Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/March 2022

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 31 March 2022 [1].

Tom Eastick

[edit]
Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:23, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Eastick was a part-time Militia officer in the interwar period who commanded an Australian artillery regiment at the Battles of El Alamein in 1942 then commanded the artillery of Australian divisions in New Guinea and then Borneo in 1943–1945. He took the Japanese surrender in Sarawak, and was military governor there after the war ended. He was prominent in ex-service organisations in South Australia, and was knighted in 1970 for his volunteer work. This one has been recently expanded and went through GAN in December last year and just cleared Milhist ACR. Have at it! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:23, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks buidhe! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:58, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

[edit]
  • Infobox: it seems odd to give his allegiance as Australian and then immediately restate it against service/branch.
Piped. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:27, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He was appointed as the commander of the 50th Battery of the brigade in 1924." Optional: a note indicating how many batteries the brigade had would be useful.
Four, added. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:27, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "his promotion to lieutenant colonel in the Militia was made substantive". Link to substantive rank.
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:27, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "24 Ordnance QF 25-pounder guns." Consider adding 'more modern' or similar.
added. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:27, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Er, and that is all I can find to pick at. Sterling work. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:25, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers Gog, all done I reckon. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:27, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

Spotchecks not done. Version reviewed

Any suggestions, Nikkimaria? I couldn't find one that seemed designed for a public missive of this type. It is like an open letter or charter or something. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:46, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
{{cite press release}}? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:43, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:59, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rungie: Worldcat gives a different publisher, can you verify?
I think the Worldcat entry is incomplete. This is the catalogue entry of the National Library of Australia for the book. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:46, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That entry gives a different location and two publishers - was there a reason to select the one listed here? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:43, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
G'day Nikkimaria. Well, all I can tell you is the copy I looked at had Hawthorndene as the location, and Investigator Press as the publisher. The NLA catalogue entry has [Adelaide] and I am not sure what the square brackets mean, perhaps "Greater Adelaide" (Hawthorndene is an outer suburb). As far as the Royal Artillery Association of South Australia is concerned, it isn't clear to me whether they are a publisher or a contributor or both. It didn't seem correct to use the "via" field, but if you have any suggestions how to incorporate two publishers I'm happy to add them to it. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:22, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Does that organization appear on your copy in any capacity? Nikkimaria (talk) 11:51, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can remember (I don't have it to hand), it wasn't credited as publisher, only Investigator Press was. It did mention the organisation on the front pages, but it wasn't clear what role they played. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:38, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hm. Okay, without seeing the source, I'm not sure I'm going to be able to help on that one. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:18, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK Nikkimaria, I went back to look at the copy held by the state library, and I clearly didn't take very good notes when I first looked at it. The title page credits Brook as the editor, and has Investigator Press Pty Ltd below that. No mention on that page of the Royal Artillery Association of South Australia. But the imprint page says "First published in 1986 by the Royal Artillery Association of South Australia", and "Copyright (c) Royal Artillery Association of South Australia & David Brook", then "Wholly set up and produced in South Australia by Investigator Press Pty Ltd Hawthorndene South Australia 5051". So, I guess that means "Royal Artillery Association of South Australia & David Brook" should be entered against the publisher field, Brook remains editor. But what if anything do I do about Investigator Press? Perhaps they just set it up and printed it? Appreciate your advice. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:04, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Based on that description I'd think that they are the printer, and the Association should be entered as publisher. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:19, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done, thanks for your patience. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:01, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Are there particular source(s) you are querying? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:46, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Under Gazettes one includes and the rest do not. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:43, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, fixed. I think I've addressed all these points now, Nikkimaria, although I have a query about Rungie. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:01, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from JennyOz

[edit]

Placeholder, back soon. JennyOz (talk) 17:49, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi PM, another fine bio. Only a few comments and questions...

  • Add auseng template
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:23, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • ibox 13th Field Brigade - wlink?
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:23, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • ibox Returned Sailors’, Soldiers’ and Airmen's - 1st 2 apostrophes are curly
Whoops. Fixed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:23, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Much better, done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:23, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • He worked for a hardware company, - the hardware company (and remove comma after company) seeing name is known?
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:23, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done, good spot. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:23, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • training with World War I vintage - needs hyphen but as a MOS:SUFFIXDASH ie World War I–vintage?
of course, done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:23, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Initially deployed to a staging area at Ikingi Maryut,[1][8] and in late May it moved forward into defensive positions at Mersa Matruh. - needs something added, or drop the "and"?
the latter, done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:34, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • In early October Eastick was advised that his regiment was to be withdrawn to rejoin the 9th Division,[14] which had been withdrawn from Tobruk - 2 x withdrawn - "to be withdrawn " can go?
Yes, done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:34, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • pushing forward as far forward as - one "forward" can go?
Again, done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:34, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • the 9th Division, including the 2/7th Field Regiment, returned to Australia - wlink Operation Pamphlet?
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:34, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The 9th Division was at that time reforming - re-forming as in being created again?
Yes, whoops. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:34, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • the liberation of the Philippines - wlink?
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:34, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • was broken up into two primary operations - remove "up"?
Done, replaced with "split". Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:34, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • By 14 September 858 POWs and internees had been evacuated.[26] By the end of October, 6,124 Japanese troops - inconsistent comma use after months
Added in the missing first one. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:34, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • sub-branch of the Returned Sailors’, Soldiers’ and Airmen's - 2 curlies
Fixed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:34, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 1953, Eastick was profiled - Also in 1953 or That same year
Good point. Fixed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:34, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • References websites accessdate x2 - add hyphens
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:34, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's it from me. Thanks, JennyOz (talk) 21:50, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks as always Jenny! I always really appreciate it when you look on my work! Regards, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:34, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
G'day Jenny, anything else that needs to be addressed? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:03, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi PM, sorry for delay, having dastardly connection problems. I am happy to sign my support. SA sure produces some very fine defence personnel! Thanks for telling his story. JennyOz (talk) 18:20, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie

[edit]
  • I see a couple of chapters in the references (Long and Maughan); you might add the page range to the citation.
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:27, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "born on 3 May 1900 at Hyde Park": is this Australian usage? In British English one would say "in Hyde Park".
Yes, it is what the Australian Dictionary of Biography uses. See the web link at the bottom under Websites. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:06, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the Leader of the Opposition from 1972 to 1975": I took this to refer to the national assembly until I followed the link; I think it should be clearer that this just refers to South Australia.
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:06, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a Royal Australian Air Force pilot adjusted the fire of Eastick's battery during field firing": I don't understand this.
I've added a link that might help. Is that enough? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:06, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That does help. I assume in military sources "adjusted the fire" would be clear to most readers, so we can let this go, but if there's an alternative way to phrase this that uses the term "artillery spotter" or something like it, I think that might be better-known to other non-military readers. Though my only evidence for that is that it's better-known to me. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:21, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Initially deployed to a staging area at Ikingi Maryut, and in late May it moved forward into defensive positions at Mersa Matruh." There's no noun in this sentence for "it" to refer to.
Doh. Fixed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:06, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "pushing forward as far forward".
Also picked up by Jenny above, and fixed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:06, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in recognition of the level of efficiency reached by the regiment under Eastick's command" and "which recognised the high level of efficiency reached by the 2/7th Field Regiment under Eastick's command" are in consecutive paragraphs; I understand this isn't easy to rephrase but it wouldn't hurt to try to vary it a bit more.
I think the point doesn't need to be made twice, deleted second instance. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:31, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Eastick then administered command of the 9th Division": can "administered command" be shortened to just "commanded"? If not I don't understand the distinction.
It means that he was responsible for the administration of the division, but he was not formally appointed as its commander. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:43, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK -- clearly this is correctly phrased. If there's a link to army command structures or organization that discusses the role, that would be good, but if not, no problem. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:21, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All minor points; this is in excellent shape, as usual. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:28, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look, Mike. See what you think of my responses. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:43, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support. There are a couple of unstruck comments above but they're not really issues with the article, more indications of my lack of familiarity with military terminology, and I'm fine if they don't lead to further edits. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:21, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Mike. No article exists that explains admin command, AFAIK. It is military jargon, so maybe it should be added to the glossary. I'll see if I can find a pithy short meaning of the term and add it. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:32, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: , this looks GTG. Can I have a dispensation for a fresh nom please? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:32, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, go ahead. (t · c) buidhe 23:38, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:00, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Pendright

[edit]

I reviewed this at A-Class and here again at FAC. The few comments that follow are optional. Pendright (talk) 21:53, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Early life:

  • This led to him co-founding a small engineering business, Angas Engineering Co. (Pty Ltd) at premises in Moore Street, Adelaide,[1][4] with a mechanic friend.
"on" Moore Street

Service in the Middle East:

  • On 15 December, Eastick was mentioned in despatches for "gallant and distinguished services in the Middle East during the period November 1941 to April 1942",[15] which recognised the high level of efficiency reached by the 2/7th Field Regiment under Eastick's command.[1]
Could add "of" between period & November

Service in the Pacific:

  • He died there on 16 December 1988 and was cremated.[1]
Could add his age at time of death?

Supporting- Pendright (talk) 21:53, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 31 March 2022 [2].

First homosexual movement

[edit]
Nominator(s): (t · c) buidhe 21:37, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is marginally less depressing than the stuff that you guys usually get from me. Nobody bit at GAN so I'm sending it straight to you! (t · c) buidhe 21:37, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Kavyansh

[edit]

Placeholder! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:15, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Minor formatting issues for now:
    • Ref#30: Beachy 2010, p. 804–805. — p/pp error
    • Ref#61: Dickinson 2014, p. 168–169 — p/pp error
    • Ref#76: Whisnant 2016, p. 68–69 — p/pp error
    • Ref#77: Whisnant 2016, p. 69–70 — p/pp error
    • Ref#210: Whisnant 2016, p. 194–195 — p/pp error
    • Ref#233: Marhoefer 2015, p. 120–121 — p/pp error
– Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:31, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
oops, they should all be fixed now. (t · c) buidhe 10:51, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and the German revolution." — 'R' should be capital in 'revolution'
  • both the German Friendship Society and the League for Human Rights links redirect to the same page
  • "in the aftermath of the war." — WW1?
    • That's the only war mentioned in the lead so I don't think it's excessively confusing.
  • "throughout German history" — is there a reason why this is linked to 'German history', which redirects to History of Germany?
    • I've piped it if you think that's better
  • "The Christian church" — Our article on Christian Church capitalizes 'C' in 'Church'
    • Unlike the Christian Church article, this does not refer "to what different Christian denominations conceive of as being the true body of Christians or the original institution established by Jesus"
  • "of the Napoleonic wars" — Our article on Napoleonic Wars capitalizes 'W' in 'Wars'
  • "The German-language writer Karl Maria Kertbeny coined" — Our article hyphenates Karl-Maria Kertbeny
  • "The growing prestige of medicine meant that Germans began to consult doctors on matters of sexuality instead of clerics" — How about "The growing prestige of medicine made Germans began to consult doctors on matters of sexuality instead of clerics"
    • I don't think that is grammatically correct. I also disagree with "made Germans begin" because they had the option of consulting either doctors or clergy and weren't forced to rely on one or the other.
      • To me, the initial statement is WP:OR; we shouldn't be saying something in the exact same way a historian would write. And even the initial statement reads like they started to consult doctors instead of the clergymen. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 19:41, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • According to WP:OR, "The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist." In this case, a published RS exists making this exact claim so I disagree that it is WP:OR. (t · c) buidhe 23:58, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • Source: "Just as important for doctors, though, was the growing prestige that the field of medicine commanded socially. "More and more," notes the historian Harry Oosterhuis, "physicians, acting as mediators between science and the vexing problems of everyday life, succeeded in convincing the public of the indispensability of their expertise, and gradually they began to replace the clergy as authoritative personal consultants in the realm of sexuality.""
          • Text: "The growing prestige of medicine meant that Germans began to consult doctors on matters of sexuality instead of clerics."
            • Isn't there a slight change of meaning in the text? We say that "Germans began to consult", the source says that "More and more" Germans began to consult. The source wants implies that rise of research in medicine brought a gradual change in majority of German population's lifestyle; our text implies that they simply started replacing clerics with doctors. I did not realized this until I compared it with the source. All I disagree here is the phrase "meant that", which I feel should not be present and should be rephrased. I am open to reconsider, though. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 05:05, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
            OK, I've gone ahead and removed the sentence as insufficiently relevant. (t · c) buidhe 05:14, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Although Krafft-Ebing has often been regarded as "the chief contributor to the scientific pathologization of homosexuality in the nineteenth century"[18]" — but we only cite one author
    • That's not Whisnant's opinion, he notes that "Krafft-Ebing has been demonized over the years as the chief contributor to the scientific pathologization of homosexuality in the nineteenth century."
  • "the subject of "unusually broad debate" involving" — the prose does not makes clear where this quote comes from
    • Rephrased
  • "after the death of one of his patients by suicide." — was the patient homosexual?
    • Rephrased
  • "which had 50,000 copies printed by 1911" — exact or approximate?
    • Rephrased
  • should we link ethnographer?
  • "Ferdinand Karsch-Haack" — Is this his common name? Because our article calls him just Ferdinand Karsch
    • Not sure which is more common, so I went with the one used in the cited source
  • "although its main focus continued to be Paragraph 175" — Should be "although its main focus continued to be abolishing Paragraph 175"
    • Done
  • "with modern ideas of Nietzscheanism, antimodernism, misogyny, illiberalism," — without clinking on the links, I would hardy understand any of these terms.
  • "organization Gemeinschaft der Eigenen (GdE)" — shouldn't Gemeinschaft der Eigenen be in italics?
    • I think that would be confusing as publications are italicized but organizations are not.
  • "Brand joined the WhK because he shared its goal of decriminalizing homosexuality" — Was this a statement of Adolf Brand, or merely a speculation by a historian
    • I just report what the RS says, I do not know exactly how it got this information.
      • I agree, but we, in Wikipedia's voice, cannot speculate the reason for someone doing something without they themselves telling it. Best we can do is inline attribute it to Whisnant. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 19:41, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "for more than two years" — how about "for over two years"
    • I don't think that reads better.
  • "The affair was a disaster for the homosexual movement." — According to whom? Is this a widely considered opinion?
  • "the WhK reported that more than half its membership was" — shouldn't it be 'were'?
    • It's correct because membership is singular, compare "half the auditorium was empty" (not "were")
  • ""The hour of liberation is now or never, for us … We," — Add {{nbsp}} before the ellipsis
    • Done
  • More to come (from sub-heading "Associations")

– Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 12:40, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing:

  • "membership had ballooned from 2,000 in 1922 to an estimated 48,000" — 'ballooned'? how about 'significantly increased'
    • Done
  • "and when this venture failed put Lotte Hahm in charge — something seems missing here
    • Comma added
  • "but this could cause friction especially in the case of male-to-female transvestites" — is it merely a speculation or anything like that happened?
    • Rephrased
  • "and could lead to arrest" — shouldn't we be using the past tense?
    • It is; present tense would be "can lead to arrest"
  • "with an initial print run of 20,000 copies" — exact or approximate?
    • Source doesn't specify
  • "far right" can be linked for non experts
    • Done
  • "In editorials in his publications" — something seems wrong here
    • Rephrased
  • "Partly in response to the film, film censorship" — any way to avoid the repetition of 'film'?
    • Rephrased
  • "were 1 percent" — Per MOS:SPELL09, '1' should normally be spelled
    • done
  • "even President Paul Hindenburg" — now here, the common name is clearly Paul von Hindenburg
    • Ok
  • Optional: "by 15 to 13 votes" — "by a vote of 15 to 13"

That is it! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 20:06, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Another read:

  • "Unlike the nonprofit organizations that preceded him, Radszuweit ran his publishing house like a business, seeing the pursuit of profit and the pursuit of homosexual rights to be compatible" — Do we need the first part 'Unlike the nonprofit organizations that preceded him'?
  • "with 30 novels available to German-speaking readers" v. "Hirschfeld resigned from the WhK leadership after more than thirty years after losing the support" — 30 v. thirty. Per MOS:SPELL09, '30' should normally be written in numerals.
  • In the image captions, we have both {{circa}} as well as plain 'c.'. Suggesting to be consistent.

Apart these minor quibbles, I support the article! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:40, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment from SnowFire

[edit]

Interesting article. Not a full review, but two nitpicks...

  • I see that "Christian church" is used in the source, but I agree with Kavyansh.Singh anyway. A lowercase-c church implies one specific church; this is referring to the Church-as-an-institution, which is normally capitalized.
  • I think the intro has some issues. First off, Whisant is a little bit out of their lane here talking about classical history, but the article implies that persecution of homosexuals in Germany came about due to Rome & the Church. But... Whisant notes that German pagans are reported as killing "sodomites" as well (by Tacitus, who is a deeply biased & unreliable source to the point of uselessness, but also just about the only one we have), and doesn't say that it was actually subject to harsh punishment in Roman Germany, merely that proclamations against male-male love were made by the Church and some very late Roman Empire legal codes might have included provisions against it, depending on how they were interpreted. My understanding is that evidence of actual prosecutions for such is practically nonexistent, and that's over the entire Roman Empire; our knowledge of Roman Germania is even weaker. Whisant also cites "recent historians" who doubt how stringent the early Church's alleged stance against homosexuality was. However, the article says "It is unclear how much medieval laws against homosexuality were enforced," which seems over-qualified: it's implying that we know for sure the Roman era persecuted homosexuals, but it's uncertain later. But if anything, it's even more uncertain in the Roman era, just because the surviving primary sources from there are so thin, and it's not even clear the Roman laws were applied in Germany or covered homosexuality that often. I would suggest rewriting this to imply a lot more uncertainty about What Really Happened - there are some early Christian condemnations of homosexuality, so cultural attitudes were presumably not positive, and it's unclear how much the late Roman laws or the medieval laws were enforced. (At least if Whisant is relied upon - maybe another source more dedicated to this could add some more detail.)
  • At the very end of the article, the last parts of the second paragraph of the Legacy section on how German homosexuals of the era shared the prejudices and politics of society feels weird. I get that Marhoefer (whom a lot of this is cited too) might consider this stuff surprising, but it reads as a bit naive: was the expectation that queer people in the 1920s would share 2020s opinions on everything rather than 1920s opinions? The 1920s was pretty much the height of the respectability of eugenics across the political spectrum, and Germany was still a deeply sexist and class-deferential society. Of course many people would share such views, gay and straight. (Gertrude Stein famously though Marshall Petain was a cool guy because he was restoring family values or something, despite being a lesbian.) I could see maybe room for a single sentence on this confirming that members of the movement cut across all aspects of the social spectrum from Nazi to communist, but withhold the "judgment" from that statement as "complicating their image." I also think that the Mosse quote about "wanting only to bend the bars of their cage" comes across as petty and possibly wrong: is there evidence that, in the alternative universe where the WhK / DFV / etc. were successful at achieving decriminalization, that they'd have stopped there? It's a very common tactic to ask for one thing, than another thing, and so on. If the implication here is that the first movement wasn't sufficiently radical for Mosse's standards, then the fact that they weren't able to achieve their initial goal seems like the obvious culprit, not the movement itself. (If we take the analogy more literally than we should, if the bars were successfully bent, then the next step obviously seems for the prisoner to escape, myself.) Alternatively, maybe I'm misreading something here? If so, the substance of Mosse's criticism should be set up more clearly. SnowFire (talk) 00:28, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think this is more a point about the kind of activism that they are using. Embracing reform and respectability politics is one approach, but there have also been radical LGBT movements (eg. Stonewall riots or gay liberation). I've trimmed down this aspect in the legacy section since the approaches used—although this is a focus in the sources—is also covered earlier in the article. Thanks so much for your feedback! (t · c) buidhe 01:02, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Works for me! Changes look good. (As a side comment, I agree with the removal done by the other user of the Tacitus bit. If you're bored, there's a good series of blog posts that discuss why Tacitus is such a problematic source here and elsewhere in the series - short version is that Tacitus didn't speak any Germanic language, never visited Germania, and it seems entirely possible Tacitus was really critiquing Roman "decadence" of his era by building up his image of what a pure, unsullied by effeminizing civilization would be like on top of the Germans.) SnowFire (talk) 03:55, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
  • "Nationalhof at Bülowstraße 37, Berlin-Schöneberg, which was a meeting place for gay and lesbian associations" - source?
    • It's cited in the image description.
  • Suggest adding alt text
  • File:Petition_gegen_175.jpg needs a US tag and author date of death, if it is believed to be original enough to warrant copyright protection
    • I think PD-text applies, so I swapped the license
  • File:Schwule_Scheinhochzeit.jpg: if the author is unknown, how do we know they died over 70 years ago? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:35, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie

[edit]
  • Was the word Kertbeny coined "homosexuell"? If so I would put that in a footnote; as it stands it reads as though he coined an English word.
  • "Greater scientific research into homosexuality also occurred during the second half of the nineteenth century": suggest "The second half of the nineteenth century saw an increase in scientific research into homosexuality" -- I think "occur" isn't the most natural verb to use for a trend in research.
    • Done
  • "ultimately catalyzed the first homosexual movement": I understand that historians may vary in their definitions, but for the purposes of this article I think we need to be clear about the dates of "the first homosexual movement". In the lead we say it starts in the late nineteenth century, but in Beachy's view it postdates 1900. Can we avoid the apparent contradiction, perhaps by making this "and in Beachy's view the first homosexual movement did not begin until..." or something like that?
    • Clarified the timing a bit.
  • "Its arguments were supported by comparison with countries (such as France) where homosexuality was not illegal, scholarly works on homosexuality in ancient Greece, and ethnographies of non-Western cultures." This is in Wikipedia's voice; I think it would be better to rephrase to say "the WhK supported its arguments by..." or something similar.
    • Rephrased
  • "the fallout of the Eulenberg affair": I think a few parenthetical words explaining what the Eulenberg affair was would be helpful, even though it is covered in the next subsection.
    • Avoided mentioning the affair in this section to avoid duplication.
  • "Following the affair, Germany was debating a new penal code": this makes it sounds like the entire country was debating it.
    • Changed to "the German government"
  • "Although the SPD voted down the proposal": at this point in the paragraph I'm not clear what "the proposal" refers to.
    • Removed this clause

That takes me down to the "World War I" section; more tonight or tomorrow. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:02, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing:

  • "Many homosexuals believed that they too would be able to enjoy greater freedom as a result of the war and the revolution, made bolder claims to public space": looks like a missing word? Either "who believed" or "and made"?
    • Done
  • In the second paragraph of the Associations section, we have "However... Despite... However..."; can we eliminate at least one of these? They make the paragraph feel very conditional.
    • Done
  • "Mass media aimed at a homosexual audience was impossible in Imperial Germany because of censorship": suggest "had been" since we're in the section on Weimar.
    • Done
  • "ended up on the lists of restricted publications at one point": should this be "at some point"? Or do you mean all at one given time?
    • Correct, not necessarily all at the same time. Reworded
  • "In the context of political organizing, neither Hirschfeld's model of homosexuality nor that of the masculinists were satisfactory, because both effeminacy and pederasty were socially reviled." "Neither" usually takes a singular verb, but I don't understand this sentence. Hirschfeld's model is the third sex, and the masculinists disliked effeminacy; why does the social attitude to effeminacy and pederasty specifically make these two views unsatisfactory for political organizing -- that is, more so than other homosexual segments of opinion or explanatory theories?
    • Clarify what the third sex theory means, change to "was"
  • "The homosexual movement waned after 1929. Despite its initial optimism in the aftermath of the German revolution, the main goal of the movement—decriminalization—was not achieved, and the failure fueled infighting in the homosexual movement." We have "The homosexual movement...the movement...the homosexual movement", which is not very euphonious. How about "The homosexual movement's initial optimism in the aftermath of the German revolution waned after 1929, and the failure to achieve decriminalization—the movement's main goal—fueled infighting"? Reversing the content of the parenthetical dashes puts the word "movement" near the end of the sentence, which I think means we don't need to say who is experiencing the infighting. There are other ways to solve this, I'm sure.
    • Reworded

More later; just the last two sections to complete. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:35, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Last item:

  • "The institute's library of more than 12,000 books was publicly burned on 10 May in Opernplatz." According to the comments on the photo in that section, not all the books were burned; some were sold and some were even bought back by Hirschfeld. I don't know if we want to go into that much detail, but at least we shouldn't say they were all burned.

That's all I have. A fine article, and very readable to boot. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:42, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    • There's no source for the claim in the image description, but I've rephrased to avoid the implication that all books were burned. Thanks again for your review! (t · c) buidhe 05:44, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support. An outstanding article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:51, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Graham Beards

[edit]

I have a few suggestions regarding the prose:

  • Here "Following the affair, the German government was debating a new penal code", doesn't sound idiomatic. Why have you used the past progressive tense?
    • According to Dickinson, the timing was coincidental ("It was particularly unfortunate that this crisis came just as the government and parliament were beginning deliberations on a reform of the Criminal Code.") I was trying to convey this with the verb tense, but now rephrased to be clearer.
  • There is a fused participle here "with the police estimating in 1914 that 2,000 men were regularly working as prostitutes". See WP:PLUSING. I find these "with" expressions unprofessional.
    • Reworded
  • There is a little redundancy in uses of "in order to", where just "to" would suffice:
In order to recruit the reluctant
His publications used plain language and salacious images of naked young men in order to attract readers.
Radszuweit implemented self-censorship in order to get his publications off of the restricted list
Radszuweit promoted respectability politics, but his respectable image was undercut by eroticized images of youths that he printed in order to increase sales.
Removed all
  • ad revenue is a little too colloquial for an encyclopaedia.
    • Changed to "advertising revenue".
  • Here "They could keep selling to subscribers, but ad revenue would dry up; start publishing under a different name; or wait out the ban." How about "They could keep selling to subscribers – but ad revenue would dry up – start publishing under a different name, or wait out the ban". Just to avoid having two semi-colons in a sentence.
    • Reworded
  • This sentence sounds a little pompous, "Historian Javier Samper Vendrell states of Radszuweit's embrace of respectability politics," How about "Of Radszuweit's embrace of respectability politics, Historian Javier Samper Vendrell said" (no deal breaker)
    • Reworded
  • Lastly, and I can't see an easy fix, can we avoid using "homosexual" as a noun? This archaic – and somewhat pejorative usage – is rather dated. You got it right here, "The Weimar Republic has held enduring interest for many LGBT people as a brief interlude in which gay men..."
    • I realize it's dated for 21st century gay people, but most of the cited sources use it, most likely because it's a direct translation of the German noun Homosexuelle(r) that was used by most of the activists at the time. I think LGBT or gay can be anachronistic when referring to the nineteenth or early twentieth century.

Thank you for a fascinating read and beautifully structured article. Graham Beards (talk) 16:43, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Graham Beards (talk) 17:53, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Small comment from Urve

[edit]

I agree that the use of the word "homosexual" is appropriate. I only come here to say two things about the claim "in 1914, the police estimated that 2,000 men were regularly working as prostitutes". Whisnant, the reference used here, is an interesting and good one—I'm glad it's used heavily in the article.

I didn't question the propriety of the word, I questioned its use as a noun and I was satisfied with the nominator's answer. Graham Beards (talk) 16:39, 18 March 2022 (UTC) [reply]
Yep, I'm just agreeing with the answer. Hope I wasn't misunderstood :) I just intended to give some support in case there's a dispute about the nouns homosexual or transvestite in the future. Urve (talk) 22:53, 18 March 2022 (UTC) [reply]
  1. Whisnant does not make the distinction between regular work and irregular work, and just says plainly that there were "as many as" 2,000 male prostitutes. It's never outright said, but I would not be surprised if there were many irregular prostitutes; Whisnant talks about soldiers looking for "a little extra income" through prostitution.
  2. Abraham Flexner's 1914 Prostitution in Europe agrees with this upper figure of 2,000, and says there are 1,000 to 2,000 male prostitutes. The figure that Whisnant provides is cited to James Steakley's The Homosexual Emancipation Movement in Germany (1993, p. 27), which is on the internet archive. Steakley gives the estimate of 1,000 to 2,000. Saying plainly "2,000 men were regularly working as prostitutes" is a bit different than what Whisnant or the source material claim. But indeed, this is a police estimate according to Steakley, so that much of the sentence is okay (and useful to our readers).

