decisive". This is a famous victory in German history, the inspiration for Der Hohenfriedberger march. If you insist, I'll remove the adjective completely, but I think it's justified. I've removed "they had just crossed". -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 04:12, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am convinced, feel free to replace "major".
I've changed it to "decisive". -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 13:36, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "ended in a solid Prussian victory" What is a solid victory? Maybe just a victory?
Changed. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 04:12, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Prussia and Britain hoped that the Austrian defeats at Hohenfreidberg and Soor would persuade Austria to come to terms and concentrate its efforts against France" I am unsure that this makes sense. Whose efforts are being concentrated?
"...would persuade Austria to come to terms and concentrate <Austria's> efforts against France". -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 04:12, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "On 29 August Austria and Saxony had agreed on a more offensive alliance" More offensive than what?
When Saxony rejoined the war on the Austrian side in late 1744, it only agreed to participate in a defensive capacity by helping to drive Prussian forces out of Bohemia. It was at this point (August 1745) that Saxony changed its stated goal in the war to the offensive conquest of Prussian territory and committed an army to a northward march aiming at Berlin. Maybe I should emphasize the ostensibly defensive character of Saxony's participation up to that point somewhere earlier? -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 04:12, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think that that would be helpful to a reader.
I've tried to make the contrast more clear with changes here and earlier, when Saxony first joins the war in 1744. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 04:10, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a new advance from multiple directions" Does the multiple bit not imply that the advance(s) were plural?
Er, it was one strategic advance made by multiple forces? I don't have a military background, and I may not be using the terminology as clearly as possible. The point is that two armies were moving in a coordinated fashion toward the same destination; I don't know if that should be spoken of as one "advance" or two. I bow to the expertise of others. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 04:12, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see what you are trying to say. Perhaps replace "advance" with 'offensive'?
Changed. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 13:36, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "by repeatedly making separate peaces" I thought that he only made one peace in this war?
Yes, but also two others during the First Silesian War (only a few years before), and this occurrence was more significant in that it fit a growing pattern. The two previous separate peaces are discussed earlier in this article, so I think it's fair to expect the reader to be aware of them? -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 04:12, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it makes sense in the context of the sentence, but the previous sentence, the opening one of the paragraph, starts "The Second Silesian War" and the rest of the paragraph is something of a list. If you are convinced that the paragraph is clear to a reader then I won't push it.
I've changed it to "...by making another separate peace...". -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 13:36, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Frederick's repeated unilateral withdrawal from his alliances in the War of the Austrian Succession deepened the French royal court's distrust of him" You said more or less the same thing two paragraphs earlier.
That's true; it's structured as summary and then detail, just as the lead section says things that are later repeated in greater detail (with citations) in the body. If you feel that they're too close together, then I can try to reduce the overlap. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 04:12, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a major issue, but the closeness of the wording of both is eye catching. Possibly be briefer under Outcomes or give more detail under Prussia?
I've changed the first instance to "by making another separate peace ..., Frederick damaged his own diplomatic credibility." Does that seem better? -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 13:36, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "his next perceived "betrayal" (the 1756 Convention of Westminster)" The nature of that could probably do with a little more detail for non-experts.
I've changed it to "(a defensive alliance with Britain under the 1756 Convention of Westminster)". -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 04:12, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That works well.

What a fine article. The trivia above was all I could find. The balance of background-main event-aftermath was within acceptable limits and both focus and breadth were good. Without actually dusting off some very old textbooks the article seems to include all of the main events and not miss any that I was expecting. And, as a bonus, it is readable. Good work.

Thank you for your time and feedback! -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 04:12, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nb: it is my intention to claim points in the WikiCup for this review.

Gog the Mild (talk) 22:58, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bryanrutherford0, some further comments and responses above. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:06, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am aware that discussion and/or action is ongoing regarding a couple of my minor niggles above, but I don't see that their resolution need hold up my support for this fine article. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:05, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That all looks good Bryan. Sterling work. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:16, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source Review--Support-- Auntieruth55

[edit]
  • This is an excellent article. I reviewed the sources (not necessarily text) on this (the subject matter is in my academic wheel house) and I'd say that it is a good balance of old, middle aged, and new sources. There should be no way to write an article about this war without citing Carlyle, despite the aged source. The article has appropriate sourcing from new and newer work as well. Difficult to make anything on Frederick readable--especially when it's one d-battle after another. The nature of Frederick's deployment tactics, and his ability to move his army at incredible speed is clear from this article, and these attributes play important roles in the Third Silesian War. So source-wise, I support this article. auntieruth (talk) 16:02, 17 January 2020 (U

Article Review --- Support---Auntieruth

[edit]

A couple of minor suggestions, after reading the article.

Under section on preparations: Maria Theresa, for her part, aimed at the same goals This is awkward. Marie Theresa established the same goals?

How about "Maria Theresa pursued the same goals she had from the beginning of the War of the Austrian Succession"? -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 20:31, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, that's better. MT's goals never really changed. Consolidate the crown for her husband and later son, and get Silesia back. Loosing Silesia had long-term impact on Austria/Habsburg economic growth. auntieruth (talk) 17:07, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Changed. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 18:40, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Under outcomes.... densely industrialised region (for the time period) also awkward. In what was, for the mid-18th century, a densely industrialised region...

Maybe the qualifier isn't needed at all. What about just "a densely industrialised region with a large population and substantial tax yields"? Should we trust the reader to understand that no part of the world in 1745 was "densely industrialised" by the standards of the 21st century? -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 20:31, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's good.  :)
Changed. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 18:40, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Prussia's seizure of Silesia made Austria into a lasting and determined enemy ....made Austria into its(?) lasting and determined enemy auntieruth (talk) 18:03, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That construction seems to me to suggest that Austria was Prussia's only or principal enemy. Are you saying that it seems unclear that the enmity meant is toward Prussia? -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 20:31, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
seems to me that other enemies came and went, but you are setting up the dichotomy of Austria and Prussia contest for dominance in German states. Greater Germany, lesser Germany. Russia was the occasional enemy of Prussia, as was France, especially when allied with Austria, but generally, Austria and Prussia were going to duke it out with one another over the next 120 years. Except during Napoleonic Wars. But that's another story.
Fair point. I feel like "make an enemy of X" is the phrasing that just "sounds right" to my ear (as opposed to "make X my enemy"), and I'm not sure I can give a great grammar or sense reason why. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 18:40, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Made them lasting and determined enemies....? Although they had an uneasy and unsuccessful alliance during the French Revolutionary Wars, and more successful in the last campaign of the Napoleonic Wars. auntieruth (talk) 14:34, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So then, "The seizure of Silesia made Prussia and Austria into lasting and determined enemies"? I guess that works; changed. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 20:05, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not married to any of these suggestions. I agree the qualifier in the first case isn't needed at all. I still support. Either way.  :) auntieruth (talk) 17:05, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM

[edit]

I am conscious that I reviewed this at both GAN and Milhist ACR, so may not be able to see the woods for the trees now. Anyway, the only point I have is:

  • "By early 1744 both Prussia and Austria..." seems redundant, as we next go back in time from early 1744 and are told what these alliances were. I suggest deleting it.
Changed. Thank you for all your input and guidance in this process! -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 01:47, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Great job on this, Bryan. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:39, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are very welcome. Supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:20, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note

[edit]

Hi, I think we still need an image review. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:54, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I started going through the article with a view to promotion but I paused on reading This conflict can be viewed as a continuation of the First Silesian War in the lead. It comes across to me as editorializing and, while it might well reflect the view of historians, I couldn't see in a quick scan of the article where this view is supported -- can you help me out here? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:38, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, let's see... The First Silesian War only "ended" for Prussia; everyone else kept right on fighting while Prussia had two years of peace, and the context and stakes of the "second" conflict were exactly the same. One or two players switched sides (notably Saxony), but that sort of thing was common in eighteenth-century wars. The sources already cited are full of the idea that, for Prussia, the "Peace" after the First War was really only a pause in the fighting (Fraser, 164: "These last two years since the Peace of Breslau had been an interlude, an armistice.") In a journal article that I haven't currently cited, Levy (1988) asserts that all three(!) Silesian Wars should really just be thought of as campaigns of the War of the Austrian Succession. I've added a little more of that flavor, and I'm trying to spot the place in the article where it would make sense to add a citation to Levy. Any suggestions? -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 14:15, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Tks for your prompt response, Bryan. I have to hit the sack but let me think on it -- it might even just be a slight re-wording of what's in the lead so pls bear with me. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:32, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Likewise, I appreciate your guidance. I've added the Levy citation; let me know if you think it needs more. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 16:05, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again Bryan. Tks for the additions. So when we say now Some historians have argued that the First and Second Silesian Wars should be thought of as campaigns within one continuous War of the Austrian Succession and cite that to Levy, is Levy actually writing that several historians have said it's one continuous war, or is he saying it's one continuous war and we're using him as an example of "some historians"? You see what I mean: if the former then this is fine, if the latter then I would say it's editorializing because WP is saying "some historians" rather than our source explicitly... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:43, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's a valid distinction. Does it help that all of the sources currently cited with titles that don't relate to Frederick (Browning, Black, Clifford, Hochedlinger, Holborn) do exactly that: present the first two Silesian Wars as campaigns within the WotAS? Should I cite all of those books as evidence of numerous other historians portraying the wars this way? The only source I've found that specifically and explicitly addresses the question is Levy's article, and it's just him asserting that they all ought to be thought of as parts of the same war. If you feel that we can't include that idea without a more explicit source, then I'll regretfully remove it, but I think the fact that the second war was for all intents and purposes just more of the first is a fairly important thing to know about this war. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 01:36, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ian Rose: I don't want to be a bother, but I'd appreciate your thoughts on this. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 22:05, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ian Rose: It's been some time now. Please reply and let me know what needs to happen to complete this process. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 14:54, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Bryan, I think I was preparing to respond to this earlier and then got waylaid. Anyway, based on the above I think a few tweaks (which I've taken the liberty of making myself) will satisfy me as reflecting the sources while minimising what seemed to be weasel wording. If you're okay with that I think we can wrap it up. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:14, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think those changes look great. Thanks for getting back to this! -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 14:18, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]

All images appear to be properly licensed and appropriately used.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:22, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Independent review

[edit]

Bryan, I saw your newcomer plea at WT:FAC, where you mentioned that "the three substantive supporting reviewers are all coordinators of the relevant WikiProject". Typically, we look for independent review to make sure that articles are digestible to readers not familiar with the content area. Knowing that your MilHist peers would have checked the sourcing, formatting, and all other FA crit, I'm just leaving a note for the Coords that, as a non-MilHist person, I read through and it all made sense! I'm not familiar enough to Support, and didn't do any other sort of review, but it's always important to get a set of eyes from outside of the content area to have a look. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:54, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A very reasonable point! I appreciate your taking the time to look it over! -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 02:42, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Remember to do the same somewhere down the road on a FAC outside of MilHist :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:55, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, MilHist is a very broad church and, of the reviewers, only AuntieRuth is closely associated with the period under review here, but certainly it's always preferable to have someone completely outside MilHist give it the once-over. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:40, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 14 March 2020 [32].