Thanks, Urve (talk) 06:15, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch. Reworded accordingly. (t · c) buidhe 14:40, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Urve (talk) 22:53, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Berlin in particular became known among homosexual writers for its opportunities, while in conservative circles it was decried as a modern-day Sodom and Gomorrah" - I'm not sure after reading the cited section of Whisnant. (Maybe the sources throughout the paragraph are meant to support this; I didn't check them.)
  • The only example of a writer is Christopher Isherwood, but I don't think Whisnant states something more general.
And W. H. Auden. Graham Beards (talk) 09:39, 23 March 2022 (UTC) [reply]
Auden is outside of the cited page range and arrived "specifically to explore its sexual underworld", not necessarily for writing opportunities. But if opportunities means something wider than just writing opportunities (as I understood it), then that makes sense, and the citation should include page 92. Urve (talk) 10:08, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure, the criticism was one of modernity, but is that the same as a conservative view? And I wonder: is it fair to say that there were any conservative "circles" making that criticism - after all, they were written "with an eye for sensation", not (necessarily!) political advocacy?
  • The Sodom and Gomorrah reference seems to be Whisnant's perspective, and it's not clear if that was something actually said about Berlin.
Otherwise, I had a lot of fun reading the article: well-written, well-researched, important. Urve (talk) 09:09, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments. (t · c) buidhe 17:52, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. Hog Farm Talk 18:00, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Hog Farm and Ian Rose: Ah. I was just about to write "Not until it has a source review pass". Gog the Mild (talk) 19:58, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review/pass

[edit]

The references are beautifully formatted. (Except for 276. Why oh why!) All the usual sources—university presses and peer-reviewed hournals—are A1. I can't see anything in MOS:SENTENCECAPS, MOS:TMCAPS or MOS:TMLOWER indicating that transcript Verlag warrants being treated as anything other than sentence case, as, although eBay is a thing, we specifiy that the unusual formating be reflected in third-party RS. While eBay garners sufficient discussion in sources for that coverage to be apparent, I'm not seeing the same coverage for this small, academic publisher (perhaps unsurprisingly). Pinging Nikkimaria and @FAC coordinators: for further input, but it's certainly not a failable issue, so passing anyway. SN54129 16:27, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On Google Scholar German-language sources that mention the verlag lowercase "transcript". Same with this english language book but it's not independent, being published by the verlag. (t · c) buidhe 17:19, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 31 March 2022 [3].

Jubilee coinage

[edit]
Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 19:25, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about... the British coins issued for Victoria's Golden Jubilee, of which the double florin, recently promoted, was one. It lasted less than six years, but outlived its sculptor by two of them. Enjoy.Wehwalt (talk) 19:25, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review—pass

[edit]
I've put a link on the image page to a 1901 book featuring it. It was probably published earlier, but that will suffice. here.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:35, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Image swapped and I've tweaked the lead sentence. Thank you for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:06, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Kavyansh

[edit]
  • "by Joseph Boehm" — is his common name 'Joseph Edgar Boehm'? Same in the lead
I've seen it rendered "Joseph" or "Joseph Edgar" or even "Edgar". From the distance of 130 years, it's difficult to judge.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:52, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the presence of a small [...]pointed profile." quote is long enough to deserve a blockquote
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:57, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Fremantle had revived some of the finest heraldic designs from the past". — the prose does not make clear where this quote is from. Same with "garnished Shield surmounted by the Royal Crown", "in a plain Shield surrounded by the Garter, bearing the Motto 'Honi soit qui mal y pense' and the Collar of the Garter"
I've clarified those.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:57, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "that "I think that " — It is rather an opinion of a person that the Ipswich Journal
Presumably, but the leader isn't signed. Presumably it's the proprietor's opinion. All of these are opinions, inserted to show what opinions the coins caused.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:52, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "When the storm of condemnation erupted [...] on the reverse." quote is long enough to deserve a blockquote, and so are various other quotations.
I've added a couple. I'm conservative about using block quotes since they break up the text and emphasize their contents.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:57, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

– Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 14:42, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've gotten to everything. Thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:57, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Everything is now sourced.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:20, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Kavyansh.Singh, did you have anything to add? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 20:28, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm really sorry but I currently won't be able to give this a comprehensive review. But all my concerns were appropriately answered, and I didn't find any other obviously issues. I'm hesitant to fully support. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:45, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All right then, I maybe can now:

  • In the lead, as we link 'sixpence', shouldn't we link 'fourpence' as well?
Link adjusted.
  • "the queen marked her sixtieth birthday" (lead) v. "approaching her 60th birthday" (Background section) — sixtieth v. 60th; consistency needed
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:03, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Sir Henry Ponsonby" — I'm no expert, but if we are including the title 'Sir' for Ponsonby, shouldn't we doing same for Boehm, Edward Poynter, and others?
  • That just led me through a number of reference books, since our article on Ponsonby doesn't say when he was knighted (1878). So Ponsonby was knighted when first referred to, and is properly referred to. The others were knighted or created baronets (also entitled to be called Sir _____) after the first time they are referred to in the article (Boehm created baronet 1889, Fremantle knighted 1890, Brock knighted 1911, Poynter created baronet 1902, Evans knighted 1892. Lubbock was a baronet from 1865 to 1900, when he was given a peerage, similarly Leighton was given a peerage in 1896 after being created a baronet in 1878. So I think it's all properly done.
  • " "'in " — the single quote after the double quote starts but never ends. Do let me know if I am missing something obvious.
Single quote removed.
  • "and the veil would have been black in colour" — do we need to specify 'in colour'?
    No, but I think removing it leaves the end of the sentence a bit too abrupt. "Following the death of Albert, Prince Consort in 1861, she had remained in mourning, and the veil would have been black."
  • "the artist's initials JEB may be found on the truncation of her bust" (emphasis mine) — I'm not sure why there is 'may be'. The source says: "in small raised letters on the bust truncation, the artist's initials J.E.B. (Joseph Edgar Boehm); around, VICTORIA D:G: BRITT: REG: F:D:". Is that a British Eng thing?
It's just a turn of phrase I use. Changed to "are found"
  • Our article does not italicized 'The' in 'The Church Times'
Fixed.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:03, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Once the new coins were released" — optional: "Soon after the new coins were released"
On balance, I prefer it as is.

That is it from me! Excellent article! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 11:04, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Much obliged. I think I've gotten everything.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:03, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to support – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:57, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie

[edit]
  • The lead says 1888 was the last issue for circulation of the groat, but in the body it appears a modified version was issued in 1891. I assume the difference is that the 1891 issue has the colony's name on so that isn't an issue for circulation in the UK, but apparently the 1888 issue was not for circulation in the UK either.
It was not intended to circulate in the UK, but as it did not differ from earlier groats but for the date, the proclamation making the earlier groats valid currency in the UK applied. The 1891 issue saying British Guiana had not been proclaimed valid currency in the UK. I've tried to make it clearer.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:41, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Does "the last of its series" mean that the 1888 issue was the last time groats were struck that could circulate in the UK? I think that's the intent. If so, perhaps just cut the "Fourpence pieces with the colony of British Guiana's name on them were struck by the Royal Mint from 1891" sentence, as it's not about Jubilee coinage? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:22, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's true and I've done that.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:36, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:12, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest introducing Ponsonby, perhaps as "and in February 1879 Sir Henry Ponsonby, the Queen's Private Secretary,...".
Done, more or less.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:17, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • " that the Austrian-born sculptor, Joseph Boehm, had been engaged": to my ear this would be better either without the commas or with "an" rather than "the". Or, perhaps better, move "Austrian-born sculptor" to the next sentence, where you're characterizing Boehm.
Rewritten.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:12, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • When we say Victoria "approved the revisions" in February 1880, do we know what these revisions were? The only suggestion given is Louise's comment that the crown should be larger; the resulting design appears to be the one used for the Afghanistan medal. If we know for sure that February 1880 was the point at which the crown was enlarged to fit Victoria's head we might as well say so.
    The source says "By the end of January the work had been seen by the queen's daughter, Princess Louise, and on 20 February the queen herself called on Boehm and saw the new models for the coinage. She approved the large crown suggested by Princess Louise but required a slight change to be made to the chin, for which Boehm was to be guided by a miniature by Sir Charles Ross." I've edited it to focus on the crown.
  • Somewhere in the article, I think we should have a straightforward list or table of the denominations that fall into the Jubilee coinage, with whatever the numismatically important information is for them -- quantity struck, years struck, mints if important. A table would allow a thumb image of the obverse and reverse of each denomination if images are available.
Working on this. I'll have to do some downloads and OTRS applications.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:41, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think if we have no pictures for the thumbs that's not going to prevent me supporting, but we should put in whatever we have access to. The main issue for me was that I couldn't tell at the end of the article what the list of Jubilee coinage denominations was. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:43, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've added one. Most of them are permission pending and I've sent an OTRS email. Once it goes through, I'll ask Buidhe to update their image review.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:12, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. Is the number of coins struck sufficiently encyclopedic information to include? I don't know if that's something you would expect to put in articles about coins for circulation; I recall seeing it in your articles about commemorative coins. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:22, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The problem would be with the 1887 mintages. The Young Head coins continued to be struck for some portion of 1887, and I've checked two sources on mintages and they aren't broken down. The problem is especially acute for the sixpence of which three distinct varieties were struck. The same goes for the 1893 sixpences and threepences, two heads, no breakdown.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:36, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I think it's OK to let the reader know when information is unavailable, if it's information they might think is merely omitted, but your call. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:54, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and was fraudulently plated to pass as one": suggest "and was often" or "and was sometimes".
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:12, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The dates covered at the start of the "Initial release" section overlap with the events at the end of the background section, and I found myself scrolling back and forth to see what was new information. Is the overlap necessary?
No. I've cut the brief first paragraph to the later section as basically duplicative.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:16, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was interested to see that "IND. IMP." was not allowed to be used on UK coinage. Not relevant for this article, but when and how was that changed? I recall seeing it on George VI's pennies.
I've added some detail on this.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:16, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I have. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:12, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review, I think that's everything.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:16, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support. All my issues have been addressed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:54, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment

[edit]

Coordinator comment

[edit]

After more than three weeks this nomination has only garnered one general support. Unless there are signs of a consensus to promote forming over the next three or four days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:02, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just clocked this. I'll look in properly tomorrow, so pray put the the archiving on hold if that's OK. Tim riley talk 22:44, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Tim. I'll try to find another reviewer. I hope we have a few days?--Wehwalt (talk) 18:20, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Support from Tim riley

[edit]

I'll be supporting this, I have no doubt, but will indulge in one moderately important quibble and a few minor ones first. Before doing so, let me salute you, Wehwalt, for your perfect BrE: I'm not sure I could be quite so reliable in AmE.

My only substantial concern is your way of naming the sculptor. After he was made a baronet in 1889 the British newspapers of the period all referred to him as "Sir Edgar Boehm". Before that he was referred to as "Mr J. E. Boehm, sculptor in ordinary to the Queen", but I can't find any references to him as "Joseph Boehm", and I think he should be referred to in this article either as "Edgar Boehm" or "J. E. Boehm".

I've gone with how our article refers to him, Joseph Edgar Boehm.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:15, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My handful of petty cavils:

  • Capitalisation
  • I am well aware that anyone taking capitalisation seriously is likely to go mad, and I am not demanding any changes, but I'm blest if I can see why Deputy Master is capitalised (sometimes) and chancellor is not.
  • "The Coinage Act 1870 made the chancellor of the Exchequer the Master of the Mint ex officio, with the deputy master the actual head" – this footnote really is a right old milkshake of upper and lower case, surely?
  • capitalising the Court Circular is probably fair enough, but I'm not sure about the Committee on the Design of Coins.
I think MOS:INSTITUTIONS supports it.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:15, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the Ribbon and Star of the Order of the Garter and the badge of the Order of the Crown" – seems a bit hard on the badge to make it the only noun in this half of the sentence without a capital letter.
  • Background and preparation
  • In the fourth para, the second sentence seems to me to confute itself: the unquivocal statement that Radnitzky had some of the work done by a student is contradicted after the semicolon by the statement that perhaps he didn't. A "reportedly" or some such in the first half or an "although" in the second would smooth things over.
  • Designs
  • In the last para, I imagine you mean that the figure 2 on the Maundy tuppence was in a different style from the old one, and if that is indeed what you mean, I think it would be clearer if you wrote "the Maundy twopence carried a different style figure 2"
  • Initial release
  • "The Birmingham Daily Post wrote on 24 June …" – Brian Boulton used to twit me in reviews for using this construction: he maintained that papers do not write themselves, and I daresay he was right. I just mention it.

That's my lot. I'll look in again with the confident expectation of adding my support. – Tim riley talk 10:18, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If I haven't responded, I just went ahead and did it. Thank you for the review and kind words. All done.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:33, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to support. I find the article highly readable, thoroughly − and as far as I can judge authoritatively − sourced and cited, comprehensive, and of course magnificently illustrated. Clearly meets the FA criteria in my view. Tim riley talk 16:02, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Much obliged. I hesitate to disagree with Brian, whose company we once had the pleasure and privilege of having for a few hours, as you may recall. But given that there are a number of papers quoted, it would look very artificial to keep saying "a writer for" "a correspondent for" etc. Especially since what I am quoting may be an article the paper reprinted without giving credit, as they did do.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:05, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review/pass

[edit]

Placeholder. SN54129 19:49, 25 March 2022 (UTC) This version reviewed.[reply]

  • I understand (while not necessarily agreeing with) why you use country-wide locations, but it does mean I am forced to ask why "Oslo, Norway" and "Llantrisant, Wales", but not "London, UK"...?
It seems the most practical way of doing it. London is a major city and centre of publishing and there seems little risk of disambiguation Oslo is given its country because it is not known as a centre of publishing for English-language books.
  • Talking of locations, Robinson is lacking one.
Added.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:12, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I guess, in the bibliography, you haven't linked Coin News because we don't have an article. But that's not consistent with the approach you take in the refs section, where you link e.g., Sheffield Independent, albeit redlinked?
I've delinked the Sheffield in all cases.
It is now.
  • Why doesn't the Forrer cite (currently #14) use sfns like other {{Cite book}} refs?
Fixed.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:12, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Much obliged for the review. I think I've caught everything.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:12, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 31 March 2022 [4].

Clonmacnoise Crozier

[edit]
Nominator(s): Ceoil (talk) 04:12, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An 11th century Irish Insular crozier that had been lost until the around the 1790s, before which it was presumably buried by its keepers to avoid plunder from internal or external menace. It dates from the so called early medieval "golden age" of Irish metalwork, but contains a number of design and construction elements influenced by Viking art. Croziers of this era were built from precious metal by the highest regarded (but largely unknown) metalworkers and intended to give status and weight to their owners, usually bishops, but later clansmen seeking to establish authority during disputes or swearing of oaths. The object is in good condition and widely considered the finest example of its type.

Feedback and demands gratefully welcome. Ceoil (talk) 04:12, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review
File:Screen Shot 2022-01-23 at 7.37.54 PM.png

The licensing looks OK, but there are serious issues with image sandwiching, primarily in the "description" section. In addition, ref 2 "Colmcille 1500 Lecture Series: St Columba's crosier: power and devotion in medieval Ireland" needs a timestamp in order to be verifiable, in the same way as you have to provide a page # for a book. (t · c) buidhe 04:23, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi & thanks, have reduced River Laune (Inisfallen) Crozier Drop.jpg which I think caused most of the overlap. Looing re timestamp re Colmcille 1500...Ceoil (talk) 04:35, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That does not fix the sandwiching problem, unfortunately, I see the image captioned "Drop-plate with human figure..." sandwiching the next image, "Drop-plate of the contemporary..." which sandwiches the third image: "Upper knop decorated..." Possibly a multiple images template would help. (t · c) buidhe 05:09, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Timestamp (4:50–6:07) added to the video lecture. Gaa re the image squash, revisiting. I did try multiple images in preview earlier, but it diminished the impact of File:River Laune (Inisfallen) Crozier Drop.jpg, which I am very fond of. Hold on. Ceoil (talk) 05:21, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, the images are now well spaced with rows of text separating each on my desktop. I'm not sure of your settings, but bear in mind that most readers will be using mobile, where the images appear by default in consecutive rows. Ceoil (talk) 05:29, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ceoil, I have taken a screenshot of what it currently looks like to me. I am using default (100%) zoom in my browser and the default image thumbnail size, so I expect it to display without so much sandwiching. (t · c) buidhe 03:40, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
ok, may have a look at going for a gallery rather than aligning left and right. Will ping when done.Ceoil (talk) 17:56, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Buidhe:, to let you know this mostly done, and more images will be added, but in gallery format. Ceoil (talk) 01:28, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I will let someone else evaluate this. It seems like the sandwiching problems are better, but on the other hand some of the added images seem duplicative. (t · c) buidhe 01:33, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just to note Gerda is on the case and has improved the layout quite a bit, with helpfull discussions on-going below. Ceoil (talk) 15:27, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

source review

[edit]
  • Passes my source review. Everything looks in order and all of the citations are of a high quality. Spot checks are not done, but this is by no means Ceoil's first rodeo so I will leave to the coords if they need to be done here. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 13:51, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
thanks for the look!Ceoil (talk) 17:56, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from §Serial Number 54129

[edit]

...speculates :) I'll look in in a couple of days Ceoil, just need to find something to oppose over first :p (Joke—looks great already!) SN54129 14:05, 5 February 2022 (UTC) Apologies in advance for anything overly pernickety; these are mostly suggestions. SN54129 19:25, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lead
Function
  • "Like all Irish Insular croziers" --first pernicketiness! I note our article says they were both Irish and Scottish, and I think the description you give here could apply to the Scottish ones as well?
    Yes, removed the word "Scottish". Ceoil (talk) 22:33, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in addition to some sixty fragments... to...fragments"" Repetition of fragments, "pieces"?
    Done Ceoil (talk) 22:33, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Origin
Description
  • "about the length of a walking stick" - I'm torn by this; on the one hand, it's a useful "real life" comparison for Randy to relate to, but on the other, well—can't they be any size?
    They were all about 1.2M, but this example is slightly shorter as a portion lost when it was broken so that it could be folded up to hide it from the Normans. I picked this up when browsing over the weekend, will add soon as I remember where! Ceoil (talk) 22:43, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Talking of which, I'm a bit confused by the measurements. Length is obvious, but I don't get what its width is, or what its maximum thickness means. Is one of these the diameter of the rod?
    Circumference...now clarified. Ceoil (talk) 23:19, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "but were built concurrently" -- meaning, fitted together at the same time?
    Hmm, clarified this Ceoil (talk) 22:33, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The crozier was built in two phases" -- not sure how this ties in with the above.
    The basic metal staff and crook were constructed at the same time, the later stuff is mostly ornamentation.now clarified. Ceoil (talk) 22:33, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link "acanthus leaves" to Acanthus (ornament)?
    Nice find, done Ceoil (talk) 22:33, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's a slight difference in how you describe what the bishop on the plate is doing with his staff; in the body, he's impaling the animal, whereas, in the adjacent image, he's holding it down.
  • Clarified
  • The theory that the drop was intended to hold a relic is pretty logical (if generally discredited), but surely even Victorian antiquarians didn't believe that the staff was made of the original saint's staff?
    Not really..roughly the saints lived 600-700, the were enshrined with metal 800-1200 and some of the later decorations came 1300-1500. We know now that it wasn't the case, but it wasnt huge leap from pre-xray 1850-1900. Ceoil (talk) 22:39, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Always thought "ie" was i.e., but the MOS is silent on that (which makes a nice change...!)
    grand, dont care :), but done for your pleasure! Ceoil (talk) 22:33, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Modern provenance

Comments from Mike Christie

[edit]
  • Can we get a link or gloss for "drop-plate"? I see it's defined in the description section, but a word or two of parenthetical definition in the lead would be helpful.
    Have changed wording in the lead to "the and terminal (known as a "drop") on the crook". Ceoil (talk) 22:26, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "his followers as his herd or flock": I think just "as his flock" would do.
    Agree, done Ceoil (talk) 22:26, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the principle vehicle of [the saint's] power": Is Lucas referring specifically to Saint Ciarán? If so, can we make it "of [Saint Ciarán's] power"? But you do have "the croziers acted", with the plural, so perhaps this is a general statement about the saints of the day? Great quote, by the way; I love the "spiritual electrode" image.
    Lucas is talking in general terms, but take your point...thinking. Ceoil (talk) 18:11, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Expanded a bit Ceoil (talk) 22:26, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is the Frazer crozier-head worth a redlink?
yes, and have been toying with the basis for a page for a few weeks, but the sources are scant Ceoil (talk) 18:11, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think I understand the measurements as given. The thickness of the crozier is given as 15.5 cm, which is presumably across the crook, since that matches the width of the crook. The maximum thickness of the crook is 3.7 cm, but the maximum width of the crozier is 13.5 cm, which is almost as wide as the diameter of the crook. I don't see anything in the images that would explain this width -- can you clarify?

A fine article; I expect to support once these points are addressed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:22, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

hi Mike, agree with all the above, but tied up unexpectedly for a few days more. Appreciate the close look and will ping when done. Ceoil (talk) 03:17, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No worries; I'll be watching and look forward to seeing the fixes whenever you get time. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:32, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support. A fine article on a beautiful work of art. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:02, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the edits, helpful suggestions and support. Ceoil (talk) 15:22, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments and support from Gerda

[edit]

Interesting topic, new to me, I'll comment as I read and skip the lead for the end. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:51, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox fine

TOC fine

Function

  • "a symbol of Jesus as the Good Shepherd and his followers as his flock" - I don't think that "and" works, - not a symbol of his followers
    Yes, reworded and expanded on this Ceoil (talk) 22:47, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we have a link for European croziers? - Why is it croziers anyway when we have Crosier? (probably an ignorant question) - Perhaps say first what a crozier is and then distinguish Insular and others?
    Take it that the non-Insular examples are European (mostly German and French. Some of the Viking egs closely align with the Irish type, as you would expect, but haven't gone into it here Ceoil (talk) 22:47, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the Lucas quote, there's "[the saint's]" inserted, but it would work better for me without. Not every bishop or abbot becomes a saint, no? - To be continued after food. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:02, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes...have expanded and tried to clarify this...not signing off yet, to be revisited in next few days. Ceoil (talk) 22:47, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Origin ...

  • "all of which would had been deposited"? - all of which would have been deposited?
    Done Ceoil (talk) 00:13, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Ciarán is recorded as appearing "to smite a would-be raider with his crozier" centuries after his death" - awkward use of quote which says "his" so can't mean the place. Also: recorded by whom? - reading further I understood that Ciarán meant the person, not Temple Ciarán, but perhaps offer "St." to avoid that? ... and be consistent about St. vs. Saint? If Frazer says "St." we can do the same ;)
    Done except quotes and article (internal and external) article titles. Ceoil (talk) 00:13, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • the Missal - that I don't know - comes a bit as a surprise, before the location is defined, but I also don't see an obvious better spot for the mention, - do we need it here?
    No - gone! Ceoil (talk) 22:47, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • NMI?
    Clarified at first instance Ceoil (talk) 22:47, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • we are before descriptions, so "confronting lions" seems a bit early, but attention-grabbing - didn't see them on the pic before, but that just tells you how little I see.
    Good point...thinking Ceoil (talk) 00:14, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Desccription

Shaft

  • "chased or repoussé (ie relief hammered from the back) copper-alloy plates" - even without brackets, that's long
    Its not a long sentance, and (see above) sometimes explaining technical terms helps Ceoil (talk) 23:34, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I was unclear: it takes too long until I get to know that we even talk about copper-alloy plates, and without that context I am just confused by foreign words, explained or not. Could the order be changed, perhaps? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:09, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Precious! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:37, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

hi Gerda, I’ll be gone for next few days again but looking forward to addressing the above deatailed reviews from all, thanks so much to all for going through in detail... Ceoil (talk) 03:05, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
ps thanks so much for sorting the images/text squash issue....almost there with your points. Ceoil (talk) 21:13, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Images again Gog the Mild, this version has less sandwiching. Problem is that the images are super-long. I see repetition only for the little "dogs", which can be seen in the ibox and (in more detail) where they are described, which makes sense to me. The human figure would be even harder to see if the pic was smaller, and same for the fine detail below it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:45, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gerda, have replaced the 2nd image of the crook with a close up of the little dogs. With the shaft, logic was to show the full lenght to give indication of size and how the elements fit together, and then the details so people got better resolution, and so could explain explain unfamiliar terms, ie this is a crest this is a drop-plate, this is a knope, this is a ferrule. I "do" like the changes you have made so far though...still thinking about how to better do this. Ceoil (talk) 15:19, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

lead

  • I made some small changes. I suggest to split the first sentence, because I don't like brackets for something as essential as telling us what a crozier is without a click. The second sentence could talk about the assumed finding.
  • Same for the next sentence: the saint and the description are not really related.
    Yes, will fix both shortly. Ceoil (talk) 15:19, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • is a hook a crook?
    Yes! A shepard has a hook, a bishop has a crook. Ceoil (talk) 15:19, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's all, - getting close. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:47, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Having looked once more, I'm ready to support. Thank you for a precious gift. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:06, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

[edit]

Recusing to review.

No it isn't. It hasn't changed.
That copper-alloy = bronze is made clear earlier. Ceoil (talk) 20:05, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you repeatedly describe bronze as "copper-alloy" rather than use the common term?
Rightly or wrongly, "copper-alloy" is now the standard term in art history & museum terminology (hastened by the introduction of standard vocabularies for digitization). You would be hard put to find a major museum labelling things as bronze now, I think. Johnbod (talk) 03:09, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but noticing (reading about other artifacts) that archeologists often favour bronze. Ceoil (talk) 21:47, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That said, I'm not seeing that this should be a fail reason, per Johnbod above. Ceoil (talk) 01:13, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, let's not get ahead of ourselves. This looks FAable to me, and that is what we all want. The key question is "What do the HQ RSs say?" In the main body there are "copper alloy" x 4; "copper" x 4; and bronze x 3. Each of these 11 is cited. Do the cites match this mix of descriptions? Ceoil, any chance you could check all 11 and report back?
  • "Jesus as the Good Shepherd leading his flock". Why the upper case G and S? Also elsewhere.
Why the upper case G and S?
The sources capitalize, as does our article. Ceoil (talk) 21:55, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sources tend to capitalise things they consider important and Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Is there a reason within the MoS for capitalisation?
Said sorted as the more substantial points re the sentance above were addressed. will look at the MOS aspect now. Ceoil (talk) 20:27, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Still waiting on this.
  • Should "Sarcophagus of the Three Shepherds" be in italics?
  • "The distinctive shape of Irish Croziers recalls". Why the upper case C?
So, why the upper case C?
  • Sorted Ceoil (talk)
  • "the function of shepherd's crook in restraining wayward sheep". Either 'a shepherd's crook' or 'shepherd's crooks'.
  • "Some early accounts, mostly based on ..." This seems to start mid-paragraph. Could there be an introductory sentence? Or perhaps recast the opening one?
    Yes, reworded / sniped. Ceoil (talk) 19:46, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Caption: "depicted in stone on the Cross of the Scriptures". What and/or where is "the Cross of the Scriptures"?
  • "It is formed from a wooden core overlaid by metal tubes". Is this metal bronze? If so, why not say so? Is the crook entubed by the same metal?
    yes its obviously bronze, as is made clear over and over in the above text that this is the metal covering the wooden core. Ceoil (talk) 20:31, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that. But if it is so obviously bronze, why are you not describing it as such?
See above.
  • "a protective metal ferrule is placed on the tip of the shaft's base." Is it known which metal this is?
No it isn't. It still reads "while a protective metal ferrule".
Rephrased Ceoil (talk) 21:55, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Could you explain that a little further?
Good point, hold on, but unfortunately and for not good reasons RL has overwhelmed the time I can give to addressing. requesting that this is left open for another two weeks, and all the valuable points raised above and below are pennies from heaven. Ceoil (talk) 02:57, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ceoil. As a reviewer that is fine with me, but you could probably do with an uninvolved @FAC coordinators: coordinator agreeing, or not, to this. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:04, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Similarly, the crook is fitted with an independent crest and drop." What are they similar to and in what way?
Expanded and clarified. Ceoil (talk) 16:32, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • In MOS:QUOTE it says "While quotations are an indispensable part of Wikipedia, try not to overuse them. Using too many quotes is incompatible with an encyclopedic writing style ... It is generally recommended that content be written in Wikipedia editors' own words. Consider paraphrasing quotations into plain and concise text when appropriate". There are a number of quotes for which there seem to be no obvious reason why they are not paraphrased into Wikipedia's voice.
    Have paraphrased a number, with the remaining ones kept as want to keep specific (usually dated) phrasing (eg spiritual electrode, smite a would-be raider, the buttocks of the preceding animal, ignorant hands, etc). Ceoil (talk) 15:52, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you know what de Paor meant by "pierced eyes"?
  • "late-9th-century"; "late-10th century"; etc. Inconsistent use of a hyphen preceding century.
    Gaa. Done. "late-9th-century" is a bit of a headace, so have dropped the 2nd hyphen. Ceoil (talk) 18:20, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "presumably croziers once held similar figures". Perhaps 'presumably other croziers once held similar figures'?
  • Link figurative art. Are you sure that you mean "figurative art"? Several aspects of the decoration seem to me to be figurative.
Figurative art is art which represents any real object. If you want a term to mean representing human forms, this isn't it.
Good spot. Now rephrased as Figure painting, which unfortunately needs work as is limited in scope to painting but of course should also apply to sculpture. Ceoil (talk) 22:00, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"there is as yet no evidence to support the theories." "as yet" is PoV, delete it.
  • I dont see it like that. These pieces are 900 years old and their intention is unknown, and not to be confused with a modern art historical perspective. Lets leave a wait and see, an escape clause which even Murray hedges with. Ceoil (talk) 02:46, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, but, meh, ok.
  • "It contains three large and ornately decorated barrel-shaped knops." Could you specify whether "It" refers to "a leather membrane" or "The shaft".
    Done Ceoil (talk) 20:35, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "They are fastened to the staff by rivets". Are they fastened to the staff or to the encasing tube?
  • "plated with two copper-alloy tubes"; "They [the knops] are ... separated by lengths of undecorated copper"; "The collar below the upper knop is made of copper-alloy". There would seem to be a contradiction there.
"a wooden core plated with two copper-alloy tubes". Would the plating consist of that substance you seem to wish to avoid naming?
"a metal cast plaque in champlevé (carved) enamel". I think that a normal reader is going to struggle to make sense of this, even if they chase the link, which they shouldn't have to. MoS:NOFORCELINK: "Do use a link wherever appropriate, but as far as possible do not force a reader to use that link to understand the sentence. The text needs to make sense to readers who cannot follow links."
  • "Picturesque views of the antiquities of Ireland" should be in title case.
  • "However Marry regards the claim that it was buried seems doubtful ..." is not grammatical.
  • "Treasury Room" - why the quote marks?
  • "they were popular across Europe during the popular across Europe during the Early Medieval period"?
  • Why are the two footnotes cited using a different convention to the rest of the article.

Gog the Mild (talk) 18:38, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gog, thanks, working through these, will ping when complete. Ceoil (talk) 15:17, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note some updates added above, more to follow. Ceoil (talk) 15:33, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Bear with me Gog....revisiting all points, perhaps I answered individual suggestions before happy overall. To be clear, this review is pennys from heaven and has greatly improved the article. Ceoil (talk) 20:42, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ceoil, am I still waiting for a ping, or are you ready for me to revisit? I'm easy either way, just checking. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:05, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
prob won’t get to until Friday, and will ping then....thanks Ceoil (talk) 19:11, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Gog, working towards pinging you Sunday night Ceoil (talk) 18:22, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. A few queries/further comments above. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:17, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a couple of responses. It should be clear now, I hope, which of my comments I still consider to be open. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:38, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Gog, it seems the main o/s issue is copper-alloy vs bronze, but Johnbod has explained how the terminology is used in context, and I'm inclined to stay with the source usage. Otherwise your review has been a great help, so asking that you throw down the hamemr, one way or the other. Ceoil (talk) 01:26, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Gog the Mild, can you revisit pls, I believe all your points are addressed or explained. Ceoil (talk) 02:33, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for the delay. I am not sure why you are getting agitated. According to Mike's stats I have done 308 reviews and only opposed 17 times. Given that I frequently get called in to consider controversial nominations, I don't think that is bad. I am leaning very much support at the moment. Some comments above which I think add up to: what does the MoS say about Good Shepherd, and what do the sources you have actually used say about bronze/copper/copper alloy? Gog the Mild (talk) 20:58, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
point taken, and yes we are almost there. Have decapitalized good shepherd and removed “as yet”. The sources are mostly copper alloy, so standardising that again now Ceoil (talk) 23:55, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
just as an update, will have access to a desktop tonight, to finish off these. Ceoil (talk) 15:05, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Johnbod

[edit]
  • Clearly nearly there, & a nice piece. Some points:
  • "The Clonmacnoise Crozier is a late 11th-century Insular crozier (a type of early medieval processional bishop's staff)...." rather awkward - obviously croziers aren't just "early medieval", though insular ones are. They are in general "bishop's staffs", but are they purely "processional"? Also in Ireland (and I think elsewhere sometimes) abbots also had them, as seems to be the case with this one, and in Ireland abbots seem to have outranked bishops in the early days. Maybe unpack all this a bit.
  • Have started a rewrite of the opening two sentences, which (incorporating the above) are better but not yet complete. Worried about using the word "crozier" too many times. Ceoil (talk) 18:14, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "discovered in the late-18th or early-19th century on the grounds of Clonmacnoise monastery in County Offaly, Ireland." The first bit is a mouthful repeated several times in the article - might it just be easier to say "before 1821" for at least some of them? Of that we are sure. Petrie, who was 10 in 1800, is clearly repeating a story he was told, but is too much credibility being given to this? Some caution might be indicated for the find-spot also. I can't read all of "The history and provenance of two early medieval crosiers ascribed to Clonmacnoise" by Griffin Murray, but he may be the best source for nuanced wording, though he clearly thinks it was made at Clonmacnoise. I'd think "in the grounds of" better than "on the grounds of".
    ok, re-reading. As an aside, pretty good resource here if interested, which has most of what I’ve used for this page [5] Ceoil (talk) 02:03, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the line of dog-like animals forming a ribbon at its top" - elsewhere these are called a "crest", which seems better to me. You might add openwork. Also, do any of sources refer to gripping beasts?
  • "It is fully intact" - well it clearly isn't quite that - lower down "It was probably once 20 cm longer and had four knops, as with most other intact examples; the losses seem to result from its having been broken apart to make it easier to fold and thus hide from Viking and later Norman invaders". Also the crest is incomplete, and lots of the gem-like bits are missing from their settings (which should be mentioned somewhere). Another "fully intact" at the end of the "function" section.
Have restated as "largely" intact. Will add statement re gems. Ceoil (talk) 18:14, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "is one of the best preserved pieces of surviving Insular art." is there a ref for this? Might be true - might also be better restricted to Insular metalwork. But you want the link somewhere.
  • "The crozier is traditionally associated with Saint Ciarán of Clonmacnoise (c. 516–c. 549)" - presumably "traditionally" does not go back beyond the rediscovery. Given the overall time scale, probably best to indicate this.
    Have made first pass at rephrasing, but need to go back to sources. Will update here when done. Ceoil (talk) 18:14, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Like all Insular croziers produced between c. 800 and 1200" - 2nd link, & true of Western croziers in general, although the Irish shapes are more literal than most, and open, where other ones wind in on themselves. Maybe drop "Insular", or add "open"?
  • I've made some changes, including explaining the bronze/copper alloy thing, which I hope are ok.
    Yes, much better. Ceoil (talk) 18:14, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "probably revered as holding a relic of St. Ciaran" - are we going to get where that might have been?
  • " "Temple Ciarán" (the tomb of Saint Ciarán of Clonmacnoise d. c. 549)" but then "present on a high cross in Temple Ciarán" - ok seen the pic - "the building containing the tomb of Saint Ciarán" seems better. Is this one of the ruined churches? What date is given to it?
    Restated as "the now ruined oratory holding the tomb of Saint Ciarán" Ceoil (talk) 18:14, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "drop-plate" needs a clearer explanation & location I think.
    Working on a sub-section on drops in the Insular crozier page, so can link there. Agree re location, working. Ceoil (talk) 18:14, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~::Done, but is still intermeditary. Have acquired two new book sources since (Moss and Henry), so can better develop what these elements origions, iconographic meaning, and practical methods of construction. Not done, hold on Ceoil (talk) 02:21, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Started and linked Insular_crozier#Drop, but needs a lot more work yet. Ceoil (talk) 02:48, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I take it "knopes" as plural of "knop" is a typo? I've been changing it.
    More of a fundamental inability to spell on my behalf. knops is the correct plural. Ceoil (talk) 18:14, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • " with the later additions including the figures in the drop and " - are these the head, bishop & dragon on the drop-plate? And the row of dogs? Better clarify.
  • "Those on the lower part of the row are damaged and have missing parts.[12]" - the Fintan O'Toole ref doesn't mention this, nor is it obvious in the pics. Clearly the top one is missing his head.
  • "Designed in the Ringerike style,[42] they are held in place by thin threads lined with strips of niello that appear as decorative flaps that, according to Murray, "spring from their heads and bodies forming knotted vegetal-like designs around them"[37] before terminating in spiral patterns.[34]" - "held in place" is just within the visual logic of the flat design, yes? Needs to be clearer, what with all the adjacent talk of binding-strips etc.
  • I'm afraid the whole crook section is rather confusing.
  • Carrying on:
  • I've added "The crook ends in a vertical section called the drop, with a drop-plate on the outward-facing side." to the main "description" section, as I think this needs clearly setting out. No doubt one of the refs covers this. No, the wood is solid but the binding metal is wrapped. Hopefully this is better reflected in the revised text. Ceoil (talk) 02:26, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    most do and of course its apparent from the images. Ceoil (talk) 18:55, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jumping around a bit: Are the wood cores of the shaft and crook actually hollow, as a couple of mentions suggest: "The shaft is formed from a tubular wooden core ...", "The crook " is hollow and made from a single piece of wood"?
  • Adressed earlied above.
    The image caption "14th- or 15th-century addition to the drop-plate showing a bishop impaling a dragon with the base of his staff", but the main text suggests the whole drop face, including the face/head at top, is of this date. I think the face is older, from the original, but I might be wrong. Can you confirm, & clarify if needed?
    I need to dig into this, sounds like conflicting conclusions. Ceoil (talk) 02:26, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The shaft is formed from a tubular wooden core plated with two copper-alloy tubes and is of equal width until the mid-point, after which it narrows until tapering off below the lowest knop." I've raised the question of whether the wood is a tube (ie hollow). If it isn't, then a clearer way of putting this might be: "The shaft is formed of a straight wooden pole [presumably the wood is all one piece?], round which two thin copper-alloy plates have been wrapped; now they do not quite meet, leaving a thin gap at the front. The shaft has a constant circumference between the top and middle knops, then tapers between the middle and bottom ones". Or does it only taper below the bottom knop? Are the knops solid rings that were slid up the pole, then fixed into place, or were they two or more bits fixed after the plates were in place?
    The wood is a single piece, and obv not hollow (have fixed this), its the bronze tubing that is not solid. The knops are nailed to the tubing, the only element that is free is the ring just above the ferrule. I like your suggested wording. Ceoil (talk) 18:53, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the plain "tubes" or plates round the staff, you have "The shaft is formed from a tubular wooden core plated with two copper-alloy tubes" and "They [the knops] are fastened to the tubing by rivets and separated by lengths of undecorated copper" - these are the same things, no? Copper-alloy or just copper?
    Have clarified this (they are positioned equally distant on the staff, separated by lengths of bare tubing). Only Murray in "Insular type crosiers their construction" goes into this level of detail, but doesn't say which metal. Ceoil (talk) 20:04, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • top knop: "It is lined with triangular and rectangular copper plaques between which are blue studs formed from glass.[48] The plaques are decorated with interlace and have borders lined with strips of twisted copper and silver wire." From the pictures these were formed separately, I'd imagine by casting, and here and on the similar bottom knop some of them are missing, with nail holes apparent underneath. Might as well say this, if in refs.
    Most of this is in Moss, so have added re losses, and instead of "formed separately" have clarified that they are inserts. The visible nails is on Murray from memory, but not at hand on this computer....hold on. Ceoil (talk) 23:25, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Now "contains three large and ornately decorated barrel-shaped and individually cast knops.", but Murrary, by far the most detailed source, doesn't mention the nails. Ceoil (talk) 06:35, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Trying this reply feature - the Francoise Henry notes say (page with triangles diagram) "The insets are held by rivets (small domed ones; larger ones added)" Johnbod (talk) 19:00, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is the "collar" with the lions a separate piece? There's "and like the upper knop is biconical (i.e. of two parts)" later.
    Its separate and a number of sources describe it as crest, which I don't entirely get. But of course not a collar, and clarified. Ceoil (talk) 19:44, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the ferrule, I can't see " and an openwork section"? Other than in the knop. Really, openwork is best used when you can see right through a piece (as between the dogs' legs). Not sure from the pics if this is the case with the triangle sections.
  • I think that's it - these are tricky things to describe, that's for sure!
  • Johnbod (talk) 19:00, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    "tricky things to describe" - for real. Liz's once had a job describing ancient artifacts for a museum, but her skill didnt obv rub off on me. Thanks for schooling and bearing with. Ceoil (talk) 02:29, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Returning. The lead is better for sure but "11th-century structure repaired and added to in the sometime around the early 15th century" needs a choice, which I didn't like to make.
    Now "added to". Repaired was because some lost components, eg the drop plate, were replaced. Ceoil (talk) 21:36, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • We still have it being discovered "on the grounds" of the monastery, rather than "in" - unless this is an Irish English thing; "on" slihtly hints it was just lying on the grass, rather than being dug up, found in a recess or whatever (which we don't know).
    Reworded in lead as "in Clonmacnoise monastery", as the 2nd or 3rd hand story is that it was in a small chapel in the complex. Ceoil (talk) 20:55, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Designed in the Ringerike style,[42] they are held in place by thin threads lined with strips of niello that appear as decorative flaps that" better, but I still think "held in place" risks confusing the reader that this is a physical rather than purely visual "holding". Might "overlaid" be better? On the same tack, I think straps, strips or bands better than threads, which are typically round rather than flat. What about: "Designed in the Ringerike style,[42] the animals' bodies are overlaid with patterns of thinner strips, outlined with niello, that appear as decorative bands that ..."? The NMI Wallace & O'F book has "outlined", btw.
    Simplified, yes outlined is correct. Ceoil (talk) 22:12, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "plaque showing a looming, grotesque animal head that may be a dragon" I must say that to me it looks more likely to represent a very stylized human mask. If the sources allow for this possibility, we should say "grotesque human or animal head". Btw, as mask now says "More generally in art history, especially sculpture, "mask" is the term for a face without a body that is not modelled in the round (which would make it a "head"), but for example appears in low relief.", so strictly the correct term, but perhaps confusing to readers.
  • Something seems wrong with the You Tube external link.

Johnbod (talk) 18:24, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi Johnbod, can you revisit when you get a chance pls. Ceoil (talk) 19:42, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Final run: "At its top is a carved enamel plaque showing a looming, grotesque human head" and lower "copper plate below the drop contains carved enamel double-spiral designs". Champlevé says "in which troughs or cells are carved, etched, die struck, or cast into the surface of a metal object, and filled with vitreous enamel" - to which one might add "gouged". Bronze in not exactly easy to carve (and enamel impossible to carve) and the "looming, grotesque human head" is surely not carved but cast; also it has no visible enamel (left in place anyway) in the fairly decent photo. Maybe "It is a champlevé enamel piece with a looming, grotesque human head at its top", leaving the precise technical method vague unless the sources have more. "Plaque" is a bit misleading, when most of it is a hole. Also isn't ""copper plate underneath the drop contains enamel double-spiral designs" clearer? I presume this where it is? Johnbod (talk) 21:05, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, that's it. Support, but I think my last comment should be addressed. Nice work! 21:13, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Thank you very much. Agree with last points, and have restated. Ceoil (talk) 21:52, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

[edit]
  • "Although its origins and medieval provenance are unknown, croziers have always acted as ceremonial staffs for bishops and high-status abbots". "Although" wrongly implies that the first part of the sentence qualifies the second part. Also not "always" - below it says since 431.
  • "Rediscovered under uncertain circumstances," This is the third time you have said this.
  • "Henry Charles Sirr until his collection was acquired by the Royal Irish Academy on his death in 1844" The article on Sirr says he died in 1872.
  • "According to the archaeologist A. T. Lucas, the croziers thus acted as "the principle vehicle of [the saint's] power". Is the wrong spelling of "principal" in the source? Also, I would leave out "the" in "the croziers" if he is referring to croziers in general. If he is referring to specific croziers, you need to clarify.
  • "a chalice, a wine vessel and an arm-shrine, all now lost,[n 1] all of which would have been deposited at the burial site centuries after the saint had died" Repetition of "all" I think you could delete "all of".
  • What is a cross-slab?
  • "the crook (the curved head)" It is odd to explain the crook the 11th time you use the word (and the second time in the description section).
  • "Many of the patterns and decorations are influenced by the late 10th-century Ringerike and 11th-century Urnes styles of Viking art". Both here and in the lead you describe Viking influence, but not (unless I have missed it) what Irish and other styles influenced the design.
    • Comment: The NMI Wallace & O'F book has "a version of the mid-eleventh-century international style known as Ringerike", which is another way of looking at it, but the style is always mainly associated with Viking art. Equally it clearly relates to interlaced animals from Insular art and Celtic art stretching over the preceding several centuries, not to mention the general Animal style of Migration Period art, but I wouldn't venture onto the precise relationship without heavy referencing. Pages 215-219 in the same book are relevant, but rather vague. Johnbod (talk) 18:38, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ok thanks. Very similar to the above is outlined in Moss p.311, where she says the "...croziers display animal ornament, interlace and key patterns in a native idiom, but later examples reflect stylistic changes that took effect [from the 10th-12th c.'s ie...]....The Ringerike & Urnes styles in their Insular adaptations...[can be seen] on the croziers from Clonmacnoise and Lismore." I agree its best to keep close to the source here, and have added a one-liner (this is an introductory para to the description anyway, and the "animal ornament, interlace and key patterns in a native idiom" are detailed below). Ceoil (talk) 20:31, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:05, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Dudley. Addressed with exception of last one. Ceoil (talk) 17:26, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It cast from a single piece of wood, metal onto which is attached and inner, single binding and the metal plates for the crest and drop.". This sounds clumsy and vague. How about "It is composed of a single piece of wood, encased in copper alloy, with an inner binding and plates for the crest and drop." - adapt as correct of course.
    yes better. Done Ceoil (talk) 18:37, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Each side of the crook is decorated with four or five zoomorphic snake-like animals described in silver cast rows of tightly bound figure-of-eight". "described" seems an odd word here. Maybe "Each side of the crook is decorated with four or five silver cast zoomorphic snake-like animals in rows of tightly bound figure-of-eight".
    reworded Ceoil (talk) 18:37, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "knop" is not linked. Dictionaries define it as a knob, but from the illustrations it appears to be a bulge which goes right round the staff. Is it possible to clarify?
    Have linked to [wikt:knop|wikt]], and the lead says "protruding decorative metal fittings". They can fully wrap or be semi-circular. Ceoil (talk) 19:27, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wiktionary does not help as it just says knob. I think it would be better to add a note explaining more fully, including whether they fully wrap on the Clonmacnoise Crozier - and referring reader to the image of the upper knop, which is more helpful than any explanation in words. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:43, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree, and have added a WIP section to Insular crozier which has images of four examples and is now linked to. Its not great; Youngs has a glossary that could use, but am traveling atm and do not have access to my book sources. Meanwhile, we also now say The shaft contains three large and ornately decorated barrel-shaped and individually cast knops, each of which fully wraps around the staff. Ceoil (talk) 20:48, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The positioning of the human figures is likely influenced by the late 9th-century Prosperous Crozier." I am not sure this is helpful in the absence of information about the Prosperous Crozier. It also sounds very speculative as you point out that there were presumably many other croziers which have not survived which could just as well have influenced the design.
    removed Ceoil (talk) 18:37, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The original ferrule remains is intact". I am not sure what you mean here.
    the ferrule is the original, but not sure it needs to be said. Removed. Ceoil (talk) 18:37, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "might have obtained it directly or indirectly from the family of its hereditary keepers". What does this mean? The descendants of its discoverers?
    Added "a local family who would have looked after and protected the object over centuries", normally the family tat interited the land after the fall of the monastery, who would have hidden it for safe keeping. Needs a sperate article, which now now goes on my list :) Ceoil (talk) 19:34, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dudley Miles (talk) 10:05, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Harry

[edit]
  • Can we define crozier in the opening sentence?
  • Similarly, "openwork" could use an inline definition ("holes" is probably a bit too simplistic, but it doesn't need to be verbose)
  • the principal vehicle of [the saint's] power I might suggest replacing "the saint" with "Patrick" if you mean that saint in particular and not saints in general.
  • The link on "zoomorphic" should be on the first use of the term
  • according to Murray, "spring from their heads and bodies forming knotted vegetal-like designs around them" Introduce Murray in the body (he's introduced in the lead but this is his first mention in the body)
  • "fell into ignorant hands, and were probably deemed unworthy of preservation" Ideally, you need a reference as close to the quote as possible (after the closing quote mark or end of sentence) for source-text integrity.
  • presumably meaning that their precious metal was melted Who is presuming? As written, it looks like editorialising; if it's the opinion of the source, it should be attributed in-text.

Very little to pick at really. Great work, and an interesting article. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:05, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Harry, thanks for the look, all addressed now. Re the first two, yes - its important to be accessible for general readers; it can be annoying reading an article on main page clearly written for specialists. Ceoil (talk) 00:24, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
LGTM; Support. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:06, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 31 March 2022 [6].

Pronunciation of GIF

[edit]
Nominator(s): theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 05:15, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is it pronounced "gif", or is it pronounced "gif"? No one knows! But people seem to have very strong opinions on it, strong enough that many dictionaries, linguists, journalists, and even the White House took notice. The result of that ripe-for-Tumblr chaos is this article, neatly summarizing quite a few months' worth of research. A warm thanks to Kavyansh.Singh for helping me take this through these last few steps before nominating, as well. This is my second nomination—fingers crossed, and thanks in advance! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 05:15, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from buidhe

[edit]

Comments Support from ChrisTheDude

[edit]
  • "words like flibbertigibbet and tergiversate, both pronounced with a soft g, were included in the list of 68 soft gi words. When this factor was adjusted for," - unclear what "this factor" is. Presumably it's that some very obscure words were included in the analysis.....?
  • "usage [....] were nearly the same" - singular/plural disagreement
    • Changed the whole sentence to When the prevalence of each word was taken into account, it was found that the hard and soft g appeared in nearly equal frequencies in gi words.
  • "when one is first encountered with" - don't think this is a valid construction. "When one encounters" would be appropriate.
    • Ah, yeah, done
  • "2.8 percent favored an enunciated GIF" - what is meany by "enunciated GIF"? Saying each letter individually?
    • yep, changed that to favored enunciating each letter. Side note: do you have any idea how much it's killing me to not be able to use favoured?
  • "Wilhite's speech upon the accepting the award" => "Wilhite's speech upon accepting the award"
    • whoops, thanks!
  • "while Cambridge Dictionary of American English" - I would say this should be "while the Cambridge Dictionary of American English"
    • fixed!
  • That's what I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:03, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Eviolite - support and source review pass

[edit]

Interesting article. Taking a spot here for comments/source review, which I should be able to do as it's relatively short; please ping me if I don't get back within the week. eviolite (talk) 17:01, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing (Special:Permalink/1074747033):

  • 6) I am pretty worried about the use of what basically amounts to a self-published Github Pages blog post - while the author does seem to have the credentials (though doesn't have an article themselves), the post isn't peer reviewed or anything; WP:SCHOLARSHIP suggest secondary sources are preferred as well. If the research is important enough to cover a good few sentences in the article, I would expect there to be at least news articles discussing it, which should be cited instead.
    • After the spotcheck, I see now that most of the info before this reference is actually in McCulloch's Mental Floss article, but as I mention in the bullet point right below this one, I'm not sure if it's reliable enough.
  • 7) Same issue as above (Mental Floss is not particularly reliable itself), though if kept I'd recommend adding author-link=Gretchen McCulloch. Since the info covered by this ref is a theory with no empirical evidence, per WP:DUE there should be mentions of it in reliable sources.
    • Hmm. I definitely hear you, but I think it scrapes by as an expert self-published source. Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. Both McCulloch and Dow fulfill that requirement handily, they are experts on the topic. It's true that any exceptional claim would require exceptional sources, but I don't think any exceptional claims are being made here, and certainly nothing involving BLP. If you're looking for WP:DUE, it has two paragraphs on the more reliable side of Ars Technica where it's called an "incredible explainer". A bit flowery, but I think this is a pretty legitimate usage, if a little overwrought. Would you be all right with adding the Ars Technica source in some way and downsizing the explanation? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 02:16, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • 13 and 15 are cited polls so even though the sources may not be "high-quality reliable" in general, this use's probably fine. It should be clarified though that the StackOverflow poll specifically asked software developers (as mentioned in the text of the survey results, and as SO is after all a developer site.)
  • 17) The Wire should be The Atlantic Wire (the article on The Wire is about a completely different publication)
  • 19) The WP:RSP entry on The Daily Dot recommends demonstrating due weight; given that, I'm not sure if the comment about government insight is necessary. There are other RSes discussing Obama's statement[7][8] but none of them mention the earlier post. Van der Meulen does mention what seems to be a different Tumblr post (different date) saying the same thing, but I can't find it - maybe the paper's referring to one of the posts that just mirrors the Q&A session.
  • 21) I don't think Dictionary.com is actually published by Random House, just that the content is based on their dictionary (similarly, I don't think there is a "Dictionary.com Abridged" to differentiate the unabridged version from).

Text-source integrity (spot checks): Chose 15 references at random.