Aftermath (Rolling Stones album)

[edit]
Nominator(s): isento (talk) 23:12, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a 1966 album by the Rolling Stones, an artistic breakthrough that advanced the band's musical legacy, a critical and commercial hit that rivalled the Beatles, one of the most critically acclaimed albums in history, a cultural milestone connected to 1960s Swinging London. And now a complete article, thanks in large part to the major contributions of JG66. isento (talk) 23:12, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from John M Wolfson

[edit]
Comments from John M Wolfson
This looks very well done, good job! Here are a few comments of mine:

Otherwise this looks pretty good. I'll see if I can come up with some more stuff later. (Also, I intend to claim WikiCup points from this review.) – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 23:33, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

More:

Other than that, this looks good and I'd be inclined to support. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 01:22, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Sarastro

[edit]
Comments from Sarastro
Leaning Oppose: This is a nicely done article, and the research that has gone into it is commendable. The main editors deserve a lot of congratulations. However, I don't think we're quite there yet. I've skimmed through, checked a few sources and dipped into it here and there. I've found quite a few issues that make me question if it's quite ready for FAC. The main issues are use of quotations, the reception section and prose in general. I'm just listing samples; correcting these points would not be enough as there are other examples throughout the article. I'm not going to just dump a shopping list of prose issues as that rarely helps anyone. This isn't a full oppose as I think that we could reach FA standard during the course of this FAC, but the article needs work fairly quickly. A copy-editor familiar with FAC standards would be invaluable right now, but they're like gold dust. Sarastro (talk) 08:43, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural point: As the nominator says above, JG66 has contributed extensively to this article. Are they happy it is ready for FAC? Additionally, is there any reason that they are not listed as a co-nominator? It appears that this user and the nominator have contributed similar amounts to the article.
  • Nice of you to ask, but I'm really not fussed (I've never bothered to nominate articles I've taken to GA on to FAC, anyway). As you noticed, Isento was kind enough to mention my contributions above, and that's in keeping with his generosity throughout. We gave each other plenty of space and it's surprised me how much I enjoyed the collaboration. As for whether the article's ready for FAC, I've not read it in a while and Isento's been very busy in my absence. I saw him introducing some style points that I know he prefers, and thought it best to look away. No criticism: he's the one putting in the work, after all. Only lingering concern I have is the introduction of serial commas and spaced em dashes just recently, because British English usage does generally favour a) not using serial commas and b) setting dashes as spaced ens, which is what we had before. JG66 (talk) 12:07, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Serial commas removed, dashes unspaced as well. isento (talk) 20:16, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, I know the dashes are all unspaced now – that's what I'm saying. We had spaced ens before you recently changed them all to unspaced ems. Not only is the former style much more common in British English – and this is an album by a very English band and a key work of '60s Swinging London – but it's the style that still appears in titles in the citations and sources. It's also the style universally adopted for Personnel lists, and it's the style hardcoded into via= in cite web. If there was a concern that the source/attribution in quote boxes is preceded by unspaced em, we could always lose those dashes altogether; it's hardly as if readers would miss that the attribution is a separate element from the quoted text (given the juicy quote marks) and as I remember mentioning, not one of the examples in the Template:Quote box documentation includes an introductory dash anyway. JG66 (talk) 03:01, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sources: This seems fine. I checked a few sources (as far as Google previews would let me) and didn't find any issues apart from one very minor one. In terms of a full source check, it may be worth looking at one or two more a little later in the review, but there is nothing that concerns me in terms of accurate usage or close paraphrasing. Also, while I'm not especially knowledgable about the Rolling Stones, the list of sources is impressive, and looks to contain most of what I would expect in an article like this. (However, there might be a huge standard work missing, and I'd be none the wiser!)
  • The one minor issue: "Pop historian Richard Havens attributed the US LP's chart success in part to its inclusion of "Paint It Black", which had topped the Billboard Hot 100 for two weeks in June.": The source is a little more cautious than indicated here, describing the success of "Paint it Black" as "the perfect springboard to launch the album into the US charts". Not a big deal, but subtly different from what we are saying here.
  • Quotations: Glancing through, we make extensive use of quotations. I wonder if these could be paraphrased in at least some places? It becomes wearing to read long strings of quotations giving opinions.
  • Reception section: This is a bit of an issue; at the moment, linked to the above point, this is just a list of quotations. There is no attempt at organising this section into something more coherent. The best way to see how this could be done would be to read WP:RECEPTION; at the moment, I think this falls some way short of the ideal, and for some reviewers, this would be grounds for an oppose.
  • Prose: Quite a few issues here. For example, we need to sort out WP:ENGVAR. I think it is safe to say that, according to MOS:TIES, an article on the Rolling Stones should use British English. While not a huge issue, there are several phrasings here that are not comfortable in British English. For example: "Through 1965", "the attention of American businessman Allen Klein" (in British English it is better to avoid the use of False titles, and this should be "the American businessman. There are numerous examples of this, such as "According to American musicologist David Malvinni"); "after Jagger met with the potential director" (no need for "with" in British English). This should be checked thoroughly. Also, just looking at the lead throws up a few prose concerns: "The album is considered" (begs the question "who is it considered by?" and is best avoided if possible, unless we want to keep using "critics considered"); "Aftermath saw the Stones incorporating" (the use of "saw" like this makes my eyes bleed. Why not just something like "The Stones incorporated..."); "Brian Jones emerged as a talented multi-instrumentalist, playing a variety of instruments" (close repetition of "instrumentalist... instruments" and saying that Jones was talented introduces an opinion using Wikipedia's voice). I would recommend that this article is copy-edited by an uninvolved editor who could iron out some of these glitches: I can't find evidence that anyone has copy-edited it before its nomination.
    • I have checked thoroughly and copy-edited, addressing the specific points you outlined as well as others. isento (talk)`
  • At the risk of overstaying my welcome ... I'd say the nationality of a musicologist can go, whereas Allen Klein's is important as an American manager to an English band becoming an increasingly international brand in 1965–66. With regard to false titles, I have seen this brought up in the past as a consideration of British English. But, as I've had others quote to me in the past, WP:TERSE – is the inclusion of "the" each time a necessary word? While I'm continually pushing Brit English where it's due, I'm just mindful that articles such as this – which mention various band members, additional musicians, studio staff, photographers and "scenesters", biographers and music critics, etc. – can soon become filled with the likes of "the drummer Charlie Watts", "the engineer Dave Hassinger", and how, to some readers, that can start to grate somewhat. JG66 (talk) 12:43, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sentence structure: A quick glance suggests that we are overusing was/is constructions and the passive voice. While neither of these are huge crimes, I think some variety would make for a more comfortable read. "Was" is obviously unavoidable, but doing a Ctrl-F shows that perhaps some rewriting would be beneficial. Sarastro (talk) 08:43, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I've seen these changes, which look good and have addressed my concerns. I've struck my leaning oppose and I hope to do a full read-through at some point in the next few days. Sarastro (talk) 21:23, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Sarastro1:, if you have anything more to add, it would be greatly appreciated. Hope all is well. isento (talk) 14:01, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This reviewer has gone MIA. isento (talk) 23:08, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Graham Beards

[edit]

Although never my favourite Stones' album, "Aftermath's" central contribution to the group's canon is well-established. It is a long album, which only just fitted on the vinyl (at least in the UK and with a significant resultant loss of volume). I thoroughly enjoyed reading the article and thank the nominator and fellow editors for all their work. My issue is with all those quotations! They break the flow, contain numerous grammatical errors that would require [sic] to be added all over the place. Can't we paraphrase? The other issue with so many quotes is compliance with WP:ENGVAR. Logically, the article should use British English but some many quotes use American English. Paraphrasing would help resolve this. Lastly, I saw spaced em-dashes. Please check with WP:DASH for compliance. I am looking forward to seeing improvements to an otherwise excellent article.Graham Beards (talk) 09:29, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have since copy-edited, consolidated and paraphrased significantly, in accordance with the above reviewer's comments and my own findings. If you still find issues, please specify them for my attention. Thank you! isento (talk) 19:34, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Graham Beards:, if you have anything new to add, in light of the improvements, it would be greatly appreciated. Hope all is well. isento (talk) 13:59, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This reviewer has gone MIA. isento (talk) 23:08, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The prose flows much better now the quotations have been culled. I don't like the "in order to" here: "In the US, London delayed the album's release in order to market the Big Hits compilation but issued "Paint It, Black" as a single in May. It doesn't seem to fully explain their reason to delay the release of the album. Also, Sandy's points below need to be addressed. Despite this, I think this article meets the FA criteria and I support its promotion. Thank you for your hard work on this article – it's a joy to read.Graham Beards (talk) 23:50, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! I have revised it to say "in order to mark the Big Hits compilation first", to indicate why. isento (talk) 00:58, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
Image review by Nikkimaria
*Don't use fixed px size

Okay, @Nikkimaria:, I have removed all the images with questionable licensing -- the black-and-white headshots of Jagger, Richards and Jones, the black-and-white photo of the band in concert, and the Rolling Stone magazine cover -- and replaced them with Jagger and Richards (cropped).png and Carnaby Street, London in 1968.jpg. Please let me know if they have any issues. isento (talk) 02:40, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do all the images check out now? isento (talk) 04:12, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:46, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Support from AppleWormBoy

[edit]

@Isento: It looks like every worry that I would've potentially had with the article has been resolved from other Wikipedians' comments. Nice job. — AppleWormBoy (talk) 16:08, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Aoba47

[edit]
Comments by Aoba47
* I am uncertain if studio album requires a link in the lead.
  • For the infobox, since the US cover caption includes the record label, do you think the same should be done for the UK cover caption for consistency (i.e. UK version by Decca Records)?
  • I would move the link for "Mother's Little Helper" from this part, (the Stones express a more compassionate attitude towards women in "Mother's Little Helper",) to here (music-hall ragas ('Mother's Little Helper'), strange) since it is an earlier instance that the song is mentioned.
  • A link for raga may be helpful for readers who are unfamiliar with that style/type of music.
  • For this part (kind of pop music comparable to their contemporaries The Kinks), should it be "the Kinks" instead of "The Kinks"? The article has "the Rolling Stones" instead of "The Rolling Stones" and "the Who" instead of "The Who" so I would think "the" would not capitalized here for consistency's sake.
  • I am uncertain about the "upcoming" word choice for this part (as their manager's proposed title for the band's upcoming Big Hits (High Tide and Green Grass) compilation) since the album has obviously been released already at this point. Would something like "then upcoming" work or is that too cumbersome? I could be over-thinking it though as I am sure readers would understand from context that this album is no longer upcoming.
  • This is a super random question so apologies in advance, but while reading the part on the Could You Walk on the Water? title, I could not help but think of the More popular than Jesus remark made in the same year by John Lennon of the Beatles. They both are obviously referencing religion, but I was struck by the sentence on London Records' fear of the Christian response. Did that have anything to do the backlash from the Lennon's comment or is it more of a general concern (as I am sure these ideas were discussed by record labels before the Lennon statements)? I was just curious if there was some relation between the two.
  • In this part, (was released the same day in the US as a single with "Lady Jane" as the B-side), I would add a link to B-side.
  • I have a question about the Appalachian dulcimer image. I am uncertain how helpful the image would be to someone completely unfamiliar with the instrument, so would a different image be more beneficial? Both of these images (File:Dulcimer (UP).jpg and File:Dulcimershapes.jpg) from the related Wikipedia article have a more detailed view of the instrument in my opinion. I can understand not wanting to include an image of someone playing the image as it would be distracting. This could also be me over-thinking it, but I just wanted to raise this to your attention.
    • Well those images have the instrument standing upright, which is not how it is typically played. And one of them has several dulcimers, without a significant difference of detail from the current photo that would aid the reader - from my non-expert eyes it immediately struck me as some kind of guitar-like instrument, which is what a zither instrument essentially is. I think the link to the article should suffice. isento (talk) 13:11, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I hope these comments are helpful. Surprisingly enough, I have only heard "Paint It Black" from this album, and I was introduced to the song through the Ciara cover. I will have to check out the album sometime in the future. You have done a wonderful job with the article. Let me know if any of my comments need clarification. Once everything has been addressed, I will read through the article again to see if I missed anything. Have a great rest of your weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 02:47, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the comments, they were very helpful. And I hope you check out the album, but I would recommend listening to the album's version on The Rolling Stones in Mono - the ABKCO re-releases have a questionable reputation among audiophiles. isento (talk) 13:11, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from zmbro

[edit]

Although I don't have much experience reviewing FACs, I've been periodically observing you and JG66's expansions and I definitely it's much better off than it was a year ago. Since you asked, I thought I'd give a few comments or concerns I have. I also have not read any of the comments above so my apologies if I ask things that have already been resolved above:

  • Should you change "UK version" and "US release" in the infobox to the same word for consistency? Like "UK cover" and "US cover" or something like that?
  • Per Template:Infobox song#Parameters, the word "Studios" should not be in the infobox (shorten to just RCA)
  • I think release dates should be mentioned befroe recording dates in the lead (as the second sentence). It feels off to me knowing when it was recorded before its release date
  • AllMusic should not be italicized
  • I think refs in the chart table would look better by the charts themselves and not the positions; seems crowded being in the position col

Rest looks great. Fantastic job on this! – zmbro (talk) 00:22, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Zmbro:, Thank you. I have resolved your concerns, with the exception of mentioning release dates before the recording dates. While the standard on Wikipedia appears to be doing just that, in this case the release dynamic is more complex and works better in the prose if transitioned to later, rather than overwhelming the reader upfront with the complexities of the UK vs US releases. isento (talk) 01:00, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SG

[edit]
Comments from SandyGeorgia
Perhaps someone will clean up the errors in the citations and references before I get to the rest of my review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:38, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@SandyGeorgia:, it was merely three instances of italics appearing in the website parameter of AllMusic citations, which had been done so in response to the above reviewer's issue with AllMusic and italicization. I fixed it, but it was nothing to prohibit a review of the article. isento (talk) 12:57, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My apology and explanation: seriously, the dog woke me up in the middle of the night, with an extended altercation, and while awake, I decided to scan FAC. I saw the redlinked problems, and knew I would be busy most of today, would not be able to do a more thorough review quickly, and entered a "not yet". I am free for the day now, and will dig in next. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:49, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I usually start reviewing at the bottom of the article, as few make it all the way down there:

  • Why are classic rock and album era listed in See also? That is, are they really needed, and can they not be worked in to the article? In theory, FAs are fully developed so we expect to find only things in See also that can't be incorporated (like Lists).
  • Note 1: with the Rolling Stones said to be taking starring roles ... "said to be taking" passive voice.
  • Please go through and check all hyphens to WP:ENDASHes, and p. to pp. needs, sample: Perone 2012, p. 95-96.
  • There are multiple instances of text being sandwiched between quote boxes and images. Repositioning one or the other should solve this.
  • This is a 6,000-word article with a very short lead; there are sections in the article that aren't summarized to the lead, and it seems that more could be added (your choice).
    • I have included more about the Stones' newfound wealth and Beatle-rivalling fame to be representative of "Background". Apart from "Title and packaging", which is much "he said, she said", the lead seems to summarize the most important parts. isento (talk) 01:51, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Prose (picking one section only at random)
  • Jagger, who had been accused of misogyny in the past, ... can you be accused in the future? Redundant?
  • is said by Margotin and Guesdon to be avenging real-life grievances with the songs, using "language and imagery that had the power to hurt". "Stupid Girl", which assails the "supposed greed and facile certitudes of women", is speculated by the writers to indirectly criticise Shrimpton.
    • Margotin and Gueson said that Jagger, who had been accused of misogyny, was avenging real-life grievances with the lyrics, using "language and imagery that had the power to hurt". They speculated that "Stupid Girl" indirectly criticised Shrimptom and assailed the "supposed greed and facile certitudes of women" ... ? I am just not seeing why the sentence is not cast more directly.
      • I revised the first sentence, but kept the second as is, to emphasize the start of songs being discussed individually and for variety in passive/impassive voice. isento (talk) 01:51, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • express a more compassionate attitude ... did they seriously use the word compassionate there ?

These are mere nitpicks; I read only enough to see the FAC should not be held up for me, but I would feel much better if either Graham Beards or Sarastro1 had re-visited, as both of them have better knowledge of the topic, and better prose than I do. If they are satisfied, I am satisfied. Nothing I have raised is significant, although hopefully most of it can be addressed. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:14, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review! I have addressed it with reasonings above or performed new revisions for what I agreed required fixing. Sarastro1 has largely been absent the past few weeks, but Graham has just offered his support above. isento (talk) 01:59, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Good enough for me ... sorry again for my middle-of-the-night foray. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:17, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Thank you for the support. isento (talk) 02:18, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 14 March 2020 [33].

2019 Champion of Champions

[edit]
Nominator(s): Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:10, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a professional snooker non-ranking tournament from November. The contesting players all won tournaments from the year prior to the tournament. The event featured a record number of century breaks during the best-of-19-frames final and ended with a 10-9 win for Robertson, who had mathematically lost the final two frames earlier. It was one of my most favourite finals, an absolutely high class event. It also featured the champions of the senior and ladies world championships for the first time ever. Both 57 year old Jimmy White a frame away from beating the world number one Ronnie O'Sullivan, and Reanne Evans a frame away from defeating 2005 world champion Shaun Murphy.

The article has been through the GA process, and I hope to be able to fix any issues that might occur during the FAC process. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:10, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I added a key for this below the table (should have done so earlier). The one for John denotes that John had won another event, but Maguire had not, but it's the only doubles event on the list. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 22:46, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In that case Ronnie O'Sullivan and others should be marked. The formatting is inconstant --In actu (Guerillero) Parlez Moi 17:24, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I understand. The items in grey are ones that were originally qualification events, but as the person who had won them had already won a tournament; it no longer acted as one. If there had been 16 different winners earlier in the season, some events would no longer be a part of this list. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:19, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I know it's an issue, but it's pretty much standard as a red hand flag for snooker items. See official website, snooker.org etc. I've never seen it be an issue or controversial, but I'm certainly no expert. If there was a historic issue, it would be something that showed up when searching for Northern Ireland Open and Dennis Taylor, but I didn't find a single different search on a (admittedly short) search. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:19, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from John M Wolfson

[edit]

(Note that I intend to take WikiCup points from this review.)

  • It was the ninth Champion of Champions event, which was first held in 1978 strikes me as rather odd.
I've gone into more detail in the prose. It was played in 1978, then in 1980 and annually since 2013. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:12, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a non-invitational event, it carried no world-ranking points is not brought up in the body, nor is it cited.
Added Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:12, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The second paragraph in the lead, between Ronnie O'Sullivan ... Judd Trump in the final. contains a lot of names and is a bit choppy. How about merging the Robertson v. Trump sentences into a single sentence?
I've merged these. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:12, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article could stand to have more images in it.
I've added a second image. I'm not sure if there is much scope for much more. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:28, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's all for now. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:16, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi John M Wolfson - thanks for taking a look, I've addressed the above. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:28, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'll see what else I can find soon. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 05:10, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi John M Wolfson do you have anything more for me? Thanks for looking at this. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:33, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from BennyOnTheLoose

[edit]

Looks like a comprehensive and suitably written account of the event.

  • Is there any reason to not populate defending_champion in the infobox? (Doesn't appear in the articles for earlier championships either.)
  • Some info from Snooker Scene (December 2019 that might be worth adding):
There were 784,000 viewers for the final on ITV4[1]
O'Sullivan had an average shot time of only 13 seconds in his match against Higgins.(Same source, page 19.)
(Re: Evans' comments about the disparity between prize money for men and for women) - the £12,500 that (twelve times womens's champion) Evans won at this event was more than double her previous highest event winnings.(Same source, page 16.)
  • I'm not sure if there is a convention, but in the Prize Fund section, should it be Semi-finalists (plural) rather than semi-finalist etc.?

Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 18:20, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look Benny!

  • Sure. Defending champion is a term used for defending champion before the event finishes. The moment they are eliminated from the tournament they are no longer a defending champion. Consensus is that after the event, this should not be populated at all (even if it were to be won by the previous winner).
  • Added. Any more details? I don't have a copy of snooker scene, so who authored the passage?
  • Not sure how I would organically say that. Does the text use anything to compare this too that I could use?
  • I've added this to her mention in the prose.
  • I changed this in line with prior FAs. This should be Semi-final etc. This is the position that the player reached, not the placements for prize money. There are more than one quarter-finalists for example, but the prize is for reaching the quarter-finals. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:04, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarifications.
  • For the viewing figure (author Clive Everton), the article adds that it was the second-highest figure for a non-terrestrial channel, behind Liverpool v Man City on Sky, but not for what period - maybe for that day?
  • Phil Yates is the author of the other Snooker Scene sections, but they don't really have separate titles.
  • For shot time, World Snooker publishes data at http://livescores.worldsnookerdata.com/TourPlayers/Index/14128 for context if you want to use that. (O'Sullivan is quickest with an overall average of 16.65 seconds; Ebdon slowest with a 30.66 second average.) Cheers, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 13:21, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
BennyOnTheLoose - I've done a little work. I still don't think there is enough weight for the AST to get more than a general mention. Hopefully this is all you have for me. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:42, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
BennyOnTheLoose Yes, that's it from me. Thanks for the responses. Best, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 21:07, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Robertson triumphs in Champion of Champions". Snooker Scene. Halesowen: Snooker Scene Ltd. December 2019. p. 16.
Could I get a "support" to help the eventual closer? You also pinged yourself as an FYI. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:45, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to support. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 00:39, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Rodney Baggins

[edit]

I've done a bit of copyediting on the article and here are my FA review comments for your attention:

Lead
  • Might it be better to put the prize fund sentence at the bottom of the lead, at end of 2nd para?
    • Done.
  • "having required foul shots from his opponent in the 18th frame." - not sure what you're getting at here! Was this an important turning point where Robertson almost lost the match? Is there a better way of saying this? Also, there is no mention of this in the description of the final in the Knockout stages section below, which only mentions foul shots required by Trump in the 17th frame. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:49, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, that should have said Robertson required foul shots (reworded in prose) in frame 18, or we would have lost the match. It was a crucial part of the match, as without foul shots, Trump would have won 10-8. I have reworded this to make this more sensible. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:49, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Tournament format
  • "first held in 1978,[1] and annually since 2013" > "first held in 1978,[1] and held annually since 2013" (or use the word "contested" to avoid repetition of "held"?)
  • "The 2019 Champion of Champions featured 16 winners of events from the previous 12 months on the World Snooker Tour" - isn't that the case every year and therefore applies to the tournament as a whole, not just the 2019 edition? If so, then it should really be used as a general statement in present tense, i.e. "The tournament features 16 professional snooker players who have won various events over the previous 12 months..."
  • "The event was broadcast on ITV4, and organised by Matchroom Sport." - organising the event comes before broadcasting it chronologically speaking, so I'd prefer "The event was organised by Matchroom Sport and was broadcast on ITV4."
  • "with the semi-finals and final played on 9 and 10 November." - this is important, I think you have the dates wrong - should be "with the semi-finals played on 8 and 9 November and the final on 10 November."?
  • "with those in the opening round being best-of-7-frames" - strictly hyphens shouldn't be used here as the construct is not being used as a predicative compound modifier, but I'm not going to argue the toss over this. Also "group finals and semi-finals best-of-11-frames" shouldn't really have hyphens, but "played as a best-of-19-frames match" is ok because here it's used as a predicative compound modifier!
  • "Having defeated Kyren Wilson in the 2018 final 10–9, Ronnie O'Sullivan automatically qualified for the event" - do we really need to mention Wilson and the final score? Why not just say "As the defending champion from the 2018 event, Ronnie O'Sullivan automatically qualified for the 2019 Champion of Champions."
Qualification
  • "would take a place in the Champion of Champions" - do they get offered a place that they have to formally accept? If so, this should be "would be offered a place in the Champion of Champions"
  • In table, "2019 World Championship Runner-up" isn't a tournament, it's just indicating the runner-up of the 2019 World Championship, so the entry should really be "2019 World Championship (runner-up)"
  • The last 2 columns look very odd because they are auto centre aligned and nothing lines up. Would it not be clearer if the cells were reinstated and the players placed next to their respective events as appropriate? Or maybe just use valign=top so the info isn't floating around aimlessly?
  • Is there a reason the first 16 events are not in chronological order? Is it to do with their importance and the way the qualifiers end up being seeded or grouped? Worth mentioning the relevance of the event order?
    • That's exactly it. "In the event of any of these players meeting multiple qualification criteria, the winners of subsequent tournaments on the list (in the order shown below) would take a place in the Champion of Champions". So, if the first 16 tournaments had different winners, then the winners of the ones in the list below that did not qualify and so on. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:19, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest using a thick line underneath the 16th event to show the cut-off point?
Tournament summary
  • Would it be worth including a simple table at the top of this section showing the four groups so it's clear what we're talking about, rather than expecting the reader to go down to the main draw tree to see the groupings there?
  • Need to state that each of the four groups competed on its own separate day and the group finals were included on the same day as the group first-round matches - so basically each group was done and dusted on one single day. Or this info could be added to the Tournament format section above?
Main draw
  • "Numbers in brackets show the four seeded players" - this is the only mention of seeds in the whole article. Should we not bring it up in the Tournament summary section? You have not explained how seeds 1 to 4 are decided.
  • In the first column, the group headings should be above each pair of matches in the tree, not inbetween them.
  • I anticipate some slight confusion over Group semi-finals/finals vs. main semi-finals/final - would it be better to head the first two columns "Last 16 (group first round)" and "Quarter-finals (group finals)"?
References
  • The Champion of Champions Snooker refs. (e.g. 5, 6, 7, 13, etc.) are dated in the citations but these dates don't show up in the displayed articles, just in the source code, so should we bother to cite the date if it can't be seen?
I don't see an issue here. It's in the metadata for the item, which is as equivilent to a publishing date that isn't on a book or newspaper. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:38, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 22. don't need World Snooker at end of title
  • 37. What is the point of this ref? It just says "No matches registered". Do we need to pull up an archive?
Indeed, fixed it with the list of results, which was the correct ref.