  • 8 (van der Meulen pp. 2, 5):
    • Page 5 verifies that system arguments are most common, and Page 2 verifies what system arguments are - good.
    • However, for all of the van der Meulen references, I would recommend using the page numbers on the text itself (i.e. within the journal) rather than on the PDF (so 46, 49 in this case) in case of other formats (like having a copy of the entire journal issue.)
  • 16 (van der Meulen p. 1):
    • The source specifically says that Wilhite "seems to be" the first to give usage advice, rather than it being an assertion as the WP article does.
    • I can't see where "The immediate audience reacted positively to this short speech, but it generated controversy online, where some pushed back against Wilhite's pronunciation of his file format" is in the paper. It seems that this is in the NYT source, though, so the [1] reference there should be moved down a sentence.
  • 15 (Stack Overflow):
  • 21 (Dictionary.com):
  • 22 (Cambridge Dictionary):
  • 5 (ABC Radio National):
    • The article credits the statement that "most people" use hard g to "the author of an encyclopedia of image formats", not Wilhite.
      • I mean—we can't just assume that it'd be weird to anonymously credit an image file format creator for a standalone quote when an image file format creator is named in the previous paragraph? I just assumed that quote was a coy way of referring to Wilhite. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 00:53, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • 4 (The Economist):
    • Not a text-source integrity thing, but is there any reason The Economist is not linked in the article?
    • For the first use of [4], the wording is pretty similar, but I don't think there's any other reasonable way to word it so it should fall under WP:LIMITED. (Maybe change "lack"?)
      • I mean, I changed it to "go without" and "are short of", but now I feel like I'm in Harry Potter and side characters don't do so well in that book.
    • Second use is fine. I assume the last sentence, about developed countries, comes from the stacked bar chart rather than any text.
  • 11 (Gizmodo):
    • Good
  • 23 (Merriam-Webster):
    • Good
  • 1 (New York Times):
    • First use: it doesn't technically say "looped", but it's really minor and you can probably find a billion sources which do
    • Other uses are good (with the caveat that the third use should be shifted down a sentence, as mentioned above)
  • 6 (Michael Dow):
  • *Apparently nearly everything mentioned before this reference is actually only in McCulloch's article (no mention of 105, 68, 37, "flibbertigibbet", "tergiversate", or one-syllable words in Dow's post). The reference [6] should probably be moved just after the first sentence in this paragraph, then.
    • For the portion after the first sentence, it is entirely verified by McCulloch, but I'm still left a bit confused since the original post seems to come to different conclusions (unless 6.03 and 5.17 are considered "almost exactly the same", or, as always, I'm missing something.)
      • I think what McCulloch is driving at in the next
  • 10 (van der Meulen p. 5):
    • I don't think the source backs up that this argument is "common". It gives one example of a frequency analysis-esque argument, and it mentions that only "in a few rare cases" is an entire linguistic system considered, which I would assume is a superset of frequency analysis.
      • Hmm, all right. I've made some changes there, if you want to take a look.
  • 12 (van der Meulen p. 4):
    • The source says 65.2%, not 62.5%. Siri is mentioned, but not Amazon Alexa.
      • Ah, damnit. Fixed that! 00:53, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
    • I would recommend moving the first use of this ref to after the sentence ending "favored a soft g", to be clear that said sentence is verified by this source and not [11].
  • 17 (The Atlantic Wire):
    • Good

That's all; no particular comments on prose right now, but I do have concerns with sourcing and referencing. eviolite (talk) 03:28, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks, eviolite! I think I've responded to everything, but it looks like we'll need to discuss a bit more. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 02:16, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the replies and edits - I've struck out the ones I consider resolved (and also the ones that were fine to begin with, for clarity), and will leave comments down here:
    • Didn't realize that Dictionary.com was using a template. I see where it says Dictionary.com Unabridged now, but still remain unconvinced that it's published by Random House, so I've raised it at that template talk page; not an issue for here.
    • For the ABC Radio one, the quote specifically says "the author of an encyclopedia of image formats", not "the author of an image format".
    • I don't think your comment "I think what McCulloch is driving at in the next" above went through correctly - not sure what you were trying to say.
    • My concerns regarding frequency analysis still remain; maybe the changes didn't save
    • In the new LA Times ref, Rodriguez is misspelled
    • Overall, I think this review really hinges on the suitability of the Dow and McCulloch sources for a FA. I suppose given the caveat for experts in SPS they might be fine, but again the fact that the two articles don't back each other up is concerning (you probably had something to say there, but it got eaten). The Ars Technica source you linked is the only other one I could find that mentions it, and I think it would be wise to cut down on the specifics of the analysis to reflect how much the RS gives (some is likely still necessary to explain what's going on and the inconclusive conclusion/coin flip is fine, but the specific numbers maybe not so much). I'm not super happy, but that'd probably be good enough for me; I'm not super familiar with the FA criteria and will also of course see what others think about it.
    Regards, eviolite (talk) 04:50, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    eviolite: it's not that the comment got eaten as much as I forgot to finish it. so – fun stuff :)
    • Ohhhh. Okay, I was reading "encyclopedia of" more like "plethora"—e.g. that wilhite invented a bunch of them. That's so weird, why would ABC phrase it that way? I've corrected it. Fixed rodriguez and the frequency analysis sentence, too.
    • re McCulloch: I think the specific log frequency calculation you might be looking for isn't explicitly in the original paper. McCulloch talked to Dow before writing her mental_floss article.
      • Original research: One possibility is that when you add the two log frequency calculations in the paper together, they pretty much cancel each other out. When gi is in the initial position, the log frequencies are 6.03g compared to 5.17j. When gi isn't in the initial position, the log frequencies are 5.2g and 6.06j. If you added those together, you'd get 11.23g and 11.23j.
      • In any case, there are lots of things in the mental_floss article that aren't in the original blog post.
    So, I'd be okay with paring it down, but I'd like to see if there's consensus on how much and what first. Happy to go with the flow :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 22:25, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Alright, thanks for the comment. I'm satisfied with the whole Dow/McCulloch thing for now, again with the caveat that others are likely more familiar with FA-level sourcing than me. I'm still not sure about Another common "system" argument is frequency analysis, which examines how many other words in the English language employ hard or soft g pronunciations in other situations, similar to Dow's analysis though (as I noted above, the source seems to only give one example, and looking at it again, I don't think "frequency analysis" is the right term as that specifically relates to cryptanalysis.) eviolite (talk) 01:48, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    eviolite ah, gotcha—fixed that one! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 01:54, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, frequency analysis is pretty common outside cryptanalysis, as far as I know. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 01:54, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, the article only covers cryptanalysis use cases of it, so maybe the general letter frequency is a better target for that link. Anyway, that's not a big deal at all, so I'm happy to support now. eviolite (talk) 02:12, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    oh, interesting. thanks for the thorough review, eviolite! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 02:20, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from AviationFreak

[edit]
  • In the "Analysis" section, the name "Van de Meulen" appears often with different capitalizations of "Van". In the second sentence of "Polling" it is lowercased at the beginning of a sentence, but it appears capitalized mid-sentence in the pie chart caption. Don't see any MOS guidance right off the bat here, but it should at least be consistent.
  • Steve Wilhite could be piped to "the file format's creator" in the lede, more of a personal preference though.
  • ...linguistic analyses show that there is no clear advantage for either main pronunciation based on other words in the English lexicon. - I assume "advantages" in this case is meant to mean advantages in an argument?
  • Opportunity to include an example of a GIF in "Background"?

This is all for a quick skim; will continue later. AviationFreak💬 23:20, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to see you again, AviationFreak :) I didn't want to pipe the name, since Wilhite comes up enough to be important, but not often enough to be easily memorable throughout the article. Other than that, I think I got it all! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 23:43, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, glad to hear you remember me :) - No worries about not piping. I've looked over the article a second time and the only thing I note is that the "van" is uncapitalized at the beginning of the second sentence in "Polling". I think that even for a name that would usually be in lowercase, it should be capitalized at the beginning of a sentence. AviationFreak💬 21:58, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@AviationFreak: ah, oops–fixed, i think! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 22:25, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me! I am happy to support. /ɡɪf/ to the grave! AviationFreak💬 02:36, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
thank ya thank ya! :D theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 02:41, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from a455bcd9

[edit]
  • The article seems focused on the Pronunciation of GIF in English (lede starts with: The pronunciation of GIF in the English language has been disputed since the 1990s.). However, French, Spanish, Finnish, and Arabic pronunciations are briefly mentioned in "Background". The pronunciation in Asian countries is also mentioned in "Polling" but we don't know if it's about the pronunciation in English or in the respondents' native language. So should the article be renamed "Pronunciation of GIF in English"? Or the article expanded to cover other languages? (e.g., according to the Russian edition: "В русском языке файлы в формате GIF обычно называют «ги́фками».", without source)
  • Stackoverflow's Developer Survey Results 2017 are available for download under the Open Database License (ODbL). So we could (and should?) make an SVG version of this map and add it to the article.

A455bcd9 (talk) 19:40, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@A455bcd9: Thanks for weighing in! So, there's no simple answer to either comment here, but I'll do my best.
re globalization: Arguably, a representative sample of global literature on the topic is biased towards American English. The GIF was invented relatively recently (1987) by an American programming team, as was the acronym and its intended pronunciation. To the extent that the GIF appears in other languages, it's a loanword. To me, at least, that's why I couldn't find much in the way of foreign-language work on the pronunciation. I included any useful foreign-language sources I found, but my assessment of the available literature is that this is primarily an English thing that happens to branch out into other languages. So, i've cut "in the english language" from the lead sentence, but I don't think there's a need to contextualize more than that.
As for the graph... sigh, easier said than done, but I'll do my best. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 23:25, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmph. What irks me is the knowledge that the dataset returns three values; the number of people who use the hard g, the number who use the soft g, and the number who enunciate each letter (and the number who use something else). Yeah, I could just use the hard g/soft g numbers, but that'd exclude the reality that quite a few countries prefer that pronunciation over both hard and soft g. What I would love to do is assign each percentage to a red, green, and blue value, to let one graph represent all three important percentages. e.g. India is 16.51% hard g, 28.07% GIF, and 55.43% soft g. So, that would come out to 16.51% red, 28.07% green, and 55.43% blue, or  . Or, if we were to grade on a curve so that the highest number gets 100%, it'd be  . That'd be pretty hard to read for most, though. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 00:25, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I put a listing of all the colours in my sandbox. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 00:56, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes foreign-language sources may be harder to find. Here's what I found after a quick search on Google.
The two reference French dictionaries mention the word: Larousse and Robert. They both agree on the "ʒif" pronunciation (see: File:LL-Q150 (fra)-LoquaxFR-GIF.wav). So Some in France instead opt for /ʒɪf/ (audio speaker iconlisten) is incorrect (I've never heard any French speaker pronouncing it like that and the [ɪ] vowel sound doesn't exist in Standard French according to French phonology) and the file should be replaced by the correct one.
In Spanish it seems that the word is pronounced "heef" (source) or [xif] (source).
In Dutch, "gif" [ɣɪf] originally means "poison" (source) so there's maybe a different pronunciation to disambiguate.
In German, the pronunciation is slightly different than in English and seems to be with a hard g only (File:De-GIF.ogg).
Regarding the map: you're right, it's maybe too complex if there are 3 options. We could use hard g/soft g numbers only (like The Economist) and add a symbol on each country if a third option is popular (>10%?) there? A455bcd9 (talk) 11:09, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like the dictionary section has room for expansion, but I wouldn't be comfortable on relying most of these sources (except the french, that looks good). I'll keep brainstorming on the map. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 21:06, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To answer your question @Gog the Mild: I don't oppose this nomination. The article seems good but I'm not knowledgeable enough to say it meets all the criteria to be a featured article. A455bcd9 (talk) 14:03, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Theleekycauldron, I can see you added back "in the English language" in the lede. What do you think about the following modification for the lead? The pronunciation of GIF [] has been disputed since the 1990s. GIF, an English acronym for the Graphics Interchange Format, is popularly pronounced as a one-syllable word. The most common pronunciations in the English language are /dʒɪf/ (audio speaker iconlisten) (with a soft g as in gin) and /ɡɪf/ (audio speaker iconlisten) (with a hard g as in gift), differing in the phoneme represented by the letter G. [...] Modern English dictionaries generally accept both main alternatives as valid, and linguistic analyses show no clear advantage for either main pronunciation based on the frequency of the pronunciation in other English words. Pronunciation also varies in languages other than English. A455bcd9 (talk) 10:17, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@A455bcd9: done! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 09:14, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

[edit]

Could the issue with the Englishness of the article be fixed by simply renaming the article something like "Pronunciation of GIF in the English language", with other languages being mentioned in a "In other languages" section (or the like; that's just a rough idea).--Gen. Quon[Talk](I'm studying Wikipedia!) 15:33, 15 March 2022 (UTC) As Theleekycauldron noted, this does seem to be a largely English issue that has radiated out to other languages.--Gen. Quon[Talk](I'm studying Wikipedia!) 15:33, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from mujinga

[edit]
  • This will mainly be feedback on how the article reads to me Mujinga (talk) 13:07, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wilhite can be linked at the picture caption
  • "Similar acronym discrepancies arise with NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration, pronounced /ˈnæsə/) and NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization, pronounced /ˈneɪtoʊ/)" - it strikes me to make this sentence globally accessible, then it would be great to be able to listen to the pronunciations of both acronyms
    really, this thing isn't gonna be an FA unless I get over this cold? okay, I'll try to clear my nose/throat in a couple hours. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 17:23, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mujinga: Added an audio file for NASA (although it's a little NASAlly). NATO is tricky, though, because there's the formal and colloquial versions of the pronunciation. Which do you think I should go with? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 22:09, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    maybe it's best to use more from the sources. McCulloch says "acronyms aren't always pronounced like their roots (the "a" in NATO isn't the same as the "a" in Atlantic)" and vd Meulen says "Proponents of the [dʒif] pronunciation, on the other hand, point to acronyms like SCUBA, in which the first vowel is always pronounced as [uː], even though the corresponding word, ‘underwater’, is pronounced with an [ʌ]: ‘It's not Jraphics Interchange Format by that logic, NASA would be pronounced Nay-sa and SCUBA would be pronounced Scuh-buh’ (DHCKris, 2015)" Mujinga (talk) 23:30, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mujinga Well, I did already invoke scuba, but I beefed it up a little. I think I got the rest of the citation changes below- i'm sorry these are taking so much back-and-forth. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 08:49, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • link The Economist in text
  • "incidents" reads like a bit of a list, which of course it is. but maybe some of the small paragraphs could be brought together and linked up
    I linked a couple of 'em, does it work? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 18:25, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The New York Times faced some light criticism" - from who?
    added "on social media" theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 18:25, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • do dictionaries need their own section?
    put it in "analysis"—seems good there, and at least it stops that pie chart from overflowing into the next section theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 04:23, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Webb, Tiger (August 9, 2018). "Is it pronounced GIF or JIF? And why do we care?". ABC News. Archived from the original on December 29, 2021. Retrieved December 28, 2021. - something garbled there with the wikilink which shows ABC News (Australia)| right now
  • are the second two mentions of Oxford University Press not linked on purpose?
  • Dewey, Caitlin (December 4, 2013). "'Jeopardy' has conclusively settled the GIF pronunciation war". Washington Post. Archived from the original on March 4, 2022. Retrieved March 3, 2022. - should 'Jeopardy' be written Jeopardy there?
  • Buck, Stephanie (October 21, 2014). "70% of People Worldwide Pronounce 'GIF' With a Hard 'G'". Mashable - likewise should % be percent here?
  • titles of references can be converted to house style using https://titlecaseconverter.com/ (tick the wikipedia style) - this tip was recently shown to me by SusunW
    • hmmm when i use the the convertor it gives for example "It's settled! Creator tells us how to pronounce.." → "It’s Settled! Creator Tells Us How to Pronounce.." Mujinga (talk) 21:11, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • still open Mujinga (talk) 09:48, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        Mujinga, the citation case is consistent with the style I prefer (which is allowed per MOS:CT and MOS:VAR)—sentence case for newspapers and journal articles, title case for books. Is there a specific inconsistency you have an issue with? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 20:13, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Citation_style seems the relevant link for that, seems OK.
        Looking at the references as they are now, I would suggest translating the Dumazet title and these dictionary links are not consistent: Dictionnaires Le Robert (in French). / Dictionary.com Unabridged (Online). n.d. / Cambridge Dictionary. Cambridge University Press. / Merriam-Webster / Oxford Dictionaries Online. Oxford University Press / Éditions Larousse (in French). Some say online, some don't. A publisher needs a location as well. Dictionary.com has n.d., the others don't. Mujinga (talk) 23:44, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        made some changes to the citations (and some root templates)—anything else needed? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 08:47, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes it's annoying when the templates lead to inconsistencies. The Dumazet should be in French then with the translated title [in square brackets] that much I do know.
        For the dictionary refs, I had a quick look but don't really see the policy guidance I'm looking for which is how to quote an online dictionary. I still feel it's inconsistent that some refs say online, some don't. To go one by one:
        • Dictionary.com - this one seems fine, marked as online in the ref
        • Cambridge dictionary has three definitions, from Cambridge Business English Dictionary, Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary and one which is not referenced, is that what you have given as Cambridge Dictionary of American English? The text mentions only two definitions. If you are purely using this online version, is it better to take out the publisher and mark it as online?
        • Merriam-Webster i think should be marked as online in the ref
        • Oxford dictionaries doesn't seem the best way to refer to Lexico which says "is a new collaboration between Dictionary.com and Oxford University Press (OUP) to help users worldwide with everyday language challenges. Lexico is powered by Oxford’s free English and Spanish dictionaries". So better to ref as Lexico instead of piping in the ref and mark the ref as online
        • New Oxford American Dictionary not sure why in the refs this becomes Oxford English Dictionary, that's actually confusing when there are other Oxford dictionaries. Shouldn't the cite be on the authors?
        • Dictionnaires Le Robert - this is the publisher and shouldn't be italicized, the dictionary itself is Petit Robert. If you are using the online version it should be marked as online for consistency.
        • Same with Éditions Larousse, which is the publisher and the dictionary is Petit Larousse Mujinga (talk) 11:33, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        @Mujinga: I believe this should work, then? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 08:51, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        Nice one for the changes, getting there I think. If you want to stick with "The French Dictionnaires Le Robert and Éditions Larousse list only [ʒif] in their entries" in the text I'd suggest "The French publishers Dictionnaires Le Robert and Éditions Larousse list only [ʒif] in their respective dictionary entries". For "online Merriam-Webster and Oxford dictionaries" I'd suggest "online Merriam-Webster and Lexico dictionaries" and now I'm confused by "The New Oxford American Dictionary gave only the soft g pronunciation in its 2005 edition but added the other pronunciation in the next edition, listing the soft g pronunciation first" since the 2005 edition is The New Oxford American Dictionary but the other one is Oxford Dictionary of English so I'm not sure if it's actually the next edition. If you want to keep the dictionary name in the references that's fine by me, as long as it's consistent. Mujinga (talk) 15:20, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        @Mujinga: done! I decided to use the dictionary names, instead of the publisher names (for the French). theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 17:05, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        Phew I think that's it then! Mujinga (talk) 19:34, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks, Mujinga! Fixed everything I haven't protested against here :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 16:49, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Mujinga, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:50, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'll have another look now Mujinga (talk) 09:42, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
RiP Wilhite. Article seems improved, two of my comments are not yet resolved, I've marked them as still open Mujinga (talk) 09:48, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The two issues are resolved so switching to support. Mujinga (talk) 19:35, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for all your help! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 19:58, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Update to @Gog the Mild: seems we've about wrapped up this section :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 19:41, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

Spot-checks not included.

@FrB.TG: both done! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 03:29, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments and support from Gerda

[edit]

Thank you for the invitation to a topic I know nothing about. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:06, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

TOC

  • The headers are extremely short, and would not tell much about what to expect, which is fine for the subheaders, but I believe that Analysis and possibly Incidents and Cause might profit from a bit more to-the-point descriptions.

Cause

Incidents

See also

This "war" (really?) seems a bit much ado about nothing, but a fun read. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:31, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Buidhe via FACBot (talk) 30 March 2022 [9].

Pan Am Flight 7

[edit]
Nominator(s): RecycledPixels (talk) 07:25, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pan Am Flight 7 is about an airline flight from San Francisco to Honolulu that never reached its destination. The article describes the flight, important details about the aircraft, the enormous search and rescue operation that was carried out when contact was lost with the aircraft, and details of the investigation that was carried out using a few pieces of recovered wreckage and the remains of a few of the victims. To this day, the cause of the crash has never been determined. Although there have been various theories, this incident remains an unsolved mystery.

After its initial expansion and rewrite, the article appeared on the WP front page's Did You Know? section. It later received a GA review by @The Rambling Man: and was promoted, and after a couple years of rest, recently finished a Peer review where @Zetana: and @Gerald Waldo Luis: jumped in and made some helpful suggestions for improvement. And course, there have been dozens of other editors who have made improvements and suggestions in the past couple of years. At this point, I feel it's ready to appear on the main page in the Featured Article slot. Do you? RecycledPixels (talk) 07:25, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image and source pass

[edit]

Images have appropriate purpose, caption, alt, and licenses. Sources are all reliable and I have archived them, except for Google Books as it's naturally unarchivable. I will be posting comments soon, though it will definitely be short since most of my concerns have been addressed at the PR. GeraldWL 07:40, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comments by Heartfox

[edit]
  • Why aren't the Newspapers.com links clippings so everyone can view them instead of just those with a subscription? I'm also confused by the date formatting. The prose uses month-first but the references are day-first. The article was first written using month-first and the first reference used month first so as a reader this inconsistency is a bit odd, especially the refs are not using year-month-day. Heartfox (talk) 00:54, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Date format changed to be consistent m-d-y. GeraldWL 01:59, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • My initial response to the newspapers.com clipping issue was, first, that it wasn't possible to do that for articles spanning multiple pages, and second, that the publisher preferred that I link directly to their page since I've obtained my Newspapers.com account through the Wikipedia Library. However, in searching for some answers, I found some enlightenment on the WP:Newspapers.com page that showed that I was wrong on both parts, so I'll put some time into converting those reference URL links into clippings that can be accessed by anyone. RecycledPixels (talk) 06:57, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I created a newspapers.com clip for the first reference in the list just as a test, and it doesn't look like it is worth the effort involved. The clip is here so you can see what I mean. The article, which is nearly a full page, when you view the clip, is so tiny that it is impossible to read. The only way I see to increase the size is to click on the article image, which takes me to my newspapers.com account so I can zoom in, which is the same exact page I had originally linked. If I go in private browsing mode, when I click on the image, I'm prompted to sign up for a Newspapers.com account if I want to zoom in. So I don't think the clippings feature is an improvement, and will hold off converting more unless there is a compelling argument that doing so is an improvement. RecycledPixels (talk) 07:13, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's an issue for articles spanning multiple columns, but it's not an issue for articles that are one or a few columns wide—which is most articles. Also, for multiple pages, you can do references like this: "Busy Summer is in Sight for Many Carolina Profs". UNC News. Vol. 1, no. 3. Chapel Hill, North Carolina. 23 June 1960. pp. 4–5. Archived from the original on 30 March 2021 – via Newspapers.com. Free access icon --Usernameunique (talk) 06:46, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comments by SandyGeorgia

[edit]
  • Done.

Comments from Mike Christie

[edit]

Support. The article is well-written and concise. I have a couple of suggestions that don't affect my support.

  • There's an article in the San Francisco Examiner for November 10 that gives some human interest background on the passengers; I had a look through it to see if there was anything worth including. I think it might be worth mentioning that two entire families were killed in the crash.
    I've used that article as a reference in a couple of the crew members, so there is a link to it in the references from the article. There is a longstanding convention in the Aviation WikiProject to not name any of the occupants of the aircraft except the flight crew or people who are notable enough to have their own WP article. RecycledPixels (talk)
  • The evidence of carbon monoxide poisoning seems definite enough to mention in the lead, and I think the information about William Payne's insurance could also be mentioned in the lead.
    It's one of several theories, none of which could definitely be pointed out as the primary cause of the accident. None of them are mentioned in the lead, because they're all reasonable guesses but with no conclusive evidence as to which one is true. The talk page of the article includes a similar discussion I had with someone else about a month or so ago. RecycledPixels (talk) 21:09, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:31, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK on both points. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:53, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Gerald Waldo Luis

[edit]
Resolved comments from GeraldWL 01:11, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
* I feel like "The flight's fate" and beyond can be given its own paragraph, to give it a sense of equality. Right now, it's 9 lines vs 4 lines. Breaking that apart can make it 3v6v4. I also think the whole search merits its own paragraph; the first paragraph will thus be a kind of encapsulation of what happened to the plane.
  • "Honolulu from San Francisco" --> "Honolulu from San Francisco"
  • "recovered about 900 miles (1,400 km) northeast of Honolulu." Link Honolulu here
  • The map can be given a caption saying "Map showing the flight's origin, planned destination, and crash site" or of the sort
  • "and New York City before"-- add comma between "City" and "before"
  • "Honolulu International Airport" --> "Daniel K. Inouye International Airport, located at Honolulu, Hawaii"
    The airport wasn't renamed Daniel K. Inouye International Airport until 2016. Between 1951 and 2016 it was the Honolulu International Airport. But wikilinks exist to the airport article, where readers can familiarize themselves with the airport and its history if needed. RecycledPixels (talk)
  • "Romance of the Skies" --> "Clipper Romance of the Skies"
  • "Pan Am notified the Coast Guard" --> "Pan Am notified the United States Coast Guard"
    United States Coast Guard is linked at the first use in the lead section. Done.
  • "in more than ninety minutes" --> "in more than 90 minutes"
  • "After another ninety minutes" --> "After another 90 minutes"
  • You are inconsistent with your referrals to the Coast Guard; sometimes it's "the Cost Guard", at others its "the U.S. Coast Guard".
    Corrected. The first usage in the article, in the lead section, is identified and spelled out as United States Coast Guard. All subsequent references use "Coast Guard". RecycledPixels (talk)
  • Link Pacific Ocean
    Pacific Ocean linked at first use in the lead section. RecycledPixels (talk) Done.
  • "ordered the USS Philippine Sea"-- drop the "the" per the article, which doesn't use "the". As well as for "the USS John R. Craig and the USS Orleck", as well as "commander of the Philippine Sea".
  • "the Navy" --> "the United States Navy"
  • "Upolu Point" --> "ʻUpolu Point"
  • At "eight coast guard vessels", it must be "Coast Guard"
  • "On November 14, the crew of a Navy search plane observed wreckage and bodies in the water, about 900 miles (1,400 km) northeast of Honolulu, and about 90 miles (140 km) north of the flight's intended track." I think you can move [6]:2 to the next sentence, then remove the [18] ref in this sentence.
  • Link Rear admiral (United States)
  • "Investigations by the CAB" --> "Investigations by the Civil Aeronautics Board (CAB)"
    CAB acronym introduced and linked in the lead section, all other uses of Civil Aeronautics Board used CAB. RecycledPixels (talk) Done.
  • Link Amazon basin, decapitalize "B"
  • "noting in his report that "you could duplicate loud noise by stepping hard on door between cockpit and cargo. Also loud bang could be duplicated by dropping forward toilet lid."" This can be paraphrased to "arguing in his report that the noises can be duplicated."
  • "Pan Am Flight 6, the Sovereign of the Skies, ditches" --> "Pan Am Flight 6, whose aircraft was named the Sovereign of the Skies, ditching"
  • Remove link to Honolulu International Airport, remove "International Airport" for consistency
  • "The captain of the flight was Gordon H. Brown, age 40, who had been flying for Pan Am since his 1942 graduation from Northeastern University. At the time of Flight 7, he had accumulated 11,314 hours of flight experience, including 674 hours in the Stratocruiser. The first officer of the flight, William P. Wygant, was 37 and had been employed with the company since 1946. He had a total of 7,355 flying hours, including 4,018 on the Stratocruiser." Remove the references in these sentences, as they're covered in the next sentence. As well as in "He had a total of 2,683 flight hours, including 1,552 in the Stratocruiser."
    Left the first one in because part of that sentence was sourced to the San Francisco Examiner article and the information was not duplicated in the CAB report. RecycledPixels (talk)
  • "Second officer William H. Fortenberry, acting as pilot-navigator on the flight, had worked for Pan Am since 1951 since graduating from Spartanburg Community College in South Carolina." Move the ref 28 to the final sentence, remove all references, in this sentence.
    Same issue with Fortenberry, with one part cited from the SF Examiner article, which contains a fair amount of "human interest" details about the crew members that I didn't feel was relevant enough to include in the article, but may interest someone who looks up that reference. RecycledPixels (talk)

I have addressed and/or responded to the comments so far in this section. Let me know if you would like to discuss it further. RecycledPixels (talk) 20:49, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Before I move on with my last batch of comments, I'd like to say that the lead is different from the body. Leads are like summaries of an article, whereas body is the core content. So even if the lead does link to the CAB, it must be repeated again in the first mention of it in the body. Other GAs and FAs have also followed this style, and you have too in a way: you linked Pan Am in the first section despite there being a mention in the lead. GeraldWL 01:18, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I took another look at WP:REPEATLINK and saw the mention that an object may be linked a second time in its first use after the lead section, so I've adjusted those responses and made those changes. Thanks. RecycledPixels (talk) 06:00, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome! Only thing I did left to resolve this first batch is extending "Coast Guard" in the first body mention. Now moving on the last batch. GeraldWL 08:32, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "By the time the carrier returned".. "the carrier" can be trimmed to "it" since "the carrier" has been mentioned a few words ago.
  • "an engine cowl support ring"-- you mean Towned ring?
    I believe you meant to link to Townend ring. No. See Cowling for a description of an engine cowling. I've seen "cowl" and "cowling" used interchangeably in aviation writing, I used the word "cowl" because that is what the original source used. I assume that an engine cowl support ring is something that attaches the cowl to the airframe although I have not specifically researched what the exact part is. I can link "engine cowl" to the cowling article for clarity, though. RecycledPixels (talk)
  • "Representatives from the airline" --> "Representatives from Pan Am"
  • "In their investigation, CAB officials".. "officials" --> "investigators" for consistency
  • "levels of carbon monoxide in 14".. "in" --> "within"
    Not done, "in" is a better preposition in this case.
  • "Investigators conducted".. "Investigators" --> "CAB investigators" since it's the first mention in the paragraph.
  • You often switch between "the CAB" and "CAB". Must be consistent.
    When used as a noun, it is "the CAB", as in "The CAB concluded that that the somewhat cursory investigations...". When used as an adjective, as in "CAB Investigators found several instances..." there is no "the" preceding it. I wasn't able to find any inconsistencies there, and the Civil Aeronautics Board article uses "The CAB" when using CAB as a noun (except for one inconsistency in the "offices" section) and "CAB" as an adjective, as in "CAB Chairman".
  • Link turbocharger
  • "In 1958, the following year" --> "In 1958, a year after the crash of Flight 7"
  • "The passenger, William Payne, 41, of Scott Bar, California" --> "The passenger, a 41-year-old man from Scott Bar, California named William Payne"
  • I think you can put the inflation adjustments as footnotes, since they're merely inflations and it makes the prose unecessarily longer; those who want to know can hover over the Efn.