Rodney Baggins (talk) 19:14, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Lee, I'll go through your comments and feed back shortly – there are still a few things I'm not sure about. I'm very embarressed to say that before this I hadn't even heard of the Champion of Champions tournament, so thank you for introducing me to it. Maybe it's a good thing that I came to this article with no prior knowledge of the event! Rodney Baggins (talk) 10:51, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Outstanding comments...
  • You said the players are "given" a place, but as it's an "invitational" event this would imply that the players are invited, i.e. "offered" a place!? Just a question of semantics but I thought I'd mention it again just to make sure.
  • The last two columns of the Qualification table are better now they are top aligned, but unless you are using a small enough display font, the names and dates don't line up horizontally due to text wrapping. So I still think a "cellular" approach would ultimately be the best solution!
  • I still don't understand why the first 16 events in the table are not in chronological order. For example, 2019 World Snooker Championship is 4th entry down even though its final was on 6 May 2019, so if the list were chronological it would come 11th in the list, after the 2019 China Open whose final was 7 April 2019. Then it's all chronological again until you get down to 2018 Northern Ireland Open. So I'm wondering: is it because the three Triple Crown events are considered the "most important" events and need to come near the top (after the C of C defending champion)? I thought maybe the top four determined the 4 seeds but that's apparently not the case. Still can't fathom that one...
    • I'm not 100% sure. It's simply how it's written at the official website. That's the official list of qualification. It was split into 6 sections as per [championofchampionssnooker.co.uk/players/].

It's 1) Triple Crown + Previous years winner 2) Bigger tournaments 3) Home nations series 4) Some smaller ranking events (and world runner-up) 5) World Cup 6) Additonal.

There was this article about the 2017 event that went into slightly more detail, but I don't think the same exists for this season. I hope I've made this more clear. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:21, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm still wondering how seeds 1 to 4 are decided and I think it's a fairly important question. Can you look into it?
And a few more issues remaining in References...
  • 3. Not sure why your script changed ESPN from publisher= to work=
  • 15. missing date=21 October 2019
  • 16. I think you missed this: final version of article has title "Champion of Champions day one results and report: Neil Robertson wins Group 4 after beating Shaun Murphy"
  • 18. No url link included and it's exactly the same citation as ref.37
  • 32/35/38. I wouldn't bother to include an author for these refs - Hermund Årdalen is included in the source code for refs 5 & 7 as well but we're not citing his name for those two refs, so we need to be consistent one way or the other. As the snooker.org sources are just a record of matches/results, I don't see any reason to specify an "author", he's probably just the guy that compiled the data (as opposed to being someone who wrote an article for example) and his name doesn't show up on the webpage anyway.
  • 38. Why does it say this ref. is in Norwegian? It looks English to me, although it does give a translate box when you first open it for some reason. Ref.35 also says it's in Norwegian (even though it isn't) but this one doesn't display a translate box - how curious!

Cheers, Rodney Baggins (talk) 18:56, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lee, I'm happy to support this article now. Just a couple of things to point out:

  • Qualification section states that there were 28 tournaments, but that is not the case. There are actually 26 tournaments on the list, with two spots available at the World Cup (two winners) and two at the World Championship (two finalists) giving a total of 28 spots. Check this in the ref. [34]
  • There's no online link to the articles in refs 21 & 29. Is that just because the Snooker Scene magazine has no online presence?

Cheers, Rodney Baggins (talk) 12:49, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from SMcCandlish

[edit]

This looks quite tight, especially after all the above. My input may all be pretty minor and nitpicky (mostly copyediting and clarity), having arrived late on the scene.

  1. I would change "for sponsorship reasons" to "for sponsorship purposes", which can have a slightly different implication (we're talking about the context in which it is used, not the rationale for the usage).
  1. "World Snooker" in the lead needs to be linked. Non-experts won't know what that quite means, and it might even been seen as incorrect capitalisation until they learn it's an organisation.
  2. "the prior snooker season" might be useful to link to the season article, too, though I wouldn't insist on it.
  3. This could be better as a single sentence, without repetition of the year in it: "The tournament featured 16 participants who had won World Snooker events throughout the prior snooker season. In 2019, winners of both the World Seniors Championship and Women's World Championship competed at the tournament for the first time." Maybe "... season, and for the first time they included winners of ..."? I don't feel too strongly about this one either. I think it's just telling us that its 2019 again that rankles.
  1. I would use {{cuegloss}} on the first occurrence of "frame" and "match" (at least in the body, maybe not in the lead; we don't want every word blue in there), as these have specific meanings in snooker which may not be obvious to those not ardently following the sport (even if they are big into a related one like pool; "match" often has a broader meaning in pool, and "frame" tends not to be used much). Update: I see that the first occurrence of "frame" after the lead is so linked, but not for "match".
  1. "20 century breaks" – Is that any kind of record?
  1. "As an invitational event, it does not carry any world ranking points." This point may not need to be made except in the main body, at least not in terms so repetitive in the lead then body. If it's important to have lack of ranking points in the lead, maybe just state it without the lead-in clause, and move "invitational" somewhere else in the lead, e.g. "an invitational, professional snooker tournament". [Aside: Strangely, we don't have somewhere to link "invitational", which I was going to suggest; I've raised the matter at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sports#Missing conceptual article: Invitational competition.]
  2. "The 16 qualifiers were split into four groups of four players" may be a little confusing for non-fans; maybe something like "qualifying rounds"? You're otherwise being very (commendably) clear, e.g. with things like "the group finals (event quarter-finals)".
  • I'd love to use "qualifying", but sadly all sources use the idea of a group semi-final, which is a little absurbed for a non round-robin. We also refer to qualifying as the act of winning an event in this context Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:59, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  1. If we're going to go with a comma-free style with scores, some sentences might need re-jiggering a little. E.g., "having defeated Kyren Wilson in the 2018 Champion of Champions final 10–9" doesn't parse well, and is better as "having defeated Kyren Wilson 10–9 in the 2018 Champion of Champions final" (though "having defeated Kyren Wilson in the 2018 Champion of Champions final, 10–9" would also work; the lack of a comma is only troubling when it's a stand-alone clause like that, a construction in which it's a shorthand for something tumid like "by a score of 10–9").
  2. I don't think a comma can reasonably be avoided either way in this more complex construction: "... Mark Selby defeating first-time ranking event winner Yan Bingtao 4–0." Using "... Bingtao, 4–0" flows better in this case than "... defeating, 4–0, first-time ..."
  3. "First round loser: £12,500" needs a hyphen between the first two words (they're serving as a compound modifier of "loser").
  4. Qualification table: I'm a little confused as to why cells in any column but the one for player names has a darker background, and further why this is not happening with 2019 World Cup (in every other case, the entire row is grey if a player name is).
  5. "based on the world snooker rankings". I would flip that to "snooker world rankings" to agree with the article title and to avoid confusion with World Snooker, the proper name (they're connected, but these are their rankings in world competition in snooker, not their rankings in some kind of internal favouritism system within World Snooker. :-)
  6. "Judd Trump second, Mark Selby third and Neil Robertson fourth": Add comma after "third" so we're using serial commas consistently.
  7. "as a single-elimination, rather than a round-robin competition" can be compressed to "as a single-elimination rather than round-robin competition", with better flow.
  8. "In the other group four match", "the group four final", "The group three matches", "the other group three first-round match", "In the group three final", "The group two matches", "in the other group two first-round match", "The group one matches", "in the other group one first-round match", "in the group one final": hyphenate "group-[number]" as compound adjectives in these cases. PS: The structural repetitiveness of this wording isn't a problem; the segments are separated enough that it does not come off as repetitive, and the parallel constructions actually help the reader to understand the material precisely.
  1. "the six-red and World Cup winner" needs links to Six-red snooker and World Cup (snooker) probably; definitely at least the first one. [Aside: I don't know why it's not at Snooker World Cup, since even most marketing materials about it don't refer to it as just the World Cup, but either include the word "Snooker", or precede it with the main sponsor name (e.g. the Beverley World Cup, recently).]
  1. "having won the women's world championship": Should be "Women's World Championship" (technically the full name of the event is "Women's World Snooker Championship" but it's still serving as a proper name here, in the same way that The Empire Strikes Back does despite also having a longer full title).
  2. Another missing serial comma, and possibly could use restructuring: "Un-Nooh won three of the first four frames, with breaks of 63, 51 and 90, before Wilson made breaks of 102 and 98 to force a deciding frame." This could be done as "... frames, with breaks of 63, 51, and 90, before Wilson ...", but every now and then someone frowns about too many commas, so it could be done less parallel as, e.g., "Un-Nooh won three of the first four frames – with breaks of 63, 51, and 90  – before Wilson made breaks of 102 and 98 to force a deciding frame", or parallel with parentheticals, something like "Un-Nooh won three of the first four frames (with breaks of 63, 51, and 90), before Wilson (with breaks of 102 and 98) forced a deciding frame".
  3. "Two former world champions": I've never cared for that expression, as it sounds like the title was rescinded. "Prior" of "previous" might work better, though this is a really subjective nit to pick.
  4. "suffered a kick": could "skid" or another jargon term be used and linked here, for WP:COMMONALITY reasons? "Kick" may confuse some readers, as it has a very different meaning in pool, at least in North America and anywhere that cue sports are more pool- than snooker-leaning. [I've observed a tendency to import US-flavoured terms via WPA pool, which is global but rather US-dominated in its ruleset and terminology, and until pretty recently its top player ranks. Similar to British dominance of World Snooker rules, terms, rankings.]
  1. "the tournament's highest break of 140": This is probably worth linking to Highest snooker break, so snooker-novice readers can see it was close to a maximum, amid a veritable sea of century breaks throughout the event. Same in the section about breaks, where we're also linking Century break again for anyone who leaps right to this section from the ToC.
  2. "in frames five to seven" would be slightly clearer as "in frames five through seven"; it's a rather breathless passage. :-) And perhaps should be, given that it's about the exciting action in the final.
  3. "Trump took the first frame of the second session, but Robertson replied with a break of 104." I would use "returned", "came back", or some other phrasing, as "reply" was just used two sentences earlier, and at least once already in material prior to that.
  4. "required foul shots": This could be {{Cuegloss}}-ized again; it was linked in the lead, but I think we usually re-link at first occurrence in the main article body, and that was a long time ago in this article's content.
  5. Some of these tidbits might be lead-worthy, in compressed form: "With a total of eight century breaks (five of which were compiled by Robertson), the final included a record number of centuries for a best-of-19-frames match.[36][40] There were 784,000 viewers on ITV4 across the two sessions of the final.[21] This was the second-highest non-terrestrial viewing figure for the day".
  6. It's not helpful to center the final table. On a large monitor, it looks kind of silly, and actually impedes its usefulness (it ends up looking like a navbox to ignore: https://i.imgur.com/rrwPmD4.jpg).
  7. "140, 108, 106 Mark Allen", etc. – better done as "Mark Allen: 140, 108, 106", I would think.
  1. Super-tiny nitpick (for editorial convenience, not readers): It helps a wee bit with line wrapping in source view if you do "|[archive-]url= https", with a space after the "=". Just for URL-bearing parameters.
  1. I can't see a darned thing iffy with the sourcing at this point (I think Rodney et al., above, caught anything I would have noticed, long before I got here), nor is anything leaping out at me as missing. I guess enough time has passed that it's vaguely possible someone involved has been quoted saying something else about the event that's worth noting, but this already seems to have combed the usual-suspect sources, and by now the players have moved on and are talking about other events.

I like that it includes the gender disparity stuff from Evans; there's been more reported in the sources than just play-by-play. Overall, it's kind of an exciting read while still staying within WP:ENC bounds and well short of WP:NOT#NEWS. Good job. I'm comfortable with this being an FA regardless whether the trivial bits I flagged above are addressed.
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:08, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]

Regarding the requested image review, everything looks well placed and well licensed to me. There is OK ALT text. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:41, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note

[edit]

I can see detailed commentary of the formatting of the references but didn't spot anything on source reliability -- this needs to be reviewed and signed off before we look at promotion. Cehers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:48, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rodney Baggins, et al., have looked over some of it, and I can tell from prior involvement in snooker and other cue-sports editing that these are among the more commonly used sources for such articles. I don't see any "what the hell is that site?" entries popping out at me. Some of this is primary sourcing, but within WP:ABOUTSELF; there's not a better source for the official scores and other stats from a WS event that WS's official website for the event, just by the nature of that specific information.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:12, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Epicgenius

[edit]

This article looks good. There are a few things that stand out, though:

  • It was the ninth Champion of Champions event, which was first held in 1978. - this wording sounds off. For this, and similar articles that might have this wording, I'd suggest "the first of which was held in 1978".
  • Each group was played over the course of a single day, as a single-elimination, rather than a round-robin competition.[17][18] is a single sentence. While not a problem in itself, it's recommended to not have single-sentence paragraphs in FAs unless it's necessary.

Actually, that's about it. Everything else seems like it's covered above. epicgenius (talk) 20:37, 7 March 2020 (UTC) Thanks Epicgenius, thanks for taking a look! Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:49, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Lee Vilenski: No problem. I'll support this article for promotion to FA status. epicgenius (talk) 21:01, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 14 March 2020 [35].

1st Cavalry Division (Kingdom of Yugoslavia)

[edit]
Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:39, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a Yugoslav formation that fought briefly during the Axis invasion of Yugoslavia in April 1941. It has previously undergone a Milhist A-Class review, so hopefully the rough edges have been knocked off it. It forms part of a Good Topic that will become Featured if this nomination is successful. Have at it! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:39, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Have to say, even at full size I had a hard time spotting the red 10 in File:Yugo_History_map_of_invasion_7th_Army.jpg given the overlapping text. Any chance it could be edited to make it more obvious? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:13, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment

Support from Gog the Mild

[edit]
  • "a horsed cavalry formation" As opposed to an unhorsed cavalry formation? Perhaps a touch of redundancy there? It also has "cavalry" twice in six words. Yes, I understand that there are and have been "cavalry" formations with few or no horses, but I think that many readers will stumble over this without further explanation.
Ho, hum. OK.
  • "combat and supporting units" Optional: "supporting" reads oddly to me. 'support'?
  • "were then disarmed by armed Croat" I don't have a better suggestion, but that is mildly jarring.
  • "Infantry divisions had a wartime strength of 26,000–27,000 men,[4] as compared to contemporary British infantry divisions of half that strength." I'm not sure why this is in the background of a cavalry division.
  • "Peacetime organisation" Was the peacetime organisation 2 brigades and 4 regiments; or 2 brigades consisting of 4 regiments. The article currently reads as the former so if that was the case, fine.
Well, yeah. I assumed so. But that hypothetical average reader out there ...
  • Is the actual strength of the peacetime formation known?
In which case I am a bit twitchy about you giving "6,000–7,000 officers and men" in the lead, when this was only its paper strength for a few days and it was never achieved.
I assume you mean in the infobox, deleted from there. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:22, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I do. I did. Thanks.
  • "the 1st Cavalry Division forming the bulk of the reserve for the 1st Army Group"; two sentences later "The 1st Cavalry Division was to be held as the 1st Army Group reserve".
  • "The Yugoslav defence plan saw both armies" The previous sentence mentions two armies, but I suspect that these aren't the "both armies" you are referring to. Maybe 'the 1st Army Group' instead?
  • "to be held as the 1st Army Group reserve around Zagreb"; in the same paragraph "he reserve for the 1st Army Group would be located in and around Zagreb".
  • "detailing the plan of attack and command structure" → 'detailing the plan of attack and the command structure'.
  • You don't say when the formation came into existence.
Any reason why that couldn't be stated? Possibly in pretty much those words?
Well, it is an assumption, so I wouldn't have a source to cite for it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:23, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have access to Jarman, Robert L., ed. (1997a). Yugoslavia Political Diaries 1918–1965, volume 1? Gog the Mild (talk) 18:34, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have scans of parts of it from my work on the Royal Yugoslav Navy, they hold it at one of the uni libraries in town. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:38, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It may be worth having a look at page 527. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:44, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well spotted, I do have a scan of that page. Added. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:20, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild (talk) 16:08, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look at this, Gog. See what you think of my edits. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:58, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looking good. Well up to your usual standards.

Nb, it is my intention to use this review to claim points for the WikiCup.

Gog the Mild (talk) 13:12, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from AustralianRupert

[edit]

Support: G'day, PM, I hope you are well. I have had a look at this at GAN and ACR. I see that it has improved further since then. I have following suggestions/observations/questions: AustralianRupert (talk) 05:23, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • suggest adding the 1921 establishment date to the lead
  • Done.
  • With regards to the pin map, I wonder if potentially some other reference point could/should be added? For instance, the loc of Zagreb if that isn't the one already depicted; and or some other major city to provide a little more context?
  • Clarified that the division loc is Zagreb and added Belgrade, the Yugoslav capital.
  • The 1st Cavalry Division was to deployed --> "The 1st Cavalry Division was be to deployed"? or "The 1st Cavalry Division was to deploy"?
  • Fixed.
  • Armed fifth column Ustase groups and German troops disarmed the division and its attached units before they could establish any coherent defence along the Sava: did the division offer any resistance to this? If there was resistance, do we know if the division suffered any casualties?
  • The principal source on this (Terzić) doesn't say. Info about Yugoslav casualties during the invasion is very sparse, as many records were lost in the ensuing occupation and civil war.
  • after the surrender, is there any information on what happened to the division's troops? I assume they were taken prisoner, or maybe returned to civilian life under the occupation?
  • was the formation a regular, part-time or mixed formation prior to mobilisation? I get the impression that it was largely hollow prior to mobilisation, but I might be wrong? If it was a part-time or mixed formation, what sort of ongoing training commitments were required during peacetime?
  • Some were full-time (so they could be used for public order work as necessary) and it was more of a cadre-type arrangement for other sabre regiments, so it was mixed I suppose. The training requirement was very complicated, which is why I haven't tried to explain it in any formation articles thus far, I'm leaving it for the Royal Yugoslav Army article when I get to it. Different types of troops had different obligations, even within a single division, and the obligations for different types of troops changed over time.
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:31, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, looks good. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:22, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • logistics units: do we know what type (supply, transport, medical/veterinary etc) and how many?
  • The sources don't say, other than a transport battalion. Added that.
  • ext links all work (no action required)
  • there are no dab or dup links (no action required)
  • all information appears to be referenced (no action required)
  • "London, England" --> :London, United Kingdom"?
  • Done.

Thanks very much for taking a look at this, AustralianRupert. See if I've addressed your comments, here are my edits. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:47, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, nice work. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:08, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by CPA-5

[edit]
  • line southeast of Zagreb along the Sava river --> "line southeast of Zagreb along the Sava River"
  • The commander of the 1st Cavalry Division was Divizijski đeneral[b] Dragoslav Stefanović Was Stefanović the only commander of the division in those 20 years? If not maybe we should add more commanders here.
  • 2nd Cavalry Regiment, based in Virovitica on the Drava river in Slavonia --> "2nd Cavalry Regiment, based in Virovitica on the Drava River in Slavonia"
  • Royal Yugoslav Army was laid down by regulations issued in 1936–37 -- "Royal Yugoslav Army was laid down by regulations issued in 1936–1937"
  • which was motorised and equipped with 47 mm anti-tank guns No imperial/US units?
  • logistics units, including a transport battalion This sentence need a full stop.
  • the eastern sector along the Hungarian border Pipe Hungary to the Kingdom of Hungary and unlink the later one.
  • the 4th Army behind the Drava river between Varaždin and Slatina --> " the 4th Army behind the Drava River between Varaždin and Slatina"
  • On 27 March, a military coup d'état overthrew the government that had signed the pact --> "Two days later, a military coup d'état overthrew the government that had signed the pact"
  • out of its bridgehead across the Drava river at Zákány
  • Yugoslavia was then occupied and dismembered by the Axis powers Link Axis.
  • prisoners of war were soon released by the Germans, as 90 percent of those held for the duration of the war were Serbs Not per cent?

I only have one comment here. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 19:37, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Thanks for taking a look, CPA-5. If you only found one thing to pick me up on, I'm very pleased! :) Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:40, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

G'day @FAC coordinators: , this is looking good. Can I have dispensation for a fresh nom please? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:41, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi PM, if either of my fellow coords have a different opinion, no prob, but personally I'd like to see something from another reviewer outside MilHist, or at least outside this area -- I realise Gog is more the medievalist viz. FAs but after his fine effort with Razing of Friesoythe I'm going to have to start lumping him in with the WWII crowd too... In any case, PM, I notice you've just been press-ganged into a collaborative FAC so perhaps that'll keep you going for a while... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:33, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nate has done the heavy lifting on the co-nom (I'm just there for the Yugoslav bits), so I am still at a bit of a loose end FAC-wise. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:02, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

[edit]
  • "two cavalry brigades commanding a total of four regiments" I do not understand this. Does it mean that the cavalry brigades consisted of four regiments or that the regiments were under the control of brigade headquarters?
  • The source doesn't explain what the allocation of the regiments to brigades was in peacetime. Logic would say two regiments to each brigade, but the basing makes me think it could have been three-one. The eventual war-time allocation supports the latter assumption. Can you suggest a better way of explaining that? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:17, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Along with the rest of the Yugoslav Army, the 1st Cavalry Division began mobilising on 3 April 1941" I think a few words explaining that this followed a coup against the pro-German government would be helpful.
  • Strictly speaking, I don't think the government could be described as pro-German. It was more that they had a realistic idea of what opposing Germany would involve given their complete isolation from any possible assistance and knowledge of the poor state of their forces compared to the Germans. Added a bit about the coup. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:17, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • " who saw it as a means by which to secure Serb political hegemony" You mention below the Slovene and German minorities. I think it would be helpful to mention them here and whether the Serbs were a majority of the population.
  • "a chemical platoon". Was this for chemical defence or attack or both?
  • "After unrelenting pressure from Adolf Hitler, Yugoslavia signed the Tripartite Pact" I would clarify pressure to join the German side in WW2.

@FAC coordinators: , re: my above request, I think Dudley counts as being outside the WWII specialists, being an Anglo-Saxon period editor. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:58, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 14 March 2020 [36].

Drake Would Love Me

[edit]
Nominator(s): Aoba47 (talk) 23:41, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everyone! This article is about a song by American singer K. Michelle for her second studio album, Anybody Wanna Buy a Heart? (2014). Its lyrics are about an imaginary romance with Canadian rapper Drake. "Drake Would Love" was never released as a single and did not appear on any music charts, but its odd title and concept still attracted attention from media outlets. It received generally positive reviews from critics, although some criticized Michelle's decision to dedicate a song to Drake.

For this project, I was inspired by AJona1992's FAC for the Selena song "Missing My Baby" to work on an article about an album track. I do not have a lot of experience with bringing song articles to the FA level, so I would greatly appreciate any feedback as always for this nomination. Thank you in advance! Aoba47 (talk) 23:41, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Moisejp

[edit]

Oppose for now, hope to change to support later.

Hi Aoba, I hope you’re well. I would say this article is not quite ready for FA yet, but I hope you may likely be able to fix the issues within the period of this FAC. Below I’m just highlighting quickly what for me would be some of the biggest issues. Once you resolve these I may have some other smaller points.