That's all I have for this article; if all of them are resolved I'll support. GeraldWL 07:12, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again, I've implemented those suggestions or responded here to a couple that I didn't implement. RecycledPixels (talk) 18:54, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Gerald Waldo Luis: in case you didn't see my response. RecycledPixels (talk) 17:53, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry there, the watchlist got piled with other stuff that I didn't see this. It looks all good for me now, so I'm supporting this FAC. GeraldWL 01:11, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport from TRM

[edit]
  • "a massive search" seems a little POV/tone problem.
    Changed "massive" to "extensive".
  • Honolulu is linked twice in the lead but to different targets, I would suggest expanding the airport link(s) to avoid confusion.
    The link to the airport was an edit suggested by Gerald Waldo Luis in this FAC. I prefer the visible wording of Honolulu and San Francisco but he suggested linking it to the airport instead of the city. I didn't see a problem with that, but I don't want the long names of the airports to appear in the first sentence of the article, because it's just clutter to me and a bit over-precise. When I get on a plane to fly to Honolulu, I don't say I'm going to the Honolulu Airport, I say I'm going to Honolulu. So not sure how to address this suggestion.
    My only guide is to not have two different articles piped to the same visible text. It's not fair on our readers. By all means reword it accordingly, even just adding "airport" or something. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 20:04, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Changed it to the names of the airports involved. RecycledPixels (talk) 23:08, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Infobox, not seeing in ref 1 the exact geolocation of the crash mentioned?
    The wrong source is cited. The final CAB report gives a probable point of impact on page 5, and that is probably where ASN got the coordinates, that don't appear in the current version of the page. I have updated the citation for those coordinates.
  • That ref also says 937 miles/1500 km which is a bit more than the values mentioned in the lead.
    That's wrong, see next comment.
  • Isn't the crash site "approximate"? I assume that since it took several days, the wreckage/bodies etc could have moved by dozens of miles?
    So there are actually two data points here that have problems in the article. The first is where the Philippine Sea found the bodies and the wreckage, which the Oakland Tribune article cited in the body describes as "about 900 miles northeast of Honolulu" and the CAB report on page 2 describes as "some 940 miles east of Honolulu and 90 miles north of the flight's intended track". Later in the CAB report (page 5) we find that the wreckage was found at 29° 36'N, 144° 3'W. (29.60, -144.05 in decimal notation). Diving into OR-land, I used an online distance calculator, and using 21.332689, -157.919769 as the coordinates of the Honolulu Airport, I end up with a distance of 899 nautical miles (1034 miles, 1664 km). The CAB report (also page 5) further gives a probable location of the actual point of impact of 29° 26'N, 143° 34' W (29.434, -143.567), based on known ocean current vectors and reported winds. That's 916 nm from Honolulu airport, (1054 mi, 1696 km). What I don't know is whether the distances "from Honolulu" describe the distance from the Honolulu Airport, the geographic center of the city, the edge of the city, or some other location near Honolulu. None of the sources specify, so "about 900 miles" is about as close as I'm comfortable specifying. But looking into these questions has identified that the CAB report is reporting in nautical miles, so my conversions were all wrong, so I'm updating the article accordingly. I don't think the difference between "about 900 nautical miles" and "916 nautical miles from Honolulu Airport" is significant enough to affect the understanding of the article, and the more precise figures should raise WP:OR concerns. RecycledPixels (talk) 19:42, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "10–29" suffix to the aircraft type is only in the infobox, I suggest it's in the prose too.
  • Could link flight plan.
  • "10,000 feet (3.0 km) " I know Sandy asked for conversion (and I know we know that flight altitudes are always given in feet) but I suggest the conversion be made to metres rather than km.
    Lol...I didn't see that!
  • "aircraft from Honolulu conducted" could link actual Honolulu here as the first time after the lead.
  • "was just malfunctioning" no need for "just".
  • "anti-submarine planes" is there a link?
    Not that I could find. I figured if there is one, it would be in the Lockheed P-3 Orion article, and I don't see anything like that other than generic Anti-submarine warfare.
  • "ordered USS John R. Craig and" this is piped to a redirect back to itself?
    Almost, except there is markup in it to italicize the name of the ship (but not USS) that would break the hyperlink. I kept the pipe but moved the link from the redirect to the actual article.
  • "the most promising sign" again, POV/tone issues here, promising to whom?
  • Both 500 kHz and International distress frequency have articles, worth linking for me.
  • What's a "dye marker"?
    Linked to distress signal#Maritime. It's a packet of brightly-colored dye that's put in the water that can be seen by aircraft for a short period of time (like 30 minutes).
  • What are "merchant ships"?
    Linked.
  • "about 900 miles (1,400 km) northeast" see earlier comment.
  • " a Boeing 377 Stratocruiser" see above, should you add the 10-29 suffix here?
    Normally, I wouldn't, but since this section is a fairly technical discussion of the aircraft I added it.
  • "Pan Am Flight 6, whose aircraft..." that caption is a fragment so no full stop.
  • "was the second worst accident involving the Stratocruiser" ever or at the time?
    Both.
  • Might link "centrifugal force".
  • Probably should link "feathering" to something like Propeller (aeronautics)#Feathering.
  • "The flight carried 36 passengers..." reinforce "Flight 7..." here as the previous para was about a totally different flight.
  • "Thirty two of " don't we normally "Thirty-two" that?
  • "The flight carried 36 passengers and 8 crew members on the flight to Honolulu.[6]: 1  Upon arrival, 20 of the passengers were scheduled to disembark, while 16 would have continued onward at least as far as Tokyo. At Honolulu, 17 passengers were waiting to board the plane for the next segment of the flight.[5] Thirty two of the passengers were from the United States, one was from Australia, one was from Japan, one was from Turkey, and one was from Indonesia.[26][27]" does the maths work here for these passenger numbers?
    Yes. When the plane crashed on the way from San Francisco to Honolulu, there were 36 passengers. 20 of them would have left the flight while 16 of them would have remained on for the next leg. 20 + 16 = still 36. After the 20 passengers left the flight, a different 17 passengers would have gotten on for the next leg, in addition to the ones who stayed on the plane. But they never did because the plane never arrived. Of the 36 passengers who crashed, 32 were from US, 1 from Australia, 1 from Japan, 1 from Turkey, 1 from Indonesia. Still 36. I changed the order of the sentences around to hopefully make it less confusing.
  • "first officer" link?
  • "since 1951 since" ugh, repetitive.
  • Is there a link for Flight engineer?
  • "flown to the carrier to begin" what carrier?
    Philippine Sea, identified in the previous sentence. Linked earlier in the article.
  • "overhaul station" what's that?
    I'm guessing it's a maintenance facility for engine overhauls and other time-consuming repairs performed on aircraft, separate from where quick repairs and inspections would be performed. The CAB report uses the term "The Pan American overhaul base at San Francisco" while the San Francisco Examiner reference only called it "a warehouse at San Francisco International Airport".
  • "embedded in a floating pillow" picky, but with all this technical talk, one might be convinced that a "floating pillow" was part of the aircraft, rather than an actual pillow which was floating on the surface of the water...
    I personally assumed it was more like a seat cushion that was designed to act as a floatation device as in modern aircraft, but "floating pillow" was as descriptive as the report got. A different article mentioned that seat cushions were recovered. I Reworded it.
  • "one and a quarter pounds (1 kg) of" 1.25 lb -> around about 560g, not 1 kg.
  • "debris came up negative" - "came up" is a little colloquial.
  • "knocked unconscious or stunned by " is "stunned" a medical condition?
    The source doesn't get any more specific than being knocked unconscious or stunned by the crash. I assume "stunned" includes, for example, a traumatic brain injury that does not result in unconsciousness. Such an injury can leave the victim dazed and confused and unable to care for themselves. Another might be a spinal cord injury, but those are just guesses on my part. But basically I interpret it that the investigators were saying that the victims weren't necessarily unconscious when they drowned.
  • "In 1949, Albert Guay had" maybe "Six years earlier", or pop these into chronological order?
  • "a total of $230,000[b] in" put the inflation in the article, not a footnote (like the conversions).
    A different FAC reviewer suggested that putting them in footnotes would make the article less cluttered.
  • "n 1958, a year after the crash of Flight 7, ..." why not "A year after the crash..."?
  • "Helena, Montana had" comma after Montana.
  • Inflate the following monetary values too.
  • "from Scott Bar, California named" comma after Cali.
  • "filed a $300,000[d] damage" see above.

That's all I have. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:18, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've addressed or commented on all off the items here. Thank you for the time looking at the article and for your feedback. If you see anything else or find something else I've missed, let me know. RecycledPixels (talk) 00:36, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Rambling Man Thanks so much for reviewing this article. Do you feel your comments were adequately addressed? (t · c) buidhe 18:57, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, and yes, I'm content that my concerns have been addressed. Cheers, happy to support. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 11:07, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Harry

[edit]

I know nothing of this particular incident, but I've watched a lot of Air Crash Investigation!

  • There are some details that add words without improving the reader's understanding here: Admiral Felix Stump, commander-in-chief of the United States Pacific Fleet, ordered USS Philippine Sea to join the search from the port of Long Beach, California, with its helicopters and radar-equipped anti-submarine planes.[6] A few hours later, the United States Navy also ordered USS John R. Craig and USS Orleck to depart from San Diego to assist the search. You could lose almost all the names and places except the ships. Eg, "USS Philippine Sea joined the search from Long Beach, California, with its helicopters and radar-equipped anti-submarine planes. It was joined a few hours later by USS John R. Craig and USS Orleck to depart from San Diego". That reduces your word count by a third but doesn't remove any important detail.
  • On June 18, 1957, it had suffered a runaway propeller as it departed San Francisco. The crew was unable to feather the propeller and performed an emergency landing back at San Francisco some redundancy/repetition that could be eliminated with careful copy editing.
  • to determine if any of the passengers if → whether
  • For what it's worth, I respectfully disagree with TRM and think the inflation sums work well in footnotes to avoid cluttering the prose.

Little to criticise really. A tidy article that does a good job of presenting the facts available. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:03, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the suggestions. I have made the changes you suggested. Let me know if you see anything else. RecycledPixels (talk) 16:12, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
One more query: should the ships have a definite article, eg the USS Philippine Sea? I don't know the answer to this and it doesn't affect my support. Just something to ponder. Support. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:54, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The US Navy Style Guide says to not use "the" in front of a ship's name: "USS San Jose", not "the USS San Jose". I'm pretty sure this came up recently on one of the articles I had submitted for review, I just can't find it at the moment. RecycledPixels (talk) 20:56, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, here's what I was looking for... Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ships)#Using ship names in articles. RecycledPixels (talk) 21:08, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 28 March 2022 [10].

Woodleigh MRT station

[edit]
Nominator(s): ZKang123 (talk) 05:15, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My 4th FAC. This article is about another Singapore metro station which had a rather brief yet interesting history, since it was mothballed for quite a long time even after it was completed. I hope for a quick and successful review.--ZKang123 (talk) 05:15, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]

Source review - pass

[edit]

Spot checks:

  • "On 18 April 2017, Woodleigh station was closed for about three hours after a suspicious substance was found in various areas in the station. At 1:49 pm, SBS Transit announced that all trains would skip Woodleigh station due to a "security incident", though the station reopened at 4:20 pm after police established the substance to be baking flour" - all checks out. It would be good to know what happened to the people who were arrested here, given they seem to have been guilty of being really dumb rather than anything sinister - e.g. where they convicted?
  • "Woodleigh station will also serve the developing Bidadari public housing estate" - checks out, but can something more specific than 'developing' be added here given the source is from 2019? (e.g. when is the development expected to be complete?)
  • "The station is next to the site of a future bus interchange, part of an integrated commercial and residential development that will be the estate's town centre" - checks out
  • "The platforms are wheelchair-accessible. A tactile system, consisting of tiles with rounded or elongated raised studs," - I can't see where this station is specifically referred to in the source. If this is true of all stations on the line, please tweak the text to reflect this.
  • " Dedicated routes connect the station entrances to the platforms" - seems unclear?
  • "The artist intended her work to be a "snapshot" of Singapore's urban life" - not supported by the sources, which do not attribute this to the artist.
  • No close paraphrasing, and good use appears to have been made of the available sources, all of which are reliable and suitable. I'm a bit surprised that there are no non-government published books on the Singapore MRT that can be consulted here though? Nick-D (talk) 01:35, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, there aren't other official sources on the station design. The LTA usually makes publications related to our transport network.--10:30, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
      • No-one has ever written a book or website that meets WP:RS on this topic, despite the huge number of such works in other countries? Nick-D (talk) 10:12, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        First off, it's not really a significant station. There is SGTrains and Land Transport Guru but these are user-based fancruft blogs which cannot be used (and also doesn't add much). ZKang123 (talk) 12:13, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        Update 22 Mar 22: @Nick-D
        Ok I did try to search up for more independent sources, but most were just passing mentions, and nothing much that really adds to the article. Again, Woodleigh is not that of a significant station that would warrant much attention outside of Singapore.
        I did try to contact DPA Architects (the architectural firm behind the station) for further details, but so far they have not replied. ZKang123 (talk) 07:57, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Serial support

[edit]

Comments Support by Gerald Waldo Luis

[edit]

Comin' from Discord. Images look good, but the infobox image needs an alt text. Prose comments TBD. GeraldWL 06:14, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just came back to this art.! Saw the alt text, so Image pass. Now onto the article.
Resolved comments from GeraldWL 18:40, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
* Link Upper Serangoon Road
  • "Station entrance pictured in April 2011 prior to its opening"-- add comma between "2011" and "prior"
  • On the other hand at "The contract for the station's construction, and 2.5 km (1.6 mi) of bored tunnels, was awarded to a joint venture", I dont think the commas are needed.
  • "In January 2011, The Straits Times"-- "In January 2011, Christopher Tan The Straits Times"
  • "the newspaper"-- "Tan"
  • "Woodleigh station serves the North East line (NEL), part of the Mass Rapid Transit network]]"
  • "between the Potong Pasir and Serangoon stations"-- remove Serangoon link here as duplicate.
  • "the station is operated by SBS Transit, in lieu of the default SMRT Corporation"
  • "Woodleigh station will also serve the developing Bidadari"-- link Bidadari, Singapore
  • "The station is designated as a Civil Defence (CD) shelter"-- link to the CD article.
  • Link zinc
  • Link plastic film for "polymer film"
Did all the above changes. ZKang123 (talk) 05:06, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Mike Christie

[edit]

I've copyedited; please revert if I've screwed anything up.

  • Suggest making it clearer at the start of the history section that what Mah Bow Tan announced in 1996 was a new MRT line, the NEL, not just 16 stations. To a local it's probably obvious, but to a Londoner or a New Yorker 16 stations might just be an extension to an existing line.
  • Looking at the North East MRT line article, it seems there are seventeen operational stations, and that only NE2 is reserved, so I would have expected the announcement in 1996 to be of seventeen stations, including Woodleigh, but the article says "Woodleigh station was among the 16...". I see Buangkok was announced but not opened, so that can't be the difference. What am I missing?
  • "the station would only operate once future developments in the area were completed": suggest "the station would begin operating once the area around it was sufficiently developed", since I doubt that "completed" is strictly what the condition was.
  • "The Land Transport Authority and operator SBS Transit carried out feasibility studies for the station's opening": when?
    • Sources state that both continued to access the feasibility even when the station remained closed.--ZKang123 (talk) 01:13, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, but there was a fifteen year gap and if there's any more information about the timing it would good to add. Does the source say they refreshed the feasibility studies yearly? Every five years? What does "continued" mean? Does it mean that they carried out feasibility studies before the 1996 decision? Or just that they did more than one study afterwards? If the source is not precise about this, I accept we can't be either; what does the source actually say? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:09, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      From [14] (2007): The Woodleigh Station was not opened together with the rest of the North East Line (NEL) stations in 2003 because of the lack of residential developments in the stations immediate vicinity. To-date, there are still limited developments surrounding the area. The LTA is constantly monitoring the pace of developments in the areas surrounding the stations which would in turn affect the ridership for the station. At the same time, the LTA is also working closely with land use agencies to see if developments in the area can be accelerated. And during the announcement of the station's opening: We have been monitoring the developments around the Woodleigh Station for a while now. With more developments coming up and an increase in passenger flow through from the Circle Line, the time is now right to open it.
      Neither the LTA or SBS are really specific about how they access the feasibility. I also tried to search up anything in between, but there's nothing significant.--ZKang123 (talk) 09:42, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't think we can say "feasibility study" if this is the source. This just says they're keeping an eye on the developments. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:06, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Then I just remove the sentence on LTA and SBS doing feasibility studies. ZKang123 (talk) 00:53, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The opening came after several new developments nearby had been completed": do we have any dates? Can we combine this information with the mention of "new developments in the area" a couple of sentences earlier?
    • Moved the earlier sentence closer with this sentence.--ZKang123 (talk) 01:13, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I read the sources, and I see they're unspecific, but as it stands the paragraph reads clumsily. In January Tan speculates that Woodleigh will open "to serve new developments in the area", and two sentences later we say the opening came "after several new developments nearby had been completed", but we don't connect these two explicitly. I understand that it would be synthesis to assume Tan is referring to exactly the same developments as the later articles, but it is strange to act as though these are independent pieces of information. One option would be just to cut the sentence starting "The opening came...", as it adds very little information. If you don't do that then I think the paragraph needs reworking to make the information flow more naturally. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:09, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Sentence cut as suggested ZKang123 (talk) 09:44, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Train frequencies vary from 2.5 to 5 minutes depending on peak hours": this doesn't make sense. What does "depending on peak hours" mean? Is it no more than 5 minutes at offpeak? Do you mean "Train frequencies vary from 2.5 at peak hours to 5 minutes during off-peak hours"?
  • "the work shows the future generations people's lives in the 2000s": I don't know what this means.
  • "Intending to center her commission around people" is one of those almost meaningless phrases that gets used about public art; I would cut it, or use a direct quote from Ng to show her intentions.
Comments superseded by further comments below
  • "Ng recalled the positive reception she received when giving a photoengraved piece of work to her friend as a farewell gift. This experience prompted her to use photo etching for this work." This is stilted. I would make this "Ng chose to use photo etching for Slow Motion because a friend of hers had been delighted by a photoengraved work Ng had given her", if that is supported by the sources.
  • How can the artwork guide commuters? It's visible in two photos in the article and in neither case is it apparent how it can guide anyone. And given that, what does the next sentence, "The idea of..." mean?
  • I'm not sure we need the details about how Slow Motion was built -- the acetate paper, and the last paragraph. This is a short article and it seems more detail than is needed. Or is April Ng a very significant artist in Singapore, so that this is a significant fact about the station?

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:36, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Generally I think there's some less than fluent phrasing in the article. The "Public artwork" section has several examples; "a specific type of acetate" is vague; "The idea of depicting people in motion fulfilled LTA's request for artists" sounds like an attempt to avoid close paraphrasing; and I left a similar comment above about the sentence about why Ng chose photo-engraving. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:09, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Here are the photos of the relevant pages on the artwork
ZKang123 (talk) 09:47, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for those photos -- that's very helpful. Some comments on the "Public artwork" section, now that I've read the Tan article:

  • "the work is intended to show the future generations what life was like in the 2000s". This phrasing makes it sound as if this is the primary intention of the work. The source is Ng saying that "in twenty to thirty years time, people will look at our clothes...and think, 'That's what people looked like around 2000'". This is just a comment by Ng about how the art will be perceived, not a statement of her main intention.
  • "Ng chose to use photo etching for Slow Motion; this was due to the positive reception she received when giving her friend a photoengraved piece of work as a farewell gift". Suggest ""Ng had previously used photo etching to make pictures of friends of hers as farewell gifts for them; her friends had loved them, and she decided to use the technique again for Slow Motion" which makes it clearer it was multiple people, and that the images were of her friends themselves, and I think reads more smoothly.
  • "After amassing photos of pedestrians, workers at the station and LTA staff, Ng arranged the photos in such a way that the movement and direction of pedestrians guide commuters either to the platforms or out of the station. The idea of depicting people in motion fulfilled LTA's request for artists to incorporate the practical wayfinding aspect in their work." I don't see in the source that she took photos of pedestrians; it says "the team working on Woodleigh station, LTA's staff as well as her family and friends". I also don't think we can say she succeeded in her artistic goal; we have to talk about intent. Suggest: "Ng used photos that showed the diversity of Singapore's culture, representing people of all races and ages. She took the photos herself, using LTA staff and the Woodleigh station construction crew as subjects, along with photos of her friends and her husband and son. The LTA wanted the Art-in-Transit works to have a "wayfinding" element to help guide commuters towards the platforms or out of the station, and Ng attempted to achieve this by making sure that some of the photos were of people moving in the approriate direction." I think you need the cite for this (whether you use my wording or not) to span two pages as the paragraph in the source crosses a page boundary.
  • "Zinc was chosen as the figures could be reproduced better on the plates and also reflects the architectural materials used for the station". Suggest "Ng chose zinc instead of copper because the photos she took reproduced better in zinc. The choice of zinc fit in well with the station's design, which used zinc in the roof materials." There's no implication in the source that the fact that zinc fit in with the station's architectural design was a factor in Ng's choice.
  • "The plates were degreased before a layer of polymer film was laminated on the plates. Under ultraviolet light, the film was exposed to the enlarged copies of the photos, and the plates reproduced the images." This technical information seems out of place to me; this is information about how photo etching works in general. We wouldn't talk about how oil painting works if she had worked in oils. What I think we can do is talk about this elements of her work that were specific to this installation -- the humidity issue, for example, which I see you've cut. You originally had "Due to Singapore's humidity, the polymer films kept sticking to the plates, which made them difficult to adjust; her colleagues and experts in Edinburgh suggested spraying the film and plates with water, which worked" I think we should cut the two sentence you have now, and replace them with something that focuses on the humidity issue, giving enough technical information to understand it but no more. Suggest "Singapore's high humidity caused problems with the photo engraving process; to create the images, a polymer film had to be applied to the zinc plates, and the humidity caused the film to stick to the plates immediately, so that it could not be adjusted. Ng was able to resolve the problem by spraying the film and plates with water before applying the film." It's tempting to mention that she got this advice from Edinburgh but I think it requires yet more explanation that takes us too far off topic.

That's everything I have. I'm going to collapse the comments about this section I made above because they're no longer relevant. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:58, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • For the first point, then I removed that comment since that's not her main intention.
  • Alright reworded as per you suggested. Though I prefer maintaining formality and wrote "the gifts were well-received" instead of "her friends had loved them".
  • Fixed accordingly.
  • Fixed accordingly.
  • Fixed accordingly.
ZKang123 (talk) 01:03, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support and a note for the coords: the wording for the last paragraph is almost entirely mine; in a long article I wouldn't bother to point this out, but it's ten to fifteen percent of this article. I don't think that prevents me from supporting, but I want to be transparent about it just in case. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:51, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from KN2731

[edit]

For transparency, I was asked at WP:Discord to look at this. I don't really have much to add with the extensive prose reviews above. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 08:01, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Youngberg Terrace and Avon Park aren't mentioned anywhere outside the lead.
  • Why's April Ng linked? Potentially notable?
  • "Woodleigh was not planned" ... "It was originally planned" – repetitive, replace one with "intended" or similar
  • "parliament session" – capitalise P since it's referring specifically to the Parliament of Singapore; for generic use "parliamentary session" is more appropriate
  • "The station is next to the site of a future integrated commercial and residential development Woodleigh Residences part of the estate's future town centre, which will include a future bus interchange" – sentence structure seems a little odd. Try adding a comma before and a dash after Woodleigh Residences?
Fixed per suggested. ZKang123 (talk) 09:32, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support on prose. Comprehensiveness and structure seem ok but I haven't checked closely. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 09:40, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Query to FAC coords

[edit]

@FAC coordinators: Am I allowed to nominate another page for FAC? This nomination has 4 prose supports, as well as an image and source review. ZKang123 (talk) 00:41, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:40, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 26 March 2022 [15].

Super Mario 64

[edit]
Nominator(s): Coolperson177

This article is about the platformer that changed 3D gaming forever (according to every video game journalist, anyway). I originally came to this article to fix a cite error, but then I saw the talk page and all the opportunities for improvement. Since then, I and many others have been working on the article to fix its prose, complete citations, and expand this article's coverage. Now, I think it's ready. Let's work to get back its star. Again. — Coolperson177 (t|c) 15:29, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]

Comments from Panini!

[edit]

It was disappointing to see this delisted, so it's great to see you step up and return it to its former glory! I will review this sometime in the future. See, instead of reviewing this, a commercially and critically groundbreaking video game that reshaped both platforming and paved the future of 3D gaming and established the genre as we know it, I'm working on Color Splash. No need to thank me. Panini! • 🥪 15:53, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! It's people like you that inspired me to do this. Great job on all the article improvement you've already done! — Coolperson177 (t|c) 16:58, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alright; review time!