  • In the second paragraph of the Critical reception section, there are four criticisms, but there is only one of them (the “just plain weird” one) that is very clear to me what the context is. The other ones feel like they need more background. Also the last one wiki-links to “sucking-teeth” but it mentions the context as being for the West Indies, while the writer of the review seems to be New York-based. It’s not clear that the wiki-link is relevant.
  • I believe the "sucking-teeth" slang has expanded beyond the West Indies as it something that I have heard the expression in the US, but I understand your point. I have expanded on this paragraph to include further information from the sources, but please let me know if further work is necessary. Aoba47 (talk) 20:28, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the first paragraph of the section there are some worthwhile-sounding points made by various writers, but it’d be nice if they could be tied together to try to link some similarities or related points among the different comments.
  • I have revised the paragraph to link some of the similar points made by critics. The commonalities that I found are that critics were (in this case pleasantly) surprised by how the song sounded in comparison to the title and enjoyed Michelle's humor. Aoba47 (talk) 20:28, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not just in that paragraph, but also in the Composition and lyrics section—and I’ve mentioned this in a couple of previous reviews of articles you’ve nominated, and I hope I don’t sound like a broken record—I feel there are too many brief unrelated points reviewers say, listed one after another, without any overarching narrative to them. For me it’d be great if some of these could be fleshed out, to appear more substantial, and similar themes or trends among the things they say could be highlighted so there is a more solid story for the reader. Your first version of When You Get a Little Lonely suffered from that, but then you came back with more points of substance and a more solid narrative, and it was really a lot better.
  • That is a fair point so no worries. I went for the following approach with this section. The first paragraph would focus on the music itself (i.e. genre, instrumentation, etc.), the second on the lyrics, and the third on how the song fits with the rest of the album. I renamed the section to "Music and lyrics" to hopefully make the separation of the first two paragraphs clearer. I have revised all of the paragraphs so hopefully it does not sound like just a bunch of information randomly smashed together, but let me know if further work is necessary. I would argue that the overall narrative of this article (and the publications about this particular song) focuses on the bizarre nature of a singer writing fan fiction about Drake. It is certainly a strange moment in music history. Aoba47 (talk) 20:28, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overall I feel there are too many quotations in the article. More paraphrasing would be better.
  • I don’t understand what the comparison to Dr. Seuss is supposed to mean. It could use more context if it’s available in the source.
  • I have attempted to revise this part. I think the source is making this comparison based on how the song lists Drake's qualities through a similar rhyming style to a Seuss book (i.e. same/games). This is the full quote from the source about it for further clarification: (In “Drake Would Love Me,” which reads like a romantic R&B song written by Dr. Seuss, Michelle enumerates Drake’s finest qualities: he would show her off at the Grammys; he would treat her like “his grand prize”; he wouldn’t lie; he wouldn’t make her cry; he wouldn’t “play no games”; he would “always be the same.”) Aoba47 (talk) 20:31, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That’s all for now. While the article is not quite at there yet, with a little oiling here and there I think the gap is not so insurmountable and I wish you good luck improving it. Best wishes, Moisejp (talk) 03:44, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for the comments! I will go through the article sometime tomorrow to try my best to address your points if that is okay with you. I just wanted to leave a note to let you know that I have seen the comments. Thank you for being upfront with your oppose. Apologies again for being quite bad at taking criticism in the past, but I greatly appreciate your feedback. I will let you know on here when I have revised the article, and I am looking forward to working with you further on this. This one is a little outside of my comfort zone so it will be nice to work through the article slowly tomorrow as I do agree with your points above. Aoba47 (talk) 04:17, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Aoba. RL is a bit busy right now, but I hope to get back to looking back at the article in the next few days or so. I'm looking forward to seeing the changes you made. Cheers, Moisejp (talk) 02:55, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lead:

  • Suggest to move what the song is about to near the start of the first paragraph.
  • "It was written by Michelle, Bianca Atterberry, and Stephen Mosty and its producers Ronald "Flippa" Colson and Oak Felder." I suggest to replace one of the instances of "and" with "as well as". Three in one sentence feels like two much (even two is pushing it).
  • I would drop "Musically" from the start of the first sentence of the second paragraph.
  • "discussed its placement on Anybody Wanna Buy a Heart?" As is, seems too vague to be meaningful.

Production and release:

  • The middle two paragraphs don't seem like production, and maybe fall more under theme/writing/inspiration. You could consider expanding the title of this section to encompass something like this.
  • The article is about the song about Drake. I'd argue that what's in the second and third paragraphs should be more prominent (i.e., come before) the first paragraph. Or maybe merge the content about the songwriters into what is now the second paragraph, then put the stuff about production, vocals, mixing, and mastering near the end, just before the paragraph about its release.
  • "favor" (near the end of the second paragraph): could I suggest "respond to" or "like", or something else?
  • "her second studio album, Anybody Wanna Buy a Heart?". Where it is now, it feels too off-handed an introduction to the album that the song would be released on.
  • "Jon Caramanica highlighted it as an example of clickbait". The NYT article says "'Drake Would Love Me' is great clickbait soul, a song in which she aligns herself with hip-hop’s great emoter." I read the sentence in the "Drake Would Love Me" article, and the sentence in the NYT article, and how clickbait is described in the wiki-link, and I don't have confidence that the three are aligned. The NYT article only has the one elusive sentence about this, so it's hard to know exactly what nuance of "clickbait" the author may be hinting at.

More to follow. Moisejp (talk) 06:43, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Music and lyrics:

  • "calming melody": Could this be paraphrased?
  • I am not sure it has or should be paraphrased. There are a relatively low amount of quotations in this section in particular, and I do not see the value of paraphrasing this part. But, that is just my personal opinion, and I am open to ideas about this. Aoba47 (talk) 01:59, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In this case, I didn't mention this one due to the frequency of quotations in its proximity. Rather, it's because there are quotations that add spice and life to an article and others that stick out for their blandness. This could just be my opinion too, but I think by putting quotation marks around words it highlights them in a way as "important text". And when a bland phrase is highlighted as "important text" the reader may wonder "Did this need to be underlined as important text even when it's such an everyday little phrase with no special or deep meaning. Could it maybe have been paraphrased?" But again, that could just be my opinion, and it's okay if you disagree. Cheers, Moisejp (talk) 06:50, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the explanation. For some reason, my brain just died and I could not think of a way to paraphrase this part without sounding dumb. I have revised it to remove the quote completely. Aoba47 (talk) 18:24, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The song contains references to Drake's music,[17] including: "Drake wouldn't leave me, he would keep me, never break his promises / I'd be the best he ever had, he'd be on his best behavior." " Does this mean similar phrases appear in one or more of Drake's songs (that's what the references to his music are)? If so, maybe this should be explained more explicitly and the referenced song should be mentioned. Moisejp (talk) 06:56, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Critical reception:

  • Amorosi's review seems to make the point that the song was unexpectedly not funny, then a little bit later there is the statement that "Michelle's humor was also the subject of praise" with some examples given, with no acknowledgement made that this may differ from Amorosi's interpretation. I think it would be nice if those bits were linked to each other better.
  • "Brown remarked that the lyrics adhere to how Drake presents himself as the ideal man rather than realistically portraying his attitude toward women." Can you give more background about what his realistic attitude towards women might be? Are there indications that he might sometimes have a bad attitude? I actually know very little about Drake myself, but I did read once he was criticized for his attitudes in "Hotline Bling". Are there other examples? I don't know, I just think the current wording of "rather than realistically portraying his attitude toward women" kind of suggests there may be more to say about it.
  • I have attempted to address this, but I would greatly appreciate any further feedback on this point. The Jezebel source portrays Drake as someone who has relationships with many, many women as opposed to the more romantic ideal in the song. Some media outlets have criticized Drake's music as sexist (although there are also critics who say the opposite), and there has been discussion about his relationship with underage girls (with his friendship with Millie Bobby Brown being a more recent point of discussion). I was hesitant about adding the second part to the article as I was uncertain if it would go against any of the WP:BLP policies. Aoba47 (talk) 19:51, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Although music has been written about celebrities, including fellow musicians,[28] The Washington Post's Chris Richards still felt it was "mildly radioactive" to release a track explicitly about a crush on another singer." In the first part of this sentence, it's kind of good that you're trying to add some background. But it feels misleading as it is now. It sounds like Richards is making this "Although..." point when I believe all he said was the second part of the sentence. I wonder if there's a good way to shuffle the sentence up a bit so that the first part doesn't sound misleading but can still be kept as useful background. Moisejp (talk) 14:50, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the edits to the lead. It is nice to see a different approach as I think a lot of the leads for song articles can be quite cookie-cutter in terms of structure. I think your edits have improved it, and I would be more than happy to hear any further suggestions on how to improve it more. Aoba47 (talk) 06:41, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "she explained that Drake attracted a female fanbase because he releases more love songs than other men and was more respectful to women in his music": "explained" doesn't seem like the best word to me, but before I can suggest a better word, it would help if Michelle's stance was clearer. Was she a fan of Drake herself, i.e., does she include herself in the female fans who admired his love songs and his respect for women in music? Or is she more detached, and is observing these women and putting herself in their shoes like an actress would? Are their indications in the sources that could clarify this distinction and possibly flesh out this aspect and add to our understanding of Michelle's motivations for writing this song? As it is, this sentence (for me, anyway) falls flat as it doesn't go deep enough to be meaningful or helpful in our understanding of why she said this. Moisejp (talk) 04:19, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to the sources, Michelle and Drake are friends and she respects him as a person. I went back to watch the Breakfast Club interview directly, and she explicitly says the song was inspired by conversations that women had in the recording studio. The interview can be watched here, and the part about this song starts around 1:55. It seems more like she is putting herself into the fans' shoes and recorded the song because she knew it would appeal to a particular demographic of people. I think it would be best to cite the interview directly and add this part to the article. I went to the official YouTube account for the Breakfast Club and I had trouble finding this interview there, although I could just cite the interview directly. I hope that clarifies things further. Thank you again for taking the time to do this review as you have helped to improve the article immensely. Aoba47 (talk) 20:24, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "She has also written songs about Kim Kardashian for her fourth studio album Kimberly: The People I Used to Know (2017) and Jay-Z and Ciara for her fifth studio album All Monsters Are Human (2020)." Maybe consider putting this in a footnote. It feels out of place in the current flow of facts in this section.
  • "In a 2018 article for Rolling Stone, Elias Light described Felder as one of the most influential R&B producers partially for writing and producing "breakout hits" for artists like Michelle, Nicki Minaj, and Alessia Cara." The relevance of this feels questionable to me. I would strongly consider removing it.
  • "critics described it as either a ballad or a slow jam". I don't think "either...or" really works here. One critic called it a ballad and another called it a slow jam? Maybe there's another way you can find to express that?
  • "A Music Times contributor wrote that the track fits with the "often emotional themes" in his music." This is another place I'd recommend paraphrasing—again, not because there are necessarily too many other quotations in the vicinity, but rather because it's such an everyday phrase that sticks out as not needing to be quoted directly.
  • "Renowned for Sound's Meggie Morris and The Quietus' Alex Macpherson noted...": Here "noted" may not be good as it suggests an objective truth, while this sentence is about an interpretation or opinion.
  • Especially in this Music and lyrics section (and to a lesser degree throughout the article as a whole) there is an overabundance of sentences using simple S-V-O sentence structure. It would be great if there could be more variation in sentence structure, for example by starting more sentences by subordinate clauses.
  • Sorry, in retrospect, even with the change you made, I would argue that "Music has been written about celebrities, including fellow musicians" doesn't work at all; it feels like a stretch to connect it to what Chris Richards wrote. I would recommend cutting this bit. Moisejp (talk) 05:58, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for making the changes. I'll try to have another read-through in the next couple of days or so. :-) Cheers, Moisejp (talk) 00:03, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article has definitely improved. I'm removing my oppose for now, but there are still a number of points I feel could be tighter:

  • The first paragraph of Background and release flows quite a bit better than before—nice work on it. But one issue still: "Along with this inspiration, she also based the track on how Drake's fans fantasize that he would fall in love with them." Right before this we get a somewhat specific account of her hearing conversation in the studio, so this next sentence falls a bit flat. It's not clear where she may have come up with these ideas—maybe also from hearing it in the studio, maybe somewhere else. I'm not sure if I'll have time to look at the sources, but if it happens this information isn't available, maybe just the sentence can be rewritten a bit. Perhaps in this case substitute something else for "based the track on", which I think adds to the reader's expectation of something more specific.
  • In the same paragraph, two sentences in a row with "appeal". Can you change one for variety?