Infobox
Lead
  • "feature 3D gameplay, it features" - "feature" is used twice in quick succession.
  • "it features traditional Mario gameplay" - Are you still referring to the Super Mario series or the franchise here? If the former, some better clarification could be used, if the latter, I'd link it.
  • "—designed to include more details than previous games—" - This is a general statement made by every developer one way or another, which boils down to "we wanted to make this game better than the last one". It doesn't necessarily need to be there.
  • Overall, this lead section seems a bit on the short side, and I'd suggest expanding it into four paragraphs instead of three. Paragraph one can be kept intact, although the last sentence could expand on the plot a bit more. I'd move the Power Stars detail to the second paragraph, which could be used to describe gameplay. The third could be used for development and release info, as it currently only really lists names and could benefit from more detail, and the fourth for reception and legacy.
Gameplay

Seeing "Mario can do so many, like crawl, climb, and kick!" is a weird sight, but considering the gap between this and its 2D counterpart, there isn't too much that can be done about it.

  • The majority of the sentences in the first paragraph begin with "The player"; see if you can find ways to switch it up!
  • "Mario's abilities in Super Mario 64" - Considering how the game's title was mentioned in full prior to this, I don't see it necessary to do so a second time.
  • "—operated by a friendly Lakitu—" - "friendly" is unnecessary. How about instead you mention here that the Lakitu is acting as a cameraman that's broadcasting Mario, which could serve more purpose to what the Lakitu is doing?
  • "Underwater, Mario's health represents how" - Add an "instead" after health to help distinguish that it's still the same health bar.
  • When linking Princess Peach's Castle, I'd instead link to Mushroom Kingdom#Locations rather than the series page.
  • I'd mention and link overworld somewhere in the second paragraph, where you mention that the levels are open-ended.
    Fair enough; I wasn't aware "hub" was a redirect. Panini! • 🥪 17:39, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also link Bowser where it first appears here.
  • I've always been curious about it (and never looked it up), so I can offer a good reader perspective. What's the context behind the 'endless staircase'? What is it blocking? As in, does it block the player from entering until they've collected 70 power stars, to which it then opens up? If so, some clarification is needed.
    • Is it clear now? The text now says: "With seventy Power Stars, the player can access the final level of the game, blocked by "endless stairs", as described in the game". — Coolperson177 (t|c) 19:30, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think the "as described in the game" is oddly placed, but this may be because I didn't describe what I meant properly. Here's a suggested phrase: "The final level of the game is hindered by an 'endless staircase', and Mario can only bypass them by collecting seventy power stars." Am I interpreting these stairs correctly? Panini! • 🥪 17:48, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Plot section is a fun read. Good Job! However, this does explain my query about the endless staircase, so my above statement applies. It's also considered a proper noun here; is it some fancy thing Bowser set up that should be capitalized, or just an endless staircase?
Development
  • I would also mention that Shigeru Miyamoto is Mario's creator to better help signify his importance.
  • "Nintendo's booth demonstrated a 3D polygon animation of Mario's head." Is this the same head as the one in the beginning menu of 64?
  • "most of the time" and "approximately" are synonyms. It was also confusing to read, so one of them can be cut for clarity.
  • Side note; I used this source when I rewrote the Appearances section for the Mario article, which documents Mario's animation and Yoshiaki Koizumi's thought process while designing. See if you can find a use for it!
  • There's a source needed for the ending sentence of the third paragraph. The info came from somewhere!
  • "Information about Super Mario 64 was leaked in November 1995" - How?
  • The majority of the sixth paragraph deals with the game's release and the struggle that came with it. Some of this info is repeated in the actual Release section below, so I would move this info down there. The first sentence about puzzles should be moved elsewhere, too.
  • Do we know just exactly how many sound effects there were for the game? That could be a good detail to know, especially if it's compared to the Zelda games in some way.
  • The Sales section should be moved down as a subheader for Reception; it's common practice for video game articles.
Reception
  • Your call: I feel this second paragraph applies more towards the demo and the game's anticipation, so one possibility is to move it under Release. Alternatively, since the next paragraph jumps immediately into post-release, some emphasis is needed to explain that.
  • If "The Whizz" is a pseudonym, you don't necessarily need to mention it; you can just cite the magazine (GamePro)
  • The organization of these paragraphs seems a bit robotic at some points. While I have no problem with the way the information is presented, some readers might get bored if every sentence is similar to one another. Here's what I mean:
    • Paul Davies of Computer and Video Games
    • Doug Perry of IGN
    • Jonti Davies of AllGame
  • There are others not listed here. Note how these all follow an "A of B" format. You can shake things up a bit by using "B's A", "A, writing for B", "Writing for B, A", and "B reviewer A".
Awards
  • You're about to become a professional programmer: there are too many awards and reviewer recognition, in my opinion, to adequately be displayed in the reviewer table. Do you know what that means? Table time! It can be put under the paragraph that's already under Awards. If you know how to put a table together, great! If not, Pssh, good luck let me know and I'll help you out.
Legacy
  • "Some fans believed that the Wario head remained in some copies of the game, which was part of another theory that "every copy of Super Mario 64 is personalized" - I'd say these two theories are too distinct from each other, and if you separate them into two different sentences you can describe more details of what they are.
  • "including a coin that had not been collected until eighteen years after release" - Could you specify that the coin wasn't supposed to be collected?
  • Beyond that, I don't see any other issues with this entire section. Again, Good Job!

Overall, that's all from me. Any questions you have I will follow up with, and if you oppose any of my comments, as long as there's a reason to justify doing so I won't fight you on it. If you have the time, I also have a video game FAC that I would appreciate comments for. It's only a quarter the size of this article. Panini! • 🥪 17:45, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Panini!: Pinging, I've addressed all your comments. — Coolperson177 (t|c) 21:33, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Everything appears to be addressed, and although I had one more comment, I'm not going to let it impede a Support. Excellent work! This amazing project will look great under your belt, and I look forward to seeing more content improvement from you in the future. It's been almost two decades now since this article appeared on the front page, and since this article received the overhaul treatment, I highly recommend you nominate this for WP:TFA. Panini! • 🥪 18:03, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Ajpolino

[edit]

Alright, I'm not particularly knowledgeable on video games, but I did own this game back in the day, so perhaps I can serve a "layperson"'s view of the article. I'm mostly reviewing on prose quality, since that's about all I'm qualified for here. Comments/suggestions below:

Lead
Gameplay
  • "diverse than those of previous" > "diverse than in previous"
  • "wall jumping" > "wall jump" (to fit with the rest of the list)
  • "The player can replenish... a value of five." Not to be dense, but does the blue coin replenish five health, or none? If it's five, maybe you could shorten the sentence to "The player can replenish Mario's health by collecting three types of coins: yellow, with a value of one; red, with a value of two; and blue, with a value of five."?
  • "The player can also heal by walking through a spinning heart" - are spinning hearts found throughout the levels? Only in Peach's castle? At the beginning of each level? The current source doesn't specify, but maybe you have another source that does?
  • "depleted or if he falls" > "depleted or he falls"
  • "comes back up to the surface" > "surfaces"
  • Second paragraph - maybe you could mention earlier in this paragraph that the stars unlock parts of the castle? Currently the stars are introduced several sentences before their purpose.
  • "Once the player gets at least seventy Power Stars, they can access..." > "With seventy Power Stars, the player can access..."
Plot
  • Maybe there's a well-established order you're following, but I feel the Gameplay section would have been more clear if I'd read the Plot section first. Consider flipping the order?
  • "...the castle for these portals to enter the worlds and..." > "... the castle to enter these worlds and..."
Development
  • "According to engineer Dylan ... but the codename of the Super FX chip." Could this go as a note after the sentence two above (" Miyamoto considered... miniature trains'".)? It reads like a "sources disagree" type of statement. If that's not the intention, maybe you could clarify? If that is the intention, it's odd to have it separated from its partner point.
  • "Development of Super Mario 64 began on September 7, 1994, and concluded on May 20, 1996,[27] with one year spent on the design concept and approximately two on production" Confusing to read since the period between those dates is less than 2 years. Is Sept '94 - May '96 the "two on production"?
  • "most of the time there were approximately fifteen to twenty people working on the game" > "... most of the time approximately fifteen to twenty people worked on the game".
  • Third paragraph - The order of sentences here is a bit jarring. Maybe "Super Mario 64 is one of the first games... of by outsourcing." could go earlier (maybe even first?) and "The game was first run... not the hardware" could go later where you're discussing test runs and game physics?
  • I'm not against quote boxes generally, but I don't think this quote ("When we were stuck... I'm serious") adds much to the article.
  • "Super Mario 64... who wrote the English text." makes it sound like Princess Peach wrote the English text. Rephrase for clarity?
Release
Reception
Legacy
  • "wide variety of launch games were necessary for" > "wide variety of launch games was necessary for"
  • The sentence "Though not the first... called the medium's true evolutionary leap." kind of drags. I'd suggest trimming it to just the part about camera control being a huge leap, and possibly moving it down into the influence subsection below.
  • "...now a staple of the 3D platform genre" - should this be "platformer"?
  • "... the 3D platform genre.[107] As the 3D platformer genre..." jarring to read "3D platformer genre" twice in a row. Maybe the second one could be shortened to "As the genre evolved..."?
  • Medical literature - This is the topic I normally edit in, so I'm probably stingier on this than most, but I'll go ahead and say that I think this subsection is unhelpful trivia and WP:UNDUE coverage of these studies (unless other sources on Super Mario 64 discuss the studies?). I'd suggest removing the whole subsection. If it must stay, at least change the last bullet point. The study was published in NeuroImage (it was conducted by an academic lab in Germany).
    • Fixed the error for now, but do we need consensus for removing the entire section? — Coolperson177 (t|c) 18:07, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay, so I found this source that mentions Super Mario 64: [17]. Is this high-quality enough? I'm asking because WP:RSP says Quartz might be a source to be "treated with caution" for science. — Coolperson177 (t|c) 18:40, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • As I said, I may be an extremist on this, but I think the fact that it has been used as a video game condition in a few studies is way over-covered here. WP:PROPORTION suggests articles cover aspects of the subject proportional to their treatment in reliable sources. Right now you have more text on medical studies than on the game's awards or sales figures. I just think it's undue, even with the Quartz article. Ajpolino (talk) 04:22, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • Okay, so I've cut down on the medical text, but I've still kept some and moved it to the beginning of the legacy section. Does it still violate WP:UNDUE? Because, I'm going to be honest, I really still want some of it in the article because of a did you know I did for this article in the past. — Coolperson177 (t|c) 13:18, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Will take another look once you get through those. Thanks for the interesting read! Ajpolino (talk) 06:16, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok great, just a few more suggestions from a second readthrough, then I'm happy:
  • Gameplay - "far more diverse than in previous Mario games."
  • Gameplay - "The life system from previous Mario games is kept, and Mario loses a life when..." > "As in previous Mario games, Mario loses a life when..."
  • Gameplay - "There are fifteen courses... There are fifteen Power Stars ..." It's weird to read "There are fifteen" twice in a row. Rephrase? Even something as simple as "Each of the fifteen courses has seven Power Stars. An additional fifteen Power Stars are hidden..." would be more interesting to the eye.
  • Plot - "he recovers more Power Stars, and once he gets..." > "he recovers more Power Stars. Once he gets..."
  • Development - I guess I'm not sure what you're trying to get across with "he and the level designers then took notes on the key elements of each level."
  • Development - "the rabbit was included in the final game" it's been a while and I can't recall how the rabbit was included. May be worth adding a few words?
  • Development - "...but the number was reduced to fifteen" any idea why? Time constraints?
  • Release - "At the 1999 Milia... the previous year." Is this a significant award? Feels a bit random as currently worded.
  • Reception - "... and the fact that its replayability reveals new areas and challenges" the wording doesn't seem quite right. I assume they praised its replayability, and that replaying the game reveals new areas and challenges? If I'm understanding correctly, a wording tweak is probably in order.
  • Reception - "but suggesting to players to 'skip...'"
  • Reception - "Game Informer stated that... broken'" It's not clear to the reader what the "present day" is here.
  • Reception - You introduce Paul Davies' publication several times. After the first time you can probably just say "Paul Davies".
  • Reception - I haven't looked through all the references, just happened to notice the author's name is misspelled in reference 69 (Jonti Davies)
  • Legacy - "generally only allow the" should be "allowed".

Ok I think that'll be it for me! Thanks again. Ajpolino (talk) 04:22, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks for your responses. I'm happy to support this FAC on prose. A last few thoughts pulled out of the above for you to consider (though I won't be watching, so no pressure from me!): (1) I still think the medical paragraph is undue, but if it must stay I'd suggest moving it back to the bottom where it was before. The new location feels abrupt, and distracts from SM64's actual legacy discussed in the rest of the section. (2) I'm not sure I understand the revised version of the replayability sentence. I figured I'm probably becoming annoying at this point, so I read the cited review. I'd suggest something closer to your first version; maybe "Maximum found its strongest points were the sense of freedom and the fact that replaying a level reveals new areas and challenges." Not the most exciting prose of all time, but I think it better conveys what the Maximum reviewers were getting at. (3) One more "Name of Publication..." that can be shortened is Nebojsa Radakovic of GameRevolution.
Otherwise, thanks again for an interesting read! I hope all is well. Ajpolino (talk) 22:36, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks for the review! I got your last comments, and for the second one I made a mention of the switches in Super Mario 64 in the Gameplay section. — Coolperson177 (t|c) 02:44, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Hurricanehink

[edit]

It's a-me! Hurricanehink. And yea I gotta review this!

All in all, it's a pretty good article on one of the most important video game articles, so I was extra picky. Hopefully none of these comments are too difficult to address. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:59, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see this before, but could you get a source for it appearing on iQue Player? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:30, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Jibreel23

[edit]

I will review the article more tommorow, but as of right now I think a table or infobox should be added in the awards section similar to Super Mario Odyssey's award section. Jibreel23 (talk) 00:51, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I reviewed it a bit more, and in the lead of the article it says "Bowser, one of the main antagonists for the Mario franchise" should be changed to "Bowser, one of the main antagonists in the Mario franchise" or "Bowser, one of the main antagonists of the Mario franchise". Also, I think there is some good additions that should be added such as adding a little more to the Super Mario 64 DS section, and possibly or even merge it with the "other re-releases" section and make it just "Re-releases". Although I personally think you should just expand the Super Mario 64 DS section. You can also add quote box to the development section with a quote from Giles Goddard interview similar to the Paper Mario: The Origami King article and Mario Odyssey.

@Coolperson177: Nothing else at the moment, but I will review it more and let you know.Jibreel23 (talk) 23:17, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass

[edit]

Spot-checks not included.

  • Source 4 - what makes ChuApp a high-quality reliable source?
    There's one by The A.V. Club but it only says that iQue debuted in November 2003 and Mario 64 with it. FrB.TG (talk) 20:26, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @FrB.TG: After some more looking, I found this from the EE Times. Unfortunately, there's no link to a profile of the author (Yoshiko Hara), however, the magazine is owned by Aspencore, which describe themselves on their about us page as "the voice of record for the electronics industry". What do you think? — Coolperson177 (t|c) 16:02, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This seems to be a better source but it only discusses the then-upcoming launch of iQue. Nowhere does it say that it was released in November that year or that Super Mario 64 was part of it. The link I suggested above at least provides the info that it was in 2003. FrB.TG (talk) 17:05, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Right, in that case, I'm removing the iQue Player from the release date section in the infobox. The sources that claim they know the dates conflict anyways (November 16th? 17th? 21st?). I'm just going to limit it to the release section. — Coolperson177 (t|c) 17:36, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@FrB.TG: I'm so sorry for bothering you, but the iQue release date has recently been added back, sourced by iQue's website. I've let the change stand, but I just wanted to check if the source meets WP:PRIMARY. — Coolperson177 (t|c) 14:26, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, yes. If anything, it's much better than any other source you could possibly find on the information. What better source than the one straight from the horse's mouth? FrB.TG (talk) 15:46, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Alright then, thanks for the review! — Coolperson177 (t|c) 15:53, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passes based on formatting and reliability. My concerns have been properly addressed and I found no sign of copyvio or close-paraphrasing. FrB.TG (talk) 18:10, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Buidhe via FACBot (talk) 24 March 2022 [20].

Toys for Bob

[edit]
Nominator(s): Shooterwalker (talk) 20:25, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Toys for Bob is game studio known for creating the original Star Control series, and the Skylanders series. Both are influential in their own right. The former is credited as the blueprint for games like Mass Effect, Stellaris, and No Man's Sky. The latter is credited as the blueprint for the multi-billion dollar toys-to-life genre. Toys-for-Bob has been mentioned in the news lately, as one of the acquisitions in the Microsoft-Activision deal. The change in ownership might complicate this nomination a bit if it leads to any major news. But I think it would be easy to deal with, at most adding a few more sentences at the end. This article is coming off of a peer review and probably only needs minor edits, but I'm happy to make any changes that improve the article. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:25, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Added the alt text. I figure copyright comes into effect any time that a work is fixated in some medium, so better safe than sorry. Thanks for the review. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:10, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Panini!

[edit]

Since the peer review and this FAC were very close in time frame with each other, and since I review peer reviews like FACs and re-read this article a second time and came up with little to nothing, please pardon me for Supporting right off the bat. One thing I noticed is that the first two sentences in the lead both start with "Ford and Reiche", so consider shaking it up a bit. Other than that, I feel this article more than deserves the bronze star. Panini!🥪 18:17, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In case I didn't say it enough already, thanks for the review. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:10, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie

[edit]
  • "As Reiche and Ford's workflow as a team was developing, the game took on a more limited scope compared to its sequel." I don't understand this. Does the sequel refer to Star Control II? And what does "workflow as a team" mean?
    • The transcript from the interview is: "we learned how not only how to work together but just how to to finish something together. And so it's a much smaller game than its successor, Star Control II. We spent less time on it, but also we just spent a lot of time figuring out how we could work together." I am open to finding other ways to summarize this.
      Perhaps "During development, Reiche and Ford spent a good deal of the project working out how to collaborate most effectively, and Reiche later said this was partly why the game was less complex than the sequel, Star Control II." (Assuming it was Reiche who said this.) Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:30, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Decades later, it is remembered as one of the greatest games of all time. The staff of Polygon stated that..." The important point isn't that the comment comes from Polygon staff, it's that the article is about the best video games of all time. I'd suggest "Decades later, it is remembered as one of the greatest games of all time: a 2017 review of the 500 best video games commented that...".
  • I removed the quote because it didn't seem to add much. You're right that the real value is that it is ranked among the best games of all time.
  • 'Reiche and Ford aimed to go beyond ship combat to develop a "science fiction adventure role-playing game".' I never played Star Control, but from our article on it, it appears it was not restricted to ship combat, but already included a turn-based exploration and strategy component. If that's right, I think this comment is misleading.
  • Strategy is different from adventure, but I realize the genre terminology is throwing people off. I tried to say this more directly with less jargon.
  • I've copyedited a little as I go through, mainly to get a better flow, but just three paragraphs in it's starting to look like the prose is rather jerky throughout. The third paragraph of "Partnership and Star Control success" starts with seven consecutive declarative sentences with no comma or connecting tissue; the last three are the same. Glancing further down the article it doesn't seem to be a problem throughout but I do see some further examples. I think a copyedit pass is needed.
    • I tried to fix this string of sentences. It used to flow better, but it's been re-edited a few times for clarity, and lost something in the process. Hopefully this is an improvement.
      It's still a bit staccato. Would the sources support a version like this? "Reiche had worked on Starflight in 1986, with Johnson as the lead developer, and the two had become friends. Reiche, inspired by Starflight, wanted to expand the scope of the game to add a space adventure component to go with the existing combat and strategy elements of the game. Johnson joined the development team for the sequel and was later credited by both Reiche and Ford as being one of the game's most significant contributors."
  • I didn't realize that the "Toys for Bob" name didn't come into existence right away until the section on Crystal Dynamics. I think that should be clearer at the start of the article. In fact, I can't really tell the sequence of naming from the article. Was the studio in legal existence right from 1989, with a later name change to "Toys for Bob"? Exactly when did the name change occur? What was the studio name before that? Reading further down I see that they incorporated the studio in 2002, so what was the situation before that? There's a lot of the article that's about things that happened before Toys for Bob came into existence legally; is the article at the right name?
    • It's really a difficult and vague story. What we know is in the article: the partnership started in 1989, the incorporation happened in 2002, and somewhere in between, they started using "Toys for Bob" as their operating name. If you look at their first few games, they are credited to Reiche and Ford personally. Somewhere in the mid-90s, they start operating under Toys for Bob. A lot of independent studios start in this messy sort of way. We are doing the best with the published information available.
      Yes, I can see that that's a problem. It wouldn't make sense to split the article up just because the company wasn't actually incorporated under that name for a few years. I think my only concern is that it's not clear in the lead that the article isn't just about the period when it was called Toys for Bob. Could we address this by changing the first couple of sentences to make it clearer that the article is about the partnership that led to the company as well? How about "Toys for Bob, Inc. is an American video game developer that developed from a partnership between Paul Reiche III and Fred Ford." Then take us through the UC Berkeley connection, mutual friends, meeting and starting the partnership, and mention Star Control and Skylanders at that point, and then explicitly put into the lead the date (approximate, if that's all we have) when the name was adopted. That would set the reader's expectation that the company name happens partway through the narrative. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:39, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to pause there to wait for a copyedit; when that's done I'll take another look. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:11, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sounds good. I did another search for information about their corporate structure and history, but I think we're stuck with the picture we have. Ready to keep working on this whenever you have more input. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:49, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

More:

  • In the last paragraph of the partnership section, where we talk about Star Control II's reputation, I think it would be worth making the comparison to Star Control -- at least say something like "Like its predecessor, Star Control II became regarded as...". And it sounds like the sequel is even more highly-regarded than the first game, in which case it would be good to say so at this point.
  • "It is also ranked among the best games in several specific areas, including": would it be better to qualify this with "often ranked"? Or can we be this absolute? I also think this could be seamlessly joined with the previous sentence.
  • We name three games that were influenced by Star Control II; can we say these are just some of the ones that have acknowledged the influence? As phrased it sounds very definite, as if only these three games were influenced, which seems unlikely.
  • In the Crystal Dynamics section you mention Toys for Bob as the company name but then backtrack to explain the name; I think this is disorienting. Wherever you place the explanation of the name, I wouldn't use the name until after that point.
  • "According to Reiche, since people frequently asked who "Bob" was, he instructed his team to come up with their own Bob, and swear he is the only one, "to confuse people"." I don't think the source really supports that the instruction to his team is because people were asking; I think this needs to be rephrased.
  • "Once again, Reiche's two-layered game design of Archon provided its inspiration." As far as I can see we haven't said anything about a two-layered game design up to this point; the previous mention of Archon only refers to its "strategic elements".
  • This is probably my ignorance of the world of game development but what does license mean in "Reiche and Ford thought the gameplay could be re-purposed to work with a Japanese license such as SD Gundam"? The article on SD Gundam says it's a franchise, so does license mean that The Unholy War could be reworked to fit into a franchise? And then "even bigger license" would mean a larger franchise which would presumably pay more?
  • It wasn't clear to me from reading this paragraph that The Unholy War was developed by Toys for Bob; it sounded like it was developed by some other studio for Crystal Dynamics, and Toys for Bob got involved in creating Majokko Daisakusen. I think this could be fixed by starting the paragraph with "In the lead up to Toys for Bob's 1998 game The Unholy War...".
  • It's a pity there's no information about how well Majokko Daisakusen did in Japan. Not an issue for FAC, but I wonder if it would be worth asking at the video games project if a Japanese speaker could search for sources. Presumably some Japanese gaming magazine of the era has something relevant.
  • The story in the interview about how they eventually turned the fax machine off in order to stop Bandai sending them more designs to translate is entertaining; any reason not to include it?
  • Did Crystal Dynamics fire them (and if so why), or did they decide to leave ("announcing they were parting ways") and if so why?
  • "Soon after rebuilding their studio as an independent company": "rebuilding" might be a bit too strong -- presumably the studio itself didn't change much, just the business paperwork around it. I think just "Soon after incorporating Toys for Bob,..." or even just "Soon after the incorporation...".
  • "The publisher offered Toys for Bob three Disney licenses for Disney's Extreme Skate Adventure": again probably my ignorance of the industry, but what does it mean to offer three licenses? Licenses to produce three games? That doesn't seem right, since they only produced one.
  • "The growing relationship between the studio and publisher led Activision to acquire Toys for Bob in May 2005." I don't think the source supports the causation implied here. I also think it would read more smoothly if we could incorporate the next sentence, about the number of employees, into this statement. How about "In May 2005 Activision acquired Toys for Bob, which by this time had 27 employees. The company became..."?
  • Also in that paragraph you mention Madagascar as the kind of project that Activision had Toys for Bob focus on, but one of the sources for the acquisition says they were finishing Madagascar at the time of the acquisition. Given the timing of the sources I suspect that the latter is correct -- the other source is much later.
  • "in part due to the negative reputation created by other licensed games": what does this refer to?
  • Re the Skylanders section: I know this isn't the article on Skylanders, but I have to say I did not understand how the concept worked until I read this source. The images there, plus the text "Players place monsters on a plastic tray that is connected to a console, (called a Portal of Power). The same monster appears on-screen, in game. The toys "remember" their in-game achievements and modifications. These dragons, imps, elves and griffins are portable and playable both with, and without the game." made it completely clear to me. I think we need to explain it that well here, and that might mean a fair use image of one of the toys on a Portal of Power.
  • "This culminated in the 2011 release of Skylanders: Spyro's Adventure, which became a breakthrough success for the developer": I think presenting the release as the culmination of a development cycle is reasonable, but we haven't talked a great deal about the development process, just mentioned a couple of elements of it. How about "The resulting game, Skylanders: Spyro's Adventure, was released in 2011, and became a breakthrough success"? I don't think we need "for the developer" -- it's a breakthrough success for everyone involved, and the reader doesn't need to be told that.
  • "The next year, they followed up with the release of Skylanders: Giants, creating a franchise with a billion dollars in sales just 15 months after the release of the first game." It seems odd to say that the second game created the franchise; I guess in a sense it's not a franchise till a second game appears, but the billion-dollar market isn't the creation of the second game. How about "The release the following year of a sequel, Skylanders: Giants, was equally [or "even more"?] successful, and the new franchise reached a billion dollars in sales just 15 months after the release of the first game"?
  • I see a ton of awards listed in the Accolades section for Skylanders: Imaginators: are any of these significant enough to be called out in the body of the article? E.g. something like "In the years that followed, Toys for Bob created several successful Skylanders video games; their last game in the series, Skylanders: Imaginators, released in 2016, won several awards, including...".
  • Then I'd reverse the next two sentences -- we've just talked about the success of the games so I think it makes more sense to say it's one of the best-selling video game franchises, and then say that the market was saturated so they discontinued it.
  • "with assets integrated into Warzone": what does this mean?
  • "Toys for Bob's employees were among 500 employees calling for the resignation of Kotick": as written this means every one of Toys for Bob's employees called for Kotick's resignation, which the source doesn't support. You could make this "Toys for Bob employees were among 500 employees calling for the resignation of Kotick" which is probably the simplest fix, or rephrase.

That's everything. Nothing major, just a lot of tweaks and places where I think the text could be clearer. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:27, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all the feedback. Did my best to incorporate all of the suggestions.
  • I wish we had a good article about licensed games, or even intellectual property licensing more generally. It's used really commonly in the industry, and in the sources. "License" just means that if you want to make a game using else's intellectual property (such as Mickey Mouse, or Gundam), you need to negotiate a license with whoever owns the intellectual property. I hope the copy-editing has at least made that more intelligible from the context.
  • Some stuff is simply unanswerable with the sources. For example, the story of them being fired is a little vague: "We had a connection with Disney and then things changed at Crystal dynamics and one Christmas party I got a phone call saying, "Hey guys, this is Crystal, yeah you're all fired. "Now on can you please call the rest "of your team and tell them that." And so I was like, okay. But this is one of those situations where from the worst days come the best days. So we formed a corporation of Toys For Bob. Again, we rebuilt Toys For Bob, now it's a corporation."
  • Same thing with Little Witching Mischiefs, and it seems not knowing how the game was received is part of the story.
  • An illustration of the Toys-to-Life concept would be nice. I could honestly use help with the images as I've always had some weird technical difficulty with it.
Either way, I hope we're closer to FA now. Happy to keep tweaking this stuff until we get there. Shooterwalker (talk) 03:04, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've struck most points above. Some of the points I've left open are just suggestions, and I've left them in case you take a look and decide to do something with them. The remaining points that I think are important are the first three, at the top of this section, plus the need for a concise explanation of how Skylanders works -- in a footnote would work. You mentioned problems images -- if you have a specific technical problem, let me know and I'll see if I can help. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:48, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to address the last few points. The image help would be incredible. Something like this, maybe. Would be a good place to include the concise explanation of Toys-to-Life, like "In the Skylanders series, players place a toys-to-life character on a plastic tray that is connected to a console. The character appears in the game, and in-game data is stored in the toy." Shooterwalker (talk) 16:37, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I struck one point above, although I think "collaborative process" is a bit jargony and would be better with simpler phrasing, such as "how to collaborate".

  • The lead is definitely better; you now make it clear that the name was adopted after some years of the partnership. I think if you want to mention Star Control and Skylanders early in the lead, I would make it part of the first sentence -- the reader expects the first sentence to be definitional and then we go to narrative, so putting it in the second sentence isn't ideal unless you have a paragraph break after that sentence. How about:
    Toys for Bob, Inc. is an American video game developer based in Novato, California, best-known as the creators of the Star Control and Skylanders series. The studio originated as a partnership between Paul Reiche III and Fred Ford, who had separately attended the University of California, Berkeley, in the late 1970s before entering the video game industry in the early 1980s. They met through mutual friends in 1988, when Reiche was seeking a programmer to develop Star Control for Accolade, and became partners in 1989. Star Control debuted in 1990; the release was considered a landmark science fiction game and led to the 1992 sequel Star Control II, which greatly expanded the series' story and scale. Star Control II is celebrated as one of the greatest games of all time and is featured on several "best of" lists for music, writing, world design, and character design.
  • I'm still not crazy about the third paragraph in the "Partnership..." section. I don't think "deeper storytelling" conveys much, and what does "dynamic" mean in "dynamic space adventure"? And I think the rhythm is still jerky.
  • Re the image: not sure what you're asking -- I don't know what the source of that image is, but it seems likely to be copyrighted. I don't think we could justify fair use for a Skylanders picture. Your proposed explanation is a good start, but "toys-to-life" isn't very informative unless the reader already knows what you're trying to tell them. And I think you're missing a key point, perhaps because it's obvious to you -- the in-game data stored in the toy means that the toy and the on-screen character are the same, to the player. The source makes this point by saying 'The toys "remember" their in-game achievements and modifications.'

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:06, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm going to pass on these last few suggestions. What you see as a choppy sentences, I see as clear and uncomplicated. The goal is readability. When you add lots of short sentence fragments connected by commas and conjunctions, you start to introduce needless complexity, and it's easy to lose the reader. An image of the toys would also be nice, but I can see why it would be too complicated to add it. It actually isn't obvious to me how toys-to-life works either. But that's fine, because it's enough to understand the studio's historic role in inventing the concept of integrating video games with toy peripherals. There are wikilinks for readers who want to learn more about the technology itself. Shooterwalker (talk) 03:50, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    OK. I'll take another read through, this morning if I have time, and will see if I can support the article as it stands. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:37, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Mike ? Gog the Mild (talk) 13:51, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Gog, I think you misinterpreted who is supporting with your last edit -- I am weakly supporting, declared below; Shooterwalker is the nominator. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:05, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support. This is a full support on most FA criteria, with a couple of caveats. I didn't look at images, and I didn't do a full source review or spotcheck, though I did end up reading quite a few of the sources, and the article represents the sources I read accurately. My support is weak because I think there are places where the prose falls just short of "well-written and of a professional standard". The nominator disagrees; I concede this might be just a stylistic preference on my part, and I don't think it would be right to withhold support from a well-researched and well-structured article on that basis. If other reviewers see no weaknesses in the prose I have no objection to promotion. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:14, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback and the support. I do think the article is better off from all your feedback, and hoping for new perspectives to iron out any remaining issues. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:47, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source reliability query

[edit]
  • I noted this briefly during the PR but would like to bring this up again. Please review the reliability of some of the sources and remove/replace them.
    • The following sources appear to be unreliable: GameGrin, Retro Game Daisuki, MobileSyrup, and Charlie INTEL.
    • Destructoid, Game Rant, and TechRaptor ("situational" and "inconclusive" sources per WP:VG/RS) might also not be suited for features articles. Especially the latter two are usually classed as unreliable.
IceWelder [✉] 15:52, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]
  • Source 65 link should be marked as dead as the non-archive link is not working.
  • Source 84 was published on 10 December 2016 (according to Google). I suggest adding that.
  • Source 88 - what makes Windows Central a high-quality, reliable source?
  • Source 93 - what makes TheGamer a high-quality, reliable source? As I see, its article was deleted because it failed notability. FrB.TG (talk) 20:10, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @FrB.TG: Made some adjustments based on your feedback. Replaced the third source, and fixed the first two. TheGamer has an editorial team with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy,[21] at least in recent years. Hope that's everything. Shooterwalker (talk) 02:27, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Windows Central should be fine. It is a Future-published property like many HQ video game sources (PC Gamer et al.) and appears on WP:VG/RS's list of reliable sources. The replacement is more likely to be unreliable per WP:FORBESCON. IceWelder [✉] 19:03, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for checking that out. I can revert to the Windows Central source, and just want feedback from @FrB.TG: before I do that. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:03, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's fine if you want to restore the Windows Central source. I have no further concerns. FrB.TG (talk) 12:11, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Thanks for the feedback. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:26, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi FrB.TG, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either pass or fail this source review yet? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:09, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Gog the Mild, sorry I didn’t clarify it before but yeah I would pass the source review based on reliability and formatting. I am not thrilled about some sources used but I realize they’re the best available and fine for what they’re being used. FrB.TG (talk) 14:27, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the prompt response, FrB.TG, and sorry to press you on this, but you ran up a red flag with "they’re the best available". That doesn't cut it at FAC, the criterion is "high-quality reliable sources" (emphasis added). If such are not available, it may be that it is not possible to improve an article to FA standard, despite the use of the best sources that are available. You also say they are "fine for what they’re being used", so it could be that the first comment was just obiter dictum. I would be grateful if you could clarify. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:46, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Gog the Mild, my doubt was about Game Rant, which is a situational source. They're controversial for BLPs but reliable for pop culture and game info, which is why I consider its usage acceptable in this case. FrB.TG (talk) 15:14, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks FrB.TG, much appreciated. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:15, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Prose review by FrB.TG

[edit]
  • "Soon thereafter" - this would mean the same thing with "soon after".
  • "and one of the friends who encouraged the get-together was fantasy artist Erol Otus." This part can be directly incorporated where the "mutual friends" are introduced: ".. so their mutual friends – one of whom was fantasy artist Erol Otus – set up a board game night to introduce them".
  • "During the development of Starflight" → "While developing Starflight" (less words ;))
  • "In addition to Johnson, they recruited Otus, who contributed music, text, and art for the game's manual and voice acting for the game." Repetitive phrasing ("the game's"... "the game").
  • "Unholy War combined a fighting game with a strategic meta-game, similar to the combination" - repetition of "combine" (and its derivative "combination").
  • "The company saw the potential to adopt these toys and character designs into a game" - I think "adapt" is more suitable since it's more frequently used when talking about transferring one work into another kind (see film adaptation, for example).
  • "These successes led Gamasutra to list Toys for Bob among their top developers for 2012, stating "we're.." - comma after "stating".
  • "April 2021", "December 2021" - NBSP needed

This should conclude my review of the prose. FrB.TG (talk) 17:39, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support - good work. FrB.TG (talk) 11:24, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you liked my review and have the time and inclination, I would appreciate feedback on my FAC but this is obviously in no way mandatory.

Support by Lee Vilenski

[edit]

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

Lede
Prose
  • There is one bundled note, could we change it to be:

[1]

Additional comments

Additionally, if you liked this review, or are looking for items to review, I have some at my nominations list. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:27, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Did my best with most of these. The reference style is an artifact of citing the awards twice – in the prose and in the award section. Is there a precedent for linking to the section itself as a reference? That could be a potential solution, but I'd want to be sure that other Featured Articles follow this format. The other challenge is that some of the questions you asked about the lead don't have interesting answers when you get to the prose. According to who? Multiple publications and developers. Why did they call it that? To make you curious enough to ask. Why are they credited with creating this concept, when a similar technical innovation happened earlier? That's what every reliable source says, and when the terminology came into fashion. I tried to fix these nonetheless, and my hope is people who want to know more than the lead will read further. If any of these are still really glaring we can try to come up with some other solution. But my hope is we are close to FA quality now. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:04, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Lee Vilenski ? Gog the Mild (talk) 12:38, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'm happy. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:20, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the review! Shooterwalker (talk) 16:14, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^

Comment to coordinator

[edit]

I'm hoping we have something close to a consensus for promotion. Either way, I'm hoping to nominate another article for FA status. Would that be alright? Shooterwalker (talk) 16:14, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Hog Farm via FACBot (talk) 24 March 2022 [22].

Dispute between Darnhall and Vale Royal Abbey

[edit]
Nominator(s): SN54129 19:32, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Pity the poor folk of 14th- and 15th-century Cheshire, with their Rachmanesque landlord in the figure of the villainous Abbot of Vale Royal condemning them to perpetual slavery for fifty years... and the rest! They protest their rights to the Abbot. He finds against them and imprisons and fines them. They protest their rights to the King. He finds against them and returns them to the Abbot. They are imprisoned and fined by the Abbot. They protest their rights to the justiciar. He finds against them and returns them to the Abbot. They are imprisoned and fined by the Abbot. They protest their rights to the King and Queen. The Queen supports them. The King finds against them and returns them to the Abbot. They are imprisoned and fined by the Abbot. You get the picture. Needless to say, there were increasing fatalities among the good brothers, culminating in the eventual murder of—you guessed it—the Abbot of Vale Royal.
Hopefully this is worthy of your attention, and I look forward to your suggestions and comments for improving this article further. Thanks all! SN54129 19:32, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

[edit]

Recusing to review. I am sure that I have read this before.

Lead

  • Caption: "the Abbey's foresters prevent them from exercising their rights within". What does this mean? Within what?
    The Royal forset.
  • "whether they had villein, or servile, status." This could be read as meaning the choice was between these two.
    Distinguished.
  • "exclusive forest- and other feudal rights". Is the hyphen a typo?
    Yes.
  • "their feudal lord, the Abbot of Vale Royal Abbey". If you are referring to abbots in general, lower case initial; if a specific one ... And elsewhere, eg "The Abbots, for their part".
    Wut.
MOS:JOBTITLES. would you like me to do them?
@Gog the Mild: That's a very kind offer; if you wouldn't mind. My eyes are going funny by now  :) SN54129 19:48, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Their House had ..." Why the upper case H?
    Fixed.
  • "Their House had commenced major building works". Is it known when?
    1277 (almost immediately).
  • "Edward I's Welsh campaign". Could we work in somewhere that this was a military campaign?
    Changed to "Welsh wars".
  • "Either way". Er, so far you have only suggested a single way.
    The Abbot's way or the highway (to Over). Removed.

Footnotes

  • "(especially court rolls)" Link court rolls.
    Linked, tweaked.
  • "Edward III invaded Scotland in March 1333, crushing the Scots at the Battle of Homildon Hill that July." Wrong.
    Spot Today's Deliberate Mistake. Now fixed, in memory of your blood pressure...
:-)
  • "The Ledger and its author". Ledger either in italics or with a lower case initial.
    Italicised; think I got all of them.
  • "Physically violent expressions". As opposed to non-physically violent?
    My favourite kind. Fixed.
  • "in the middle of saying Mass". Why the upper case M?
    Back then it was even *spoken* with a capital letter. Lower-cased.
  • "by a patron of his Abbey". Why the upper case A?
    Right!

More to follow. Leaning oppose - insufficient and inadequately obtuse footnotes. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:19, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ho ho ho :P ...see below.

Main article I

  • "both money and stonemasons were diverted". Perhaps a word as to why stonemasons, of all people, were suddenly in short supply?
    Added footnote re. the King's Ancient Works.
OK, that's sufficienly obtuse to save the nomination.
  • "increasingly precarious." Do you mean the first word? (Or can it be removed?)
    It can.
  • "When their tenants appeared before his manorial court". "their ... his"?
    Fixed, probably.
  • "In East Anglia, there was a similar tenant's revolt against the Abbot of Bury St Edmunds Abbey in 1327 which were similar to the struggles of Darnhall and Over." 1. "similar ... similar". 2. "there was a ... which were"
    Clomp.
  • Link Peasants' Revolt.
    D'oh. Good spot.
  • "to paying massive death duties." Does the source support "massive"?
    The source uses "huge death duties", so [23].
  • "tried to refuse the Abbot payment for these customs and services". I though the customs and services were imposed on the locals, why are they paying for this imposition?
    Clarified.
  • "An Abbey servant, John of Budworth, was killed". Was this also in 1320?
    Indeed. Clarified.

Main article II

  • "refusing to grind flour at the Abbot's mill". Suggest "Abbot" → 'abbey'. And maybe explain why the Abbot would care about this?
    Done. A footnote explaining the tenurial form of millsuite suggested itself.
  • "for on their release they sent a delegation to the King, who was at this time "in the north parts"". How long were they imprisoned for? They brought, and I assume lost, their case in 1329 and were imprisoned "on their return to the village". Edward arrives four years later. Really?
    This I Do Not Understand. But in case, that whole sentence has been rewritten completely!
  • "on one occasion they travelled as far as Rutland". Perhaps give the actual distance?
    Done.
  • Lead: "Abbot Peter ... also engaged in feuds with the local gentry, resulting in his eventual murder in 1339"; article: "probably during a raid on the Abbey's crops or outhouses—both Abbot Peter and his cellarer were killed. Although details of the exact circumstances of their deaths are unknown, it may also have been the result of a feud with the local gentry rather than the villages." Which?
    Clarified; note NM picked up on this too.
  • "at risk of attack from the surrounding countryside." A fascinating image.
    "As you value your life or your reason, keep away from the Moor", as the lady said. Done.
  • "He argues that what remained was seasonal work—such as would be required at harvest time—but that, while peasant resistance—such as that which had been seen in Darnhall and Over—continued through the next decade, it was also in decline, perhaps suggesting that it was less necessary." A little complicated. Perhaps split into two, or even three, sentences?
    Good idea; done.

Gog the Mild (talk) 19:06, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've addressed your points Gog, and I thank you for them. Please register your oppose as soon as possible; I wouldn't want you to edit-conflict with the numerous editors queuing up with their speedy-deletion templates :O SN54129 18:11, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Looking good. Just A/a left I think. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:55, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Source review

[edit]

Spotchecks not done. Version reviewed

Pass. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:04, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lead says the death was of a clerk, text says a groom - which is correct?
    Clarified groom.
  • The lead attributes Peter's death to the gentry feud, whereas the text is more uncertain on the cause
    Indeed, tweaked lead on account of this uncertainty.
  • See MOS:PAGERANGE
    Check.
  • Axon: is "en" meant to be a location, or is it a misplaced language code?
    The latter! It gets auto inserted using VE. Removed.
  • Ranges should use endashes, even in titles
    Done.
  • Harding: can you verify that both location and publisher are correct as listed?
    I think I just managed to annoy two of the oldest universities ever in a single edit. But, Cambridge.

Nikkimaria (talk) 19:10, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie

[edit]
  • I read the first sentences three times before realizing that villein status and servile status were the same thing; it read to me as if "villein" and perhaps "serf" were in opposition, since I couldn't give you a definition of either. Could we do this without the "or"? Perhaps "that is, servile"? Or just "whether they had villein (servile) status"?
    Done.
  • "due to it having been": suggest "because it had been".
    Done.
  • "Such disputes between religious houses...": at this point we haven't mentioned the dispute in the body of the article; I think we could make this just "Disputes between religious houses...".
    Agree. Done.
  • "in a similar struggle to the villagers of Darnhall and Over": suggest "in a struggle similar to that of the villagers of Darnhall and Over".
    Done.
    I think "to that of" would be a bit better -- I was looking to get struggle not being similar to villagers. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:36, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The new Abbey was unpopular locally, as both the grants of land its creation required and those for its day-to-day requirements impinged on villagers' customary liberties, locals claimed": suggest "The new Abbey was unpopular locally, as locals claimed that both the grants of land its creation required and those for its day-to-day requirements impinged on villagers' customary liberties".
    Done.
  • I see reading through that the village of Over is mentioned almost as much as Darnhall, including in the article's first sentence. Should the article title be "Dispute between Darnhall, Over, and Vale Royal Abbey"?
    Ah-ha! See below  :)
    Commented below. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:36, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • When you mention iron ploughshares I'd suggest including "to demonstrate their status as freemen" from the associated note, since otherwise a reader has to click on the note or be baffled.
    Excellent point.
  • "they rose vi et armis": do we need to use the historical term here? Would the article lose anything if we said something like "they took up arms"?
    No; done.
  • "moaned" seems a bit colloquial.
    Done.Indeed! It's because I felt I already overused the word "complaint"; but now swapped out.
  • Can we avoid or gloss inline "oyer et terminer"?
    Done, with a short fn for clarity.

All minor points. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:13, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much, Mike Christie, all excellent suggestions, which I've gone alone with. Just the one thing—the title. I absolutely agree. I mulled over various titles at the time, and Over should really be mentioned. But I felt Dispute between Darnhall and Over and Vale Royal Abbey was both unclear—might imply it was a tripartite struggle?!—as well as the clunkiness of "and... and...". I considered Dispute between Vale Royal Abbey and its feudal tenants perhaps? SN54129
Yes, the first option is a bit odd-sounding. I think it would be good to include Over in somehow, though. Your second option would work for me, or you could use a comma: "Dispute between Darnhall and Over, and Vale Royal Abbey, or do something like Dispute between Vale Royal Abbey and the villages Darnhall and Over or even Dispute between Vale Royal Abbey and its feudal tenants Darnhall and Over. Or Vale Royal Abbey dispute with Darnhall and Over? To be honest I think your second suggestion is better than any of mine. I'm certainly not going to oppose over the title, and in fact am supporting below since there's just one nitpick left above, but if you do move it I would wait till after promotion as that simplifies FAC bookkeeping. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:36, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Looks great. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:36, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Tim riley

[edit]

Happy to support the promotion of this article. It seems to me to meet all the FA criteria. I have a few small suggestions about the prose, but they don't affect my support and I leave them for the nominator to accept or reject as he wishes:

  • "On a number of occasions" – there are those who get aerated about "a number of", insisting it should just be "some" or similar. I can't say the question arouses any strong feelings in the Riley bosom but I mention it here anyway.
  • "building commenced in 1277" – I have raised my eyebrows at "commence" at another of your FACs already today, SN54129. It was a prissy verb there and is a prissy verb here – still one of Fowler's "genteelisms", and a plain "began" or "started" would be preferable.
  • "As such, relations between the Abbey and its tenantry" – not quite sure what you mean by "as such" here. If you mean "consequently" or "as a result" it would be as well to say so plainly.
  • "They beset the Justiciar of Cheshire, the King himself, and even Queen Philippa in their search for redress. Indeed, the latter may have supported them" – you can only have the latter of two and there are three here. (You have a similar construction in the lead, but slightly differently phrased, and I think you get away with it there.)
  • "killed in the melée" – this falls between two stools: if you're chucking accents about you need a circumflex as well as an acute – mêlée. I think the word is perfectly good English in 2022 as a plain "melee", but the OED and Chambers both favour "mêlée", and who am I to argue? (Answers on a postcard, please.)
  • "to stymie the villagers' suits" – a touch slangy (and out-of-date slang at that: the stymie was dropped from the rules of golf in the year I was born, in the reign of the late King George VI.)
  • "the Abbot moaned" – another slightly slangy usage, possibly? Something like "complained" might be more formal.
  • "Says Mark Bailey" – this construction seems to me a little convoluted. "Mark Bailey says" seems to me more natural and flowing.

I hope these are of some use, and they are such minor points that I am happy to support the promotion of the article whether or not you act on them. Tim riley talk 20:03, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Tim, and apologies for not noticing this until now. I appreciate your suggestions, and, indeed, have addressed them. I don't think you've ever made one that wasn't for the best. The genteelisms have gone the way of all things!
Thanks for the support! SN54129 13:53, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My pleasure. After another look at the article, may I suggest that in the last sentence of the Attack on Abbot Peter section, although "prior to" is a perfectly good phrase, it jars a bit in a sentence in which the prior is followed immediately by "the abbot's"? Perhaps rather too many ecclesiastical eminences in one sentence, and a plain "before" might be preferable here. Just a thought. Tim riley talk 18:40, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Hog Farm via FACBot (talk) 24 March 2022 [24].

John Hastings, 2nd Earl of Pembroke

[edit]
Nominator(s): Gog the Mild and SN54129 on 21 February 2022 (UTC)
A joint nomination between myself and Gog on one of the many curious individuals populating late-medieval England. This chap starts off as a bit of an arse, frankly—a plutocrat forced to work with men of greater ability though less lineage, and who clearly can't decide whether he prefers fighting the French or cutting off relatives, as he spends his time doing both in almost equal portions. But—but—whose story ends with, really, some poignancy.
This started off with me piling in my editorial size nine boots some years ago, throwing in everything I had on him, following which it was reviewed for GA by Iazyges of this parish (shout out!). More recently Gog has shown me how it's done—as usual—with a fantastic copy edit. Anything of any good you find is his; you know who to blame for the rest. We look forward to your comments and suggestions on promoting old Pembroke further. SN54129 20:04, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for this. The simpleness of the review is reflection on the dearth of decent images available—although obviously appreciated all the same—for medieval stuff, either you can get hold of an document and photograph it, it which case {{PD-scan}} is my friend, or dessicated remains of old graves, etc., CC-BY-SA'd by some bod on Flikr. Talk about gutting :( SN54129 21:42, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie

[edit]
  • Not necessarily an issue for this article, but I see our article on Lord Mauny prefers the spelling Manny for the title; is there a reason to prefer one spelling over the other? The same goes for Anne Mauny/Manny. And I see further down the article you use "Baron Manny" instead.
The RSs refer to him as "Mauny", so I thought that we had standardised on that. Thanks for picking up the ones which slipped through. Fixed.
  • "he was responsible for forcing them from power and their being replaced by laymen": "their being replaced" is a little awkward, but do we need it in the lead? Just "forcing them from power" would do, unless the fact that their replacements were laymen is the key point. Looking at this episode in the body of the article, it seems less definite than the wording in the lead -- we get "some chroniclers portray", and "have been described". And if he was responsible for the dismissal of the ecclesiastics, is it also clear he was responsible for the appointment of laymen, rather than other ecclesiastics?
Ho, hum, I think you have the right of it. Trimmed.
  • "intending to raise a new army once in Aquitaine": I don't think you need "once".
Removed.
  • I don't think the wiktionary link to solemnization is helpful -- it just talks about the performance of a ceremony, but there was a ceremony of some kind on 19 May 1359, it appears, so it's not clear what the omitted ceremony was.
Ha. We have debated this one. Serial Number 54129 ? Gog the Mild (talk) 22:08, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ha indeed  :) the consensus is yours, sirs! Delinked. SN54129 19:34, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK -- I am still curious what the additional ceremony would have been given that there had been one and another never happened. Were marriages typically conducted with two separate ceremonies? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:36, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Mike Christie: Briefly—yes and no. Two sets of arrangements, only one wedding. It was common, esp. among the nobility, to contract for marriage before going through with it, especially in where the parties were below the legal age of marriage (12 for girls, 14 for boys, IIRC). More importantly, it meant that while the political alliance that the marriage was intended to cement came into immediate effect, the actual handing over of daughters (and, again, importantly) money, was put off until the actual wedding; that is, the religious ceremony. I've clarified this in the text, and check out fn. 2 for a sourced/encyclopedically-toned version of this^  :) SN54129 18:43, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Struck; the fact that the first ceremony was the betrothal was what I was missing. The extra note is interesting but given that you now say "betrothal" I think it's optional. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:54, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1369 he entailed and enfeoffed part of his earldom, with the reversion going to the King; these were granted to his feoffees who granted them back to him for five years." This is a bit too technical for a general reader. Similarly for "Much of the Hastings estates had been enfeoffed in 1369 and returned to him. Now, in April 1372, Pembroke quitclaimed them back to the feoffees again."
Another for our land tenure expert methinks. Unless they would rather I ruthlessly turn it into modern English?
Hmm. A footnote could expand on what he was doing, but what I'd like to say is "This means that Pembroke...", but that would be my OR of course. So one has to discuss the generalities of the tricks the nobility of the time had for protecting their patrimonies. And very very for the record, the problem with turning near-obsolete legal terminologies into modern English is that it will almost certainly change the sense of what they were doing. It's not just that we call things by newer words; rather, we don't recognise the concepts they represent anymore; it would be a bit like saying that the medieval nobility owned land, for instance.
I'll sleep on this and see what we can do tomorrow UTC. SN54129 19:34, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Mike Christie: I've clarified that the arrangements were by way of creating the form of a trust, although our article on that topic—particularly the feudal origins—is woefully lacking source. SN54129 15:10, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's a big help. I think something similar is needed for the second sentence I listed above, starting "Much of the Hastings estates...". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:04, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done, Mike Christie. SN54129 10:20, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which had suffered setbacks following his intervention": on first reading it appears the referent of "his" is "which", it took me a second to parse this as referring to the prince. Suggest "which had suffered setbacks following the Prince's intervention".
Done.
  • "Pembroke and Cambridge landed at St Malo—apparently escaping the notice of a local French commander, and marched...": I'd either use two dashes or two commas.
Commas. Done.
  • You have an unspaced em dash in "Pembroke and Cambridge landed at St Malo[4]—apparently escaping..." and elsewhere, and spaced en dashes in the definition of chevauchée and elsewhere; MoS says you have to pick one or the other.
It does. I think we have different preferences. Ems were very much in the minority, so I have replaced them.
  • I think your in-text link to Cokayne must be going to the wrong person -- you link to a genealogist who died in 1911, but the book was published in 1945.
Nope. It was published in 1945, but if you look further along the details of the source you will find " (14 volumes 1910–1959, 2nd ed.)".
OK, that clears that up. I've used 19th-century historians in articles I've worked on, so I know they can be reliable, but has nobody more recent covered the points you use him for? Or is he still considered reliable by modern historians? And I see he's described as a genealogist, not a historian, which might make the peerage a reliable source for the genealogical data of the peerage, but doesn't automatically make Cokayne's opinions of the peers and their actions reliable. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:46, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Couple of points, if I can? Firstly, yes, the CP is still extensively used by historians: the most basic evidence is a Google books search (starting at page two, as page one is modern reprints) and it gives a sense of the sheer breadth of scholarship referencing it. History, literature, architecture, churches, research methods, theses, biographies, political culture, and, of course, genealogy. It is, in fact, a standard source. Secondly, while the first edition of the CP is wholly 18th century, here, I'm using the second edition, which was extensively augmented and revised by Vicary Gibbs (GEC is only original author), who was trained much later, and whose work demonstrates his understanding of the historical method. (For clarity, it is the 2nd ed. that has become the "standard source" I referred to above, due to his major rewriting and corrections.) Hope this clarifies things—of course, it is complicated by the fact that even a work published in 1945 will still be referred to in short citations as Cokayne, or, even more frequently, GEC: Gibbs not even getting a look-in!). SN54129 19:34, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "When Pembroke returned to France on campaign again in 1372 he travelled with Beauchamp. On at least one occasion they shared a bed. Not in a modern sense of the phrase; it was common at the time for apprentices, students and soldiers to sleep together and travellers would often share a bed at an inn." Suggest "When Pembroke returned to France on campaign again in 1372 he travelled with Beauchamp. On at least one occasion they shared a bed: it was common at the time for apprentices, students and soldiers to sleep together and travellers would often share a bed at an inn." I think the immediate clarification means you can dispense with the disclaimer.
Good point. Thanks. Done.
  • "The government was aware that both the French and Castilian fleets were at sea and liable to be in the area Pembroke was sailing to. Perhaps Pembroke expected to only encounter pirates." You don't connect these two statements, which seems odd -- did the government not inform Pembroke? I would have thought "...sailing to, but Pembroke may have expected..." to be a natural conjunction.
As you wish.
  • "A fellow prisoner, Sir John Trailly reported Pembroke's reaction to an inquiry in 1407": according to the linked article, Sir John died in 1400, so I don't understand this.
Ouija? Serial Number 54129 ? Gog the Mild (talk) 22:08, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Heh. A confusion as to who Trailly reported to; a parson not an enquiry (there was an enquiry into the affair in 1407, and the parson did submit a deposition, which presumably was the info from Trailly, but that's all a bit SYNTHy). In any case, a commission over 30 years later is wholly irrelevant, so I've noted the parson and Taken Out The Commission. SN54129 19:34, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "despite Pembroke's supposed close connections at court and with the King": why "supposed"? These connections were real, weren't they?
Very true.
  • "outlived her husband until 1384": suggest "outlived her husband, dying in 1384".
Done.
  • "Another contemporary chronicler described him as": coming after the quote from Cokayne, this makes Cokayne sound like a contemporary chronicler.
Fixed.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:20, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:29, 9 March 2022 (UTC)q[reply]