More to follow. Moisejp (talk) 03:29, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Although a majority of Michelle's music is autobiographical, she clarified in a 2014 interview with The Breakfast Club that she only had a platonic relationship with Drake." Yeah, I might not have time to delve into the sources, but is one half of this from ref 8 and the other half from ref 9? As it is now, it's kind of unclear whether she may have said both parts in the Breakfast Club interview. It would be reassuring for the reader to know whether it was Michelle who said the first part, and possibly whether she said it in that interview or elsewhere. Or, at the very least, if one part is from 8 and the other is from 9, maybe you could put one of the refs in the middle of the sentence and the other at the end.
  • "Throughout the track, Michelle sings about attending the Grammy Awards with him and being hated by his groupies." From this it sounds like them being at the Grammies and fending off groupies is a major part of the song. Is this the case? If not, maybe reword "Throughout the track".
  • Aoba47: Better, and may be good enough. I don't want to make it too wordy but if it's appropriate and there's a way to say this concisely, it might be even better to say something whose general gist is "Among the situations described in the song..." or "The story points detailed in the song include..." What do you think, would such a change be accurate, and can you think of a good wording for it? Moisejp (talk) 19:42, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In USA Today, Martín Caballero praised it as an "anthemic big-stadium R&B ballad", and liked it despite the focus on Drake": Not clear from this why Caballero would find it problematic that the song was about Drake.
  • Critical reception, first paragraph: Two sentences in close proximity with "writing for...". Maybe you can change the first one. It may not be an impossible wording, but "writing for, enjoyed" still seems a little awkward ("writing for" means he's at his computer, then suddenly "enjoyed" is not clear what the flow of ideas is).
  • You asked before whether "and for his relationships with underage women" may be counter to BLP. I don't know the answer. If there's another example of bad behavior/attitudes towards women that you can find, it could be an idea to substitute it in. But if you can't find anything else, I don't know what to suggest. The point is stronger with two examples rather than just the one about misogyny. Moisejp (talk) 03:58, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Reviewers were surprised by the song due to their reservations about its unconventional subject matter": This sentence is a little bit confusing and when I try to deconstruct it I'm not sure all the pieces fit together (but they may, and it may just be me). If you can think of a clearer (possibly simpler) way to say this, it would be helpful to me at least. Moisejp (talk) 04:13, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Revised. I am uncertain if this sentence really works. I was trying to tie together these two ideas. The USA Today critic was surprised that the song "works" because of its odd title/subject, while The Philadelphia Inquirer critic expected something funny/cocky rather than serious. I had tried to tie them together because they both came to the song with different expectations, but had a positive response to the song. However, an expectation for a song to be bad and another for a song to be funny or quite different so maybe it would be best to remove the sentence altogether? Aoba47 (talk) 16:42, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Those are all of my comments. Moisejp (talk) 04:18, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support. The article has improved a lot in the last few weeks. I'm unfortunately unable to look at any of the sources within in the scope of this review, but would like to support based on prose, coherency, and perceived comprehensiveness. Moisejp (talk) 22:54, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Sarastro

[edit]

There are probably a few places that this could do with a little tightening. I've had a quick look, and found a few things but nothing major. I'm no expert on "reception" sections, but reading the above comments, I think the nominator has cleaned up that section quite nicely and it seems to flow reasonably well now. Here are a few thoughts from me. It reads nicely enough overall, and has been well put together so far. Sarastro (talk) 08:23, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think we are overusing "Michelle" (if you do a Ctrl-F, the page lights up like a Christmas tree), and a little rephrasing and increased use of pronouns would make this a little less repetitive. (This is always one to watch out for, and I'm guilty of it myself, every time, without fail!)
  • In a few places, we lose our encyclopaedic tone, mainly because of the sources. A little rewriting should solve this easily enough. For example, "A writer for The Fader cited "Drake Would Love Me" as the number-one time R&B music was "just plain weird" in 2014" reads very awkwardly (Is there any reason we are not naming the writer?). It could be reworded simply as "In The Fader, X described it as "just plain weird" which avoids the current online media obsession with lists of "times that...". Another example of tone issues would be "Jon Caramanica believed Michelle was smart to release a song" ("smart" is too informal) but it may be worth looking for others.
  • Understandable. I added the "smart" sentence pretty recently so it was not as edited as other parts of the article. I have removed that part altogether because it does not seem necessary as I have already used the critic in a previous section to reference the song as click-bait. I have revised The Fader part according to your suggestion. Aoba47 (talk) 17:20, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "AllMusic's Andy Kellman wrote that Michelle "emphasizes certain syllables like surgical knife twists" with her vocals.": I have no idea what this means, so could we perhaps give an example of what Kellman means? If he doesn't give any examples, I'd be inclined to cut this as meaningless.
  • "The opening lines are: "I would be the apple of his eye and he would treat me like his grand prize ... trophy" and the chorus is "Drake would love me, he would kiss me, he would touch me like I need."": What is the significance of this? Without commentary, we are just quoting the opening lines for the fun of it. Also, as the last thing we mention is Bynes' tweet, it may be read as quoting that.
  • I could understand removing the opening lines as that is rather arbitrary, but since the chorus is the an important part of the song, should it be included in the article to help a reader better understand the song? If not, I would be fine removing it, but I thought I should ask first. Aoba47 (talk) 17:30, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've no real opinion either way. If we can add some commentary from somewhere, that would be ideal; I can't see much point in adding lines unless we can show they're important, but it's not a huge deal either way and isn't really related to WP:WIAFA. Sarastro (talk) 20:58, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have removed the chorus sentence. I have a feeling it was actually more detrimental to the article because it pulled focus and made the section in particular seem more like a random collection of facts than anything with cohesion. Aoba47 (talk) 21:44, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Critics had varying opinions on how "Drake Would Love Me" fit with the rest of Anybody Wanna Buy a Heart?.": A little awkward (especially with the doubled punctuation at the end of the sentence, but that may be unavoidable without making it a little contrived). Also, from what we quote here, their opinions didn't really vary that much. And I think the rephrasing done after the above comments has introduced one little glitch: we introduce Alex Macpherson's idea that the final three songs are linked, go to Morris' comments, then return to Macpherson linking the final three songs. Possibly this could be reworked a little?
  • Thank you for catching that. I have recently edited this paragraph and left a duplicate sentence on Macpherson. I have revised the paragraph and took out the topic sentence as I am not sure it is really necessary. Let me know if further revision is necessary. For album/song titles with punctuation, like Anybody Wanna Buy a Heart?, should a period be used if it appears at the end of a sentence? I was never quite sure of that. Aoba47 (talk) 17:30, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're asking the wrong person! MoS isn't my thing at all. It looks strange, but that doesn't make it wrong. My preference would be to reword it to avoid the problem, but I can't think of a way to do it that doesn't make for a horrible sentence! Sarastro (talk) 20:58, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Some reviewers were surprised by the song due to its title": A little awkward (better as "The song surprised some reviewers...") but maybe we need to explain what it was that surprised them. "Some critics, however, disliked the song's focus on Drake" also reads a little awkwardly too; maybe a further polish of the prose might be needed?
  • Revised both parts. I believe critics were surprised because they assumed the song would be more of a joke based on its title, but they found it to be far more serious than their initial expectations. Let me know if further revisions are necessary. Aoba47 (talk) 17:41, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding "The song surprised some reviewers who expected it to be more comical than serious", maybe "Reviewers were surprised by the serious theme of the song, expecting it to be comical"? (Or even "jovial"?) I liked the reference to the title in the previous version, but I notice that only the Star Tribune ref supports this. Could you find another review that makes explicit the expectations raised by the title, and put back "owing to its title"? Sarastro (talk) 20:58, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also prefer the "due to its title". I have checked the reviews again and I unfortunately could not find an explicit reference to the title. I had used this sentence (Don't ask us how or why, but Drake serves as the inspiration for this anthemic big-stadium R&B ballad, and it works) from the USA Today source to support the title wording in the previous version, but that is a stretch. I am also starting to feel uncertain about the "comedic" part (and that was my comment so I take responsibility for that recommendation) since the USA Today source was more surprised the song worked because they though it would be a failure. Upon further reflection, it seems like the USA Today and Star Tribune sources were more surprised by how much they enjoyed the song despite their initial expectations of the song. Do you have a suggestion for a better sentence for this? Apologies for the long message here. Just trying to look through this part thoroughly. Aoba47 (talk) 21:44, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The order of "Production and release" could perhaps be improved. We really should discuss her playing the song to Drake before we describe its release, and maybe move the initial reaction to the title of the song to before we talk about its release too?
  • This is a very short article. I think I know the answer (a resounding "NO!") but are there any more details about how she wrote the song? She wrote it "with Bianca Atterberry, Ronald "Flippa" Colson, Oak Felder, and Stephen Mostyn" but we say nothing about their role. Can we expand on what they did? I'm guessing that, at least, the lyrics were exclusively Michelle's but it would be nice to know a little more about how it was all put together. I suspect nothing is out there, but we should at least look. As it stands, I would find it hard to support an article which is so sparse; however, I certainly would NOT oppose on such grounds, so don't worry.
  • It is a fair concern, and I would not take it personally if an editor did oppose on those grounds. I imagine that is one of the mains reasons getting a non-single song to the FA level is difficult. After doing another search, I could not find any additional sources. K. Michelle is more of a lesser-known artist so she does not get the same coverage as major artists. Aoba47 (talk) 17:52, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll be honest. If we could find a bit more background, I think this would be a marvellous little article. I've got no idea where such things might be found as modern music isn't really my thing... but have any print magazines covered her? No features on her? Even if we just said a little more about her, that might help too. Sarastro (talk) 20:58, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was just doing a little digging, and it looks like Bianca Atterberry has worked on a few things with her before. I'm also wondering if she is notable enough for her own article? She is on a few "profile" sites, and is mentioned in a few news articles. But not anything that helps this article yet. Sarastro (talk) 21:13, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the recommendations. I will look into print publications, and I will also look around web results around the album's release with some creative search terms. A feature or a portion of an article could have touched on this song without using the exact title so it is worthwhile to search further. It was a good idea to look into Atterberry. I will look further into the songwriters and producers and see if there are any interesting points about their collaborations with Michelle specifically. I agree that if more information could be added here that it would really tie the article together. Thank you for taking the time to help! Aoba47 (talk) 21:49, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have added the following Rolling Stone feature on Felder. The article talks about how Felder became an influential R&B producer and mentions he has produced "breakout hits" for artists, including K. Michelle. In the following interview with K. Michelle, the interviewer mentions how she has often written songs about other artists. However, since the site does not seem particularly reliable enough for a featured article, I have cited the albums directly, although I do quite like this line, "inspired musically by different entertainers and their public stories". Aoba47 (talk) 01:57, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • One area that we might perhaps expand... I think we could say a little more about Drake. Who is he? Why are people obsessed with him? Maybe flag up how unusual it is for one musician to write about another (we merely mention this as a reviewer comment). Has anyone looked at this? It would be nice background for this song, and give it a little more context than the usual stuff we get in all song articles. Sarastro (talk) 08:23, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is a good point. The article as a whole and the song itself focuses on Drake's popularity with women so it would be beneficial to add background here. I am always uncertain on when to add background information so that was my fault. I will also look into coverage on songs dedicated to or about other singers. I think this instance is unusual since this is a love song dedicated to a singer, although neither party was ever in a romantic relationship or had a romantic attraction to each other. Aoba47 (talk) 18:56, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I found a few sources about Drake's female fanbase and incorporated them into the article, although I will revisit that portion later to iron out the prose further. I will still search for background information about musicians writing about other musicians. I added in what I found and revised that particular paragraph to hopefully help with the overall flow. Aoba47 (talk) 20:48, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe that I found updated the article with enough background material on Drake, and I have added the best that I could find on songs about singers. I would like to clarify that The Washington Post source mentions how fans often have crushes on singers, but he believed it was "mildly radioactive" for a singer to have a crush on another performer. I have hopefully updated that paragraph so it reads clearer and more like a cohesive narrative. Aoba47 (talk) 04:54, 3 February 2020 (UTC
@Sarastro1: Apologies for the ping, but I just wanted to let you know that I responded to your points above and complete the resarch (at least for now) on the requested point in case you missed. I am in no rush since this FAC is still relatively new so I do not mean this ping to be rushing you. Just wanted to use it as an update. Aoba47 (talk) 03:38, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Sarastro, can you stop by again? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:49, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Toa Nidhiki05

[edit]

Going to start a review on this at some point soon. I do intend to claim Wikipedia:WikiCup points for this review. Toa Nidhiki05 00:23, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Prose
Per WP:MOS#YEAR, punctuation should follow the date (December 2, 2014) in the lead.
Not sure about the first sentence of the lead’s second paragraph, specifically “which critics described as a slow jam and a ballad” being split off by a period and “which”. It kind of reads like the critics are describing the R&B song. Maybe using a semicolon (ie. ; critics described it as a slow jam and a ballad) would work better.
In “Michelle based the song on his female fans” would change “his” to “Drake’s”, given “his” is used later in the sentence. I would also ditch the comma here.
The order seems wrong in “attributed his "delicate tempos and emotionally charged lyrics" as the reason women respond to his music”. Perhaps it should read “attributed the reason women respond to his music to his "delicate tempos and emotionally charged lyrics."“?
Same issue with the first sentence of “Music and Lyrics” as in the lead.
”including "Best I Ever Had", "Worst Behavior", and "Make Me Proud"” is split off with a comma before it but not after. It might be worth considering parenthesis here instead.