Source review

[edit]

Spotchecks not done. Version reviewed

  • The lead says he was 28 at death, while infobox says 27 - which is correct?
    Changed to 27, which is the more accurate.
  • "perhaps exasperated by the political failures of the King's ecclesiastical ministers" - source? What's in the text seems more like an objection to their self-indulgence
    True, but I've hedged our bets a bit in the lead now.
  • "Pembroke was buried in Hereford in spring 1375" - text says only after April, is it known to have been spring?
    Not in Australia, I guess :) removed per MOS:REALTIME.
  • "note the English ships are deliberately illustrated as being lower than the Castilian" - source?
    Added source, but removed the "Note that..." per editorializing.
  • See MOS:PAGERANGE
    Think I caught them all, also some ISBNs.
  • Be consistent in how you format citations to ODNB
    Done.
    Not quite - one has a location, others don't. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:15, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Classen: where in Illinois?
    Urbana.
  • Why are series titles sometimes in parentheses?
    The bot, probably. Fixed.
  • Prestwich: can you verify title? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:34, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Added ~50 years.
    I was actually looking at a more basic error - is it really War add State? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:15, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll deal with these; thanks, NM. Gog, not ignoring your queries above either. At the moment, I do dwell in Cheshire  :) SN54129 16:38, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, Nikkimaria, think I've caught everything here. Some errors more basic than others, it must be said  :) SN54129 09:01, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hasted is missing location
  • Sherborne title should use endash. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:15, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thaaaanks Nikkimaria :) think I've finally managed it! SN54129 14:54, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt

[edit]
  • "commenced the career in royal service that was to consume the rest of his life." Given that this career was only six years, and the life only 27 years, I might say "commenced the royal service that he continued in until his death" or some such.
Tweaked.
  • "Hastings proved his age on 12 September 1368" This is an obscure phrasing, to me, anyway, and is a double redirect, with proof of age leading to "Identity document", which is surely not intended.
SN?
I see that's been rectified.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:52, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "His first active service came in the same year, when he accompanied the much-delayed King's son, Edmund, Earl of Cambridge, to Aquitaine in south-west France[19] with a force of 400 men-at-arms." The "much--delayed King's son" reads oddly. Can we not say the expedition under the King's son was much-delayed or some such?
Tweaked.
  • "Earls of Pembroke and Cambridge" per the MOS's title guidance, I suspect "Earls" should be lower case.
That's not my reading of the MoS. The word is not "used generically" and the "title is used to refer to a specific person as a substitute for their name during their time in office" so the MoS would seem to require an upper case E. Obviously I am open to being taught better.
That's fine.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:52, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This was a strategically important French-held enclaves inside English France" should "enclaves" be singular?
Yes. Done.
  • " Indeed, it maybe that was refused entry to the King's chambers by the royal chamberlain, Lord Latimer. " ?
Oops. Now in English.
  • You have "Garter Feasts" and "Garter feast".
Nice spot. Standardised.
  • "whose death, along with that of Edward, Lord Despenser the same year and Humphrey, Earl of Hereford two years previously erased at a stroke two of England's most aspiring commanders.[86]" I count three.
D'oh! Fixed.
That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:27, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Wehwalt, much appreciated. SN, one for your thoughts on above. Let me know if you would like me to apply my customary ruthlessness. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:44, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, thanks very much, as ever, Wehwalt. SN54129 17:46, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Wehwalt (talk) 19:52, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Tim riley

[edit]

Only a few, and very minor, cavils from me. No complaints or queries about the substance of the article, but a few little points about the prose:

  • Lead
  • I am probably wrong, but although Pembroke was a knight of the Garter it looks odd to me to give him the postnominal KG – seems a jarringly modern style for a mediaeval subject. (If you assure me I am wrong, I may have to go and add the postnoms to John Falstaff's article.)
  • Removed...as an anachronism?
  • "The following year Pembroke commenced the career" – what a prissy verb! (What Fowler calls a "genteelism"). What's wrong with a plain "started" or "began"?
  • Excellent choice.
  • Background and youth
  • "a ward of the king … the King's midwinter revels" – upper or lower case?
  • Upper, and caught another too.
  • "in Queen's Chapel, Palace of Westminster.[11][10]" – citations would be better in numerical order; and according to the only book I have to hand that mentions it, the chapel had a definite article.
  • I agree, and annoyingly it's the sort of thing I point out myself!
  • Marriages
  • "The marriage was never solemnized" – the –ize ending is not wrong, but looks odd in modern BrE. And, if I may say so, your rationale for adding or withholding blue-links escapes me: you link words like "heir" and "Ireland" that don't in the least need a link, but you don't link an unusual term like "solemnised". Likewise, later, you link "Rome", "robe" and "archers" (unnecessarily, meseems) but leave a hard word like "matrilineal" unlinked.
  • H'mm, this is a little tricky. There was previously a Wiktionary link to solemnization (see above discussion with Mike Christie), which was removed as being not particularly helpful. I couldn't find an on-wiki page to link to Solemnization, and -ise brought up even less. Do you have any suggestions? (For what it's worth, I've gone through and delinked some obvious words as well!)
  • I see. Well, it would hardly be a shocking dereliction to leave the word unlinked. You could recast the sentence on the lines of "the marriage ceremony never took place", but on the whole I'd be inclined to leave things as they are. Tim riley talk 15:34, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "His second marriage to a cousin of the King" – The MoS does not demand it (and for my part I think it a silly convention) but it now seems to be pretty much de rigueur in Wikipedia, though nowhere else I can think of, to use the name rather than a pronoun at anyone's first mention in any paragraph. I just mention it.
  • No problem.
  • Campaigning in France
  • "….these were granted to his feoffees" – what are "these"? There is no plural noun to relate back to.
  • Singularised.
  • "the estate would return intact to the King. His first active service…" – your meaning is clear enough, but syntactically "his" here refers back to the nearest mentioned person, viz the King. Might be as well to replace "his" with "Pembroke's"
  • Done.
  • "attempting to join the Duke of Anjou and the Earls of Pembroke and Cambridge" – this needed a second reading before it was clear to me that he wasn't attempting to join the Duke of Anjou and the Earls of Pembroke and Cambridge. I suggest a semicolon instead of the first "and".
  • Good spot, it did read oddly.
  • "and putting inhabitants to the sword" – this picturesque phrase is something of a euphemism for "killing inhabitants", it seems to me.
  • Indeed.
  • "says historian R. I. Jack" – this would do in The Sun, but for an encyclopaedia article something a little less tabloidese would be preferable, such as "according to the historian R. I. Jack".
  • False titles.
  • "one of his closest advisors" – strange and not particularly welcome use of the AmE "advisor" instead of the traditional English "adviser".
  • Changed, of course.
  • Feud with Lord Grey of Ruthin
  • "Thomas, Earl of Warwick, who had died of plague in 1369, and so was a cousin to Pembroke" – not clear how dying of plague makes one anybody's cousin. The sentence would work if you used dashes rather than commas after "Warwick" and before "and so…"
  • Done.
  • Defeat at La Rochelle
  • "the subject of criticism by several historians…" – you have generally used the present tense when reporting the words of historians, but here you report Ramsay, Jacob and Steel in the past tense.
  • Brought each into the present tense.
  • Legacy
  • Seems rather an odd header. You don't really mention any legacy, and perhaps "Reputation" might be a more accurate heading.
  • Ah ha!

That's all from me. I enjoyed this article, which has been a pleasure to review. – Tim riley talk 13:40, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much Tim, I just hope you didn't feel any pressure to review. But am v glad you did! There's just one thing I'd appreciate you commenting on above, everything else has been actioned, hopefully according to your suggestions. Cheers! SN54129 14:35, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
PS, if my partner in crime has any views on these changes, they can go pound sand are welcome to tweak them, of course. But I believe they are at the top of a hill at the moment. SN54129 14:35, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have descended, after a few days of mixed weather, in order to watch the rugby. You seem to be dealing admirably with Mr riley's even more admirable suggestions. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:45, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You have descended, as if from Olympus  :) SN54129 14:49, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All my minor quibbles have been attended to, and I am happy to add my support. The article is an excellent read; widely and, as far as I can tell, well sourced; evidently comprehensive; and admirably illustrated. It seems to me to meet all the FA criteria. – Tim riley talk 15:34, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 24 March 2022 [25].

1994–95 Gillingham F.C. season

[edit]
Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:40, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Following successful nominations for 1986–87, 1995–96, 1999–2000, 1987–88, 1998–99, 1996–97, 2000–01 and 1992–93, here's another season from the history of English football club Gillingham F.C. This one was another general disaster of a season, in which the club struggled through a number of crises and ended the season facing the possibility of going out of existence altogether. Happy times..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:40, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Lee Vilenski

[edit]

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

Lede
Prose
Additional comments

Additionally, if you liked this review, or are looking for items to review, I have some at my nominations list. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:52, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Mike Christie

[edit]

I've copyedited; please revert anything you disagree with. Looks pretty clean; just a couple of points below.

  • "In Foster's absence, Andy Arnott was brought into the starting line-up against Scunthorpe for the first time since the opening game of the season, but neither he nor fellow forward Paul Baker were able to score in either game, with both finishing 3–0 to Gillingham's opponents." Too complicated; I think this should be broken up or rephrased. "Either game"'s referent is quite a long way back. If that can be fixed, "with Gillingham losing both games 0-3" or something similar might work.
  • The three consecutive defeats spanning the year-end are mentioned in both the "August-December" and "January-May" sections; I'd cut the former.
  • "a player exchange deal also involving Robbie Reinelt": why "also"? Do you mean Reinelt arrived rather than left? If so I'd make it plainer: "that also brought Robbie Reinelt to Gillingham", for example.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 04:12, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie: - many thanks for your review, all comments addressed I think. Just to clarify my edit re: your first comment, in football parlance (certainly in the UK) a score is always expressed with the larger value first, irrespective of whether you are discussing a team winning or losing. So we say "Gillingham won 3-0" but we also say "Gillingham lost 3-0", not 0-3....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:52, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Fixes look good; I'm British and should know about 3-0 vs. 0-3, but evidently I've been in the US too long. And thanks for fixing my loose copyedit; I can't believe I made that mistake! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:31, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Amakuru

[edit]
Lead
  • "In June, however, the club was purchased by businessman Paul Scally." - having said "but" in the previous sentence, this feels like a few too many buts. Can it be joined to the previous sentence with somthing like "remained in doubt until..." ?
  • The second paragraph says "the team" four times, which feels slightly repetitive.
Background
  • "in the fourth tier of the English football league system, which had been named the Football League Third Division since 1992" - minor point, and the same construct appears in your other FAs, but the "which" is slightly ambiguous here. It could (and does) mean that the fourth tier is named the FL 3rd div, but another way to parse it is that the whole English football league system is named the FL 3rd division.
Third Division
  • "Carlisle won 1–0 meaning that Gillingham finished the year 18th in the table" - sounds slightly odd, as the year-end finish isn't a direct result of the Gillingham result. Maybe decouple them slightly.
Cup matches
  • The first sentence of this section feels somewhat long. Maybe break into a new sentence after "three levels lower in the English football league system".
  • "Due to the inadequacy of Heybridge's stadium" - "inadequacy" sounds a slightly vague and subjective term; maybe say it didn't meet the regulations or something?
  • "Wednesday took a 2–0 lead" - probably "Sheffield Wednesday", as we usually avoid contractions that aren't the straight name of the city I think... unless I'm wrong. We particularly wouldn't say "United" etc.
  • "by virtue of..." - sounds slightly idiomatic; maybe reword per MOS:IDIOM

That's about it... Surprisingly little for me to pick up on here, so well done!  — Amakuru (talk) 11:53, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Amakuru: - many thanks for your review, all done I think -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:18, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Amakuru: - any other comments? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:24, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, sorry I completely forgot to come back here. All looks good, support.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:36, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

@FAC coordinators: - OK to start another FAC.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:05, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, go ahead. (t · c) buidhe 19:22, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Buidhe via FACBot (talk) 23 March 2022 [26].

Everywhere at the End of Time

[edit]
Nominator(s): Wetrorave (talk) 18:56, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a series of six albums where each album depicts a stage of dementia. It starts off normal but with each album, it gets increasingly distorted and unrecognizable, eventually leading up to Stage 6, which sounds like it ends... how Alzheimer's usually ends. It then went on to be known for being extremely long.

This article's gone through two GA nominations and one peer review; I've been a major contributor to it since 2020 and forgot about it a bit in September 2021. Recently I've gone back to it and a general copyedit has been done, as well as checking POV and image licensing. It had been so long since I last edited this article, it all seemed like a burning memory. Wetrorave (talk) 18:56, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by ChrisTheDude

[edit]
  • "He produced the albums in Krakow over six-month periods [...] using abstract paintings by his friend Ivan Seal." - how did he use the paintings to produce the albums? This wording is unclear.
Done: re-worded to "and used paintings by his friend as album covers." Wetrorave (talk) 14:06, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The albums depicts" - typo
Corrected. Wetrorave (talk) 14:06, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "See also: Patience (After Sebald)" - unclear why this is here
Clarified: Patience (After Sebald) is an album that was released before EATEOT and after An Empty Bliss. Unfortunately I can't seem to figure out a way to put a description in the See also template, so this may need to be removed. Wetrorave (talk) 14:06, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
TBH unless you can find a way to work it into the prose, I would suggest just removing it. It just looks totally random there without any context.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:30, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "with all "memories" of the project starting the process of "cropping up"" - this wording is a bit odd and I can't quite figure out what it means. The memories began the process of cropping up but didn't complete said process?
Agreed; removed this entire sentence since it doesn't really fit for a "Background" section and is mentioned later. Wetrorave (talk) 14:06, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your suggestions! Wetrorave (talk) 14:06, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
More comments
  • "Also an electronic musician, Burial's style has been compared to the sound of Everywhere" - I think "The sound of Everywhere has also been compared to the style of another electronic musician, Burial" would read more naturally
Agreed; done. Wetrorave (talk) 22:25, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "specifying the "elegance" on Kubrick's film and the drama on Allen's work." - both uses of "on" should actually be "of", I think
I think both are fine but since I'm not a native English speaker and don't always get the on's and in's and at's right, I've changed it to "of" anyways. Wetrorave (talk) 22:25, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "this results in phrases such as such as" - stutter at the end there
at the end of -time (ba da tsss). Corrected. Wetrorave (talk) 22:25, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It is the most distant to the sould" - sould?
How did I not realise the amount of typos this article has? Corrected. Wetrorave (talk) 22:25, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "there are not any official uploads of music videos for the last four stages on vvmtest." - what's vvmtest?
Already explained in the article: both of which were uploaded to Kirby's YouTube channel vvmtest. Wetrorave (talk) 22:25, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He opposed to these expected opinions" - think this should maybe be "He expressed opposition to these expected opinions"
Indeed a better way to phrase this; done. Wetrorave (talk) 22:25, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Stage 6 received more praise, with charactiersations" - last word is spelt wrong
One more typo corrected. Wetrorave (talk) 22:25, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Everywhere at the End of Time was included in a list of Portuguese journal Espalha Factos" => "Everywhere at the End of Time was included in a list in Portuguese journal Espalha Factos"
Done. Wetrorave (talk) 22:25, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "whereas direct searches made up for over 50%" => "whereas direct searches made up over 50%"
Done. Wetrorave (talk) 22:25, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I believe I have addressed all of the issues mentioned Chris. Wetrorave (talk) 22:25, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Gerald Waldo Luis

[edit]

Revisiting this reminded me of this quote: "The only way to be happy is to love. Unless you love, your life will flash by. Do good to them. Wonder." Oh yeah, track B4 is now my phone ringtone lmao. Anyways, comments--

Resolved comments from GeraldWL 17:30, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
* No duplicate links :)
  • "depict" is usually referring to visual content and many find it hard attributing it to audio content; suggest changing to "evoking", "reflect", or "symbolizing" wherever you feel appropriate.
  • "which Beaten Frowns After depicts as ourselves". Meta referrals are not allowed on Wikipedia; suggest changing "ourselves" to "human beings themselves."
  • "that sampled big band records"-- link big band.
  • "Kirby said he praises Basinski's works"-- either change "praises" to "loves", or removing "said he" since "praises" already has it covered.
  • "and the drama of Allen's work"-- "and the dramatic avidity of Allen's work"
  • "writing for Tiny Mix Tapes, Frank Falisi compared it to the bathroom scene of The Shining rather than the ballroom one, where "Grady [is] in the bathroom wiping Jack's coat"" --> "writing for Tiny Mix Tapes, Frank Falisi compared it to the bathroom scene rather than the ballroom one. In it, the film's caretaker character Jack and the butler Delbert Grady disagree on who from either of them was the former caretaker." You can see the clip here.
  • Removed this part since, in hindsight, maybe it shouldn't be mentioned. It gets a little out of the scope of EATEOT, being basically a whole sentence dedicated to a scene from a whole different piece of media. Wetrorave (talk) 13:54, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The track titles present more somber themes, with names such as "Surrendering to Despair", "Last Moments of Pure Recall", and "The Way Ahead Feels Lonely". They represent the patient's awareness" --> "The track titles present more somber themes, with names such as "Surrendering to Despair", "Last Moments of Pure Recall", and "The Way Ahead Feels Lonely", representing the patient's awareness"
  • "The songs play for longer times and feature fewer loops, but are more deteriorated in quality. They focus on the patient's realisation that something seems wrong with their memories and the denial accompanying that feeling." --> "The songs play for longer times and feature fewer loops, but are more deteriorated in quality, symbolizing the patient's realisation that something seems wrong with their memories and the denial accompanying that feeling."
  • "stating "It's possible to find ten versions of one song now."" There's no comma in "stating" here, but there's a comma in "saying, "I'd be finishing one stage". Must be consistent.
  • "by Kirby's long-time friend Ivan Seal." Link Ivan Seal
  • "Kirby thought of not producing the series at all." --> "Kirby initially thought of not producing the series at all."
  • "When asked what studies about dementia interest him the most, Kirby stated, "To me it's all interesting."" I don't understand what this serves for this article, it seems to just be a trivial question.
  • "only the Caretaker did."--> "only the Caretaker persona did."
  • "Kirby said the visuals of Weirdcore are important to his music, calling them "another World within the World.""--> "Kirby said the visuals of Weirdcore are important to his music, calling them otherworldly."
  • Not entirely sure about this, since the capitalising of "World" is something that Kirby always does when writing and is also a bit of a little easter egg in the article. But eh, why not. This wording is clearer anyways. Wetrorave (talk) 13:54, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a video, [−0º] must be in quotations in lieu of italics
  • "It was chosen as one of the best audiovisual works of the year by Fact."--> "It was chosen as one of the best audiovisual works of the year by the music website Fact."
  • "As of January 2022"-- considering you are subscribed to vvmtest and you can change the status when anything is released (I bet otherwise anyway), you can just use {{Date}} so you don't have to update every month. As well as for the reference's accessdate.
  • Remove link to Netherlands as country links are discouraged
  • Footnote d can easily be a prose sentence, I don't see why it must be footnoted
  • "Friday Night Funkin'" --> "Friday Night Funkin' (2020)"
  • "Ref. is from 17 May" --> "The reference is dated 17 May"
  • "album released between"--> "an album released between
  • Done.
I believe I have addressed all comments Gerald. Support? again, no pressure :) Wetrorave (talk) 13:54, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It looks all good now, just one more: in "This triggered negative backlash", change "this" to "The claims". GeraldWL 15:44, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Gerald Waldo Luis: Also done. Wetrorave (talk) 16:31, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Realmaxxver

[edit]

I have already been involved with this article quite a bit, but I am going to still add comments. Realmaxxver (talk) 22:01, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Realmaxxver:: Not to seem annoying but do you still plan on commenting for this FAC? It's been over 9000 3 days. Wetrorave (talk) 19:17, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I was already editing this page on another tab, editing this page, so yeah. Realmaxxver (talk) 19:40, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict × 3)

  • "He produced the albums in Krakow over six-month periods to "give a sense of time passing" ' " → "The albums were produced in Krakow over six-month periods to "give a sense of time passing"" ' "
Done. Passive voice does seem to read better here. Wetrorave (talk) 13:35, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "As each stage was released, the series received increasingly positive reviews from critics. They felt emotional about the complete edition, given its length and dementia-driven concept." → "As each stage was released, the series received increasingly positive reviews from critics; feeling emotional about the complete edition, given its length and dementia-driven concept."
Not done, since this would be gramatically incorrect, but added the semicolon. Wetrorave (talk) 13:35, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Considered to be Kirby's magnum opus, Everywhere at the End of Time became an Internet phenomenon in 2020, appearing in TikTok videos as a listening challenge. It was later translated into a mod for the game Friday Night Funkin' (2020)." → "Considered to be Kirby's magnum opus, Everywhere at the End of Time became an Internet phenomenon in 2020, appearing in TikTok videos as a listening challenge, and would later be translated into a mod for the game Friday Night Funkin' (2020)."
Partly done: changed to "and was later translated". Wetrorave (talk) 13:35, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • In album FAs, the sections about the album's recording/production are placed before the section about the music itself (e. g. Low (David Bowie album), Pod (The Breeders album)) so I am pretty sure that there is a MOS issue in this article.
Eh maybe, but the album project style guide recommends that the Production section be placed after the Music section (it's only an essay but it's also the only album style guide on WP). And considering that EATEOT is a series of albums where the concept and artwork (both of which appear in "Music and stages") are very important to understanding why it even exists, and also considering A1's popularity (a song presented through an infobox of this section), I think it's fair to leave both sections as they are. Wetrorave (talk) 01:24, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Realmaxxver (talk) 18:46, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Background
  • "The Caretaker project first explored memory loss with Theoretically Pure Anterograde Amnesia (2005)," As this sentence introduces Kirby's first records based on memory loss, I would suggest this be the start of the second paragraph, as shown here.
I think it's okay this way. The idea here is that this section talks firstly about Kirby's past history and then about An Empty Bliss. Given that An Empty Bliss had a much greater impact on EATEOT's creation that TPAA or PRoP, so I think the way the paragraphs are separated now is fine. Wetrorave (talk) 15:03, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think that concept album should be linked here; "Kirby felt the only concept left to explore would be "stages of dementia."[2]"
Already been done here. Realmaxxver (talk) 21:00, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Music and stages
  • "Ideas of deterioration, melancholy, confusion, and abstractness are present.[10] Tiny Mix Tapes suggested that, as the Caretaker's swan song, Everywhere "threatens at every moment to give way to nothing."[11]" → "Ideas of deterioration, melancholy, confusion, and abstractness are present,[10] which Tiny Mix Tapes suggested that, as the Caretaker's swan song, Everywhere "threatens at every moment to give way to nothing."[11]"
Not done. Connecting both sentences would suggest that Tiny Mix Tapes is talking about those ideas, which is untrue and WP:SYN. Wetrorave (talk) 12:31, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "However, as viewed by Spectrum Culture's Holly Hazelwood, Kirby's work does not focus on physical decay, while that record does;[10] although positive of Basinski's works, Kirby insisted his own "aren't just loops breaking down. They're about why they're breaking down, and how."[2]" semicolon redundant
Done. Wetrorave (talk) 18:23, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Removed semicolon. Wetrorave (talk) 23:31, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The sound of Everywhere has also been compared to the style of another electronic musician, Burial;[10][17] author Matt Colquhoun wrote for The Quietus that Burial and the Caretaker "highlight the 'broken time of the twenty-first century.'"[17]" replace "Burial and the Caretaker" with "both artists"; "The sound of Everywhere has also been compared to the style of another electronic musician, Burial;[10] author Matt Colquhoun wrote for The Quietus that both artists "highlight the 'broken time of the twenty-first century.'"[17]" The first instance of ref 17 is redundant.
Done both. Wetrorave (talk) 23:31, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It features an organ, choral, and a minute of silence in the last 15 minutes, portraying death.[16][21]" → "In the last 15 minutes, It features an organ, choral, and a minute of silence, portraying death.[16][21]"
Done. Wetrorave (talk) 23:31, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stages 1–3

  • "In contrast with the first stage's joyful sound, Kirby described the second stage as having "a massive difference between the moods."[1]" I think this sentence would better in the second paragraph than the first.
I put this sentence here specifically because I think it actually serves as a bit of a transition from reading about Stage 1 to reading about Stage 2, not to mention that Kirby himself noted the difference between both stages and that all paragraphs start with "Stage # is described". Wetrorave (talk) 23:31, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Coming back to it, it really does fit in the Stage 2 paragraph. Done. Wetrorave (talk) 10:14, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stage 4–6

  • "Hazelwood interpreted it as "a traffic jam in audio form", likening it to neurons that become filled with beta amyloids, and the record differs heavily from previous albums,[10] with its source material sometimes being reduced to a whisper." this is a runon sentence; "Hazelwood interpreted it as "a traffic jam in audio form", likening it to neurons that become filled with beta amyloids. The record differs heavily from previous albums,[10] with its source material sometimes being reduced to a whisper."
Don't remember this sentence being like this when I last edited this article in 2021 but eh, done. Wetrorave (talk) 17:17, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Still reviewing. Realmaxxver (talk) 20:03, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Artwork and packaging
  • "Tiny Mix Tapes included Beaten Frowns After—the artwork for Stage 1—in two listings of the best album covers of 2016 and the 2010s.[51][52]" I think this would preferred on the second paragraph than on the first
I think it's fine like this. The second paragraph is more related to what the album covers depict, rather