More to come. Toa Nidhiki05 15:13, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Paparazzzi

[edit]

Wait for my review soon. Regards, --Paparazzzi (talk) 00:54, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lead and infobox
  • "...American singer K. Michelle for her second studio album, Anybody Wanna Buy a Heart? (2014), and is about an imaginary romance with Canadian rapper Drake." I would add that line in bold right after "the song was based on Michelle's perception of how Drake's female fans responded to him." in the second paragraph, for it to be more cohesive.
  • That is understandable. I move it before that sentence since it has the descriptive phrase for Drake and I think it may be better to introduce the song's main narrative before going into the inspiration, but I am open to putting it later in that paragraph if necessary. Aoba47 (talk) 02:06, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Has Michelle performed this song live?
  • I could not find any information on a live performance. I double-checked the set lists for her tours for and after this album. It is a shame because I would genuinely want to hear her perform this live. Aoba47 (talk) 02:06, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Steven Ace is not mentioned on the lead
  • Is the Anybody Wanna Buy a Heart? track listing really needed on the infobox?
Background
  • Is the information in citation A really relevant? it does not have anything to do with the song
  • I have removed. I added it because I have found a recent interview where the interviewer mentions how Michelle has often written songs based on other artists, and I thought it may be useful for adding background to this article. Aoba47 (talk) 02:10, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe a picture of Michelle herself would be more useful than one of Oak. She is the performer of the track, after all
Critical reception
  • ""Drake Would Love Me" received generally positive reviews from music critics." With no sources supporting it received mostly positive reviews, this falls into WP:SYNTH
  • I am not sure if it counts as WP:SYNTH since the rest of the paragraph includes citations with positive reviews. I have removed the "generally" part as I could see that going into WP:OR as "generally" could be interpreted in many ways, but I would imagine the sentence without it should be fine. That is just my perspective though, and I am open to further discussion on how to best handle this part. Aoba47 (talk) 02:10, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
References

@Aoba47: More to come later. --Paparazzzi (talk) 00:44, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I support this nomination. --Paparazzzi (talk) 23:20, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. And thank you for the edit to remove the notes part. I cannot believe that I forgot to do that. Aoba47 (talk) 02:38, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by isento

[edit]

Overall, the article looks as complete as can be for a non-single album track. One suggestion I would make is rendering the discussion of Music and lyrics in the present tense - for example, "critics identify as a ballad..." rather than "identified", and "are interpreted by critics" rather than "were interpreted". The section is serving as a description of a song in the present tense, rather than as a past event, so for consistency's sake, all of it should be rendered in the present tense. isento (talk) 13:19, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Revised. I am somewhat uncertain about this though. I always thought that critics were supposed to be represented in the past tense since their reviews are tied down to a specific time and publication (similar to what is done in the "Style" (Taylor Swift song) article). However, I can also understand your point about consistency as it can be rather distracting to read a section that bounce between present and past tenses. Aoba47 (talk) 15:46, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, is the Laurence commentary at the end of the section an analysis or a criticism? To say a song "lacks deep emotional feeling" sounds more like the critic is attacking the merits of the work. isento (talk) 13:21, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • This sentence is referring to this part from the source: (Not all the songs are intensely emotion-filled. "Drake Would Love Me" is basically a fan's love song to Drake.) The critic is contrasting the song with others from the album, and I do not take it as a negative review. I have revised the sentence to better represent that. Aoba47 (talk) 15:46, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with a previous reviewer's comment that the "generally positive reviews" claim should be removed. While summary is not synthesis, this to me is not accurate summary - there appear to be almost as much unfavorable perspectives as there are favorable. I strongly recommend opening the Critical reception section instead with a statement summarizing what specifically the subsequent sentences say was praised. Same for the lead. In this case, an overarching description like "generally favorable" is contentious and should be avoided. Otherwise, I would support this article in terms of prose and comprehensiveness. isento (talk) 20:57, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image and caption review

[edit]
  • File:K Michelle picture.png: A little wary of the provenance of the image (it looks like it was cropped from somewhere) but TinEye does not provide information on its provenance. Why is the caption referenced to a Wikipedia article?
  • I chose this K. Michelle image because it seemed the clearest of the available ones to me, but I can understand the concern. There are others available on Wikimedia Commons. This one (File:Kmichelle2019.jpg runs into the same issue with the origin and is pretty low quality in my opinion. Another one (File:K-Michelle4.jpg) has a clearer origin, but it is a rather weird image so I am hesitant to use it in this article. Do you have any suggestions for this? It was suggested earlier in the review to have an image of K. Michelle, but if necessary, I can remove it. Aoba47 (talk) 16:06, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Both images have ALT text. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:08, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

Everything seems well. The sources are reliable and archived while the style is quite consistent. Almost every source is quite accessible too. While Youtube can be used in Wikipedia, its usage (reference 15) might need an extra link like author or work to back it up. Ping me when it is done.Tintor2 (talk) 19:19, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for the source review. The YouTube references should be fine as they are both from Michelle's official account and support a way that the song was made available to the public. I doubt that a third-party source would cover this information, but I believe it is still necessary to cover this part in the article. Thank you again. Aoba47 (talk) 19:29, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nice. I'll support it.Tintor2 (talk) 20:14, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 02:44, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Kailash

[edit]
  • Support: I thoroughly reviewed the article for two days, and find the prose to be on par with my expectations (I didn't do source reviewing as all sources seem RS to me, and there are others to do proofreading). Well done Aoba47. --Kailash29792 (talk) 04:56, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Status update

[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) 14 March 2020 [37].

Donald Forrester Brown

[edit]
Nominator(s): Zawed (talk) 21:46, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Donald Brown, a New Zealand soldier of the First World War who was a posthumous recipient of the Victoria Cross. Only the second New Zealand soldier to be so recognised during the war, it was awarded for his actions during the Battle of the Somme in the First World War. The article was submitted to FAC last year but was closed without promotion due to a lack of comments at the time. Source and image reviews were done by Brianboulton and Nikkimaria respectively; it passed the source review and I have actioned the comments by Nikkimaria. Thanks in advance to all those who participate in the review. Zawed (talk) 21:46, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from AustralianRupert: G'day, Zawed, thanks for your efforts with this article. I have the following comments/suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 07:47, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • suggest linking draper
  • is there potentially a link for Totara?
  • link trench warfare?
  • link company, battalion and division?
  • link commission
  • link second lieutenant
  • improving the existing defences: is it possible to very briefly explain this? I know what it means, but potentially "improving the defences" might be unknown to the general reader
  • The Otago Regiment was back in the front line on 1 October -- is it possible to very briefly explain what they did in the intervening period?
  • seizing of an enemy machine gun --> "seizing of a German machine gun"?
  • in the References, The New Zealand Division on the Western Front 1916 – 1918 --> "1916–1918" (remove the spaces?)
  • in the References, Official History of the Otago Regiment, N.Z.E.F. in the Great War 1914-1918: endash
  • "October 26, 2009" --> 26 October 2009, for consistency
  • McGibbon is probably overlinked in the References
  • (brief biography details) --> not sure that the italics are necessary are here
  • external links work (no action required)
  • there are no dabs, all images have alt text (no action required)

Thanks for the review AustralianRupert. I have responded as above and my edits are here]. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 03:45, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, added my support above. I made a couple of minor tweak also - please check you are happy with those changes. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:03, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Coffeeandcrumbs and source review

[edit]
  • Please make it explicitly clear where I can verify middle name
  • At least 1 link to First World War, in either the body or lead, would be nice
  • Source says McFarlane was her birth name (maybe {{nee}}?)
  • Ref #3 has the notable fact that he was the youngest son. May I suggest "...was youngest son and one of 10 children..."?
  • "should Switch Trench" → "should the Switch Trench"
  • I disagree but can see why you raised. In hindsight, the introduction of Switch Trench in the narrative wasn't handled well. I have rephrased it, is the current form acceptable to you? Zawed (talk) 10:07, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't understand what you mean by "With Brown's death". Are you suggesting he would have otherwise advocated for his own nomination?
Sorry. For some odd reason, my brain could not figure out that it was a misspelling of "and". I feel stupid. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 11:26, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would be easier to read if Arthur Foljambe was the subject of the sentence
Done. Zawed (talk) 10:06, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

[edit]
  • "Brown's company lost 123 men from its initial complement of 180 during the opening day of the battle." Is it known how many were wounded and how many killed?
  • No, there is no breakdown of casualties within the company in the sources. I did find one for the battalion's casualties for the opening 24 hours but that probably won't be that helpful here. Zawed (talk) 08:00, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a contradiction between your account of his death, which says by a sniper during the action, and that in the VC citation, which says later while sniping at the retreating enemy.
  • I hadn't noticed that but don't quite see it as a contradiction, more a matter of detail about what he was doing at the time. I have expanded the article a little bit on this point. Funnily enough it was an older source that had the detail, not a more recent one. Zawed (talk) 08:00, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suggest running the page analysis tool at [38], which generally finds some archived copies of citations.
  • I do not see the point of an external link to a cropped copy of the lead image.

CommentsSupport by CPA-5

[edit]
  • Donald Forrester Brown was born on 23 February 1890 in Dunedin, New Zealand Pipe New Zealand to the Dominion of New Zealand.
  • The newly formed New Zealand Division was training in Egypt Pipe Egypt to the Sultanate of Egypt.
  • the Battle of Flers–Courcelette, part of the Somme offensive Somme offensive is a proper noun well that's at least what the article says.
  • "1915–16" --> "1915–1916" in the infobox.
  • had to capture a series of German held trenches --> "had to capture a series of German-held trenches"
  • suffered very heavy casualties in officers and men from machine gun fire --> "suffered very heavy casualties in officers and men from machine gunfire"
  • I didn't do this one as how it is in the text is how it appears in the citation (also grammatically, I think making the change would be incorrect). This make me go back to the citation itself to doublecheck though and as a result I found a couple of slight inconsistencies which I have fixed. Zawed (talk) 02:04, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • it was again held up by machine gun fire Same as above.
  • He attacked, single handed, a machine gun which was holding up the attack --> "He attacked, single-handed, a machine gun which was holding up the attack"

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 19:23, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oh another thing here (I've totally forgot this) After a period of rest, Brown's battalion moved back into the front line on the night of 28 September do you mean the night of 27/28 or 28/29? Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 08:45, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Harrias

[edit]
  • File:Warlencourt British Cemetery -4.JPG needs a tag for the country of origin as well as the US for the gravestone.
  • As Totara is a red link, can you provide a brief description of where it is in the text?

That's it from me, a nice succinct article. Good work. Harrias talk 09:22, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Harrias, thanks for stopping by and reviewing this. Per your comments, I've added a PD tag for France to the image and made a slight tweak to the text to clarify the location of Totara. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 09:46, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, I couldn't find much wrong with this to start with. Please also consider this a successful image review; the images used are appropriately tagged and captioned. Harrias talk 10:26, 5 March 2020 (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/March_2020&oldid=948162945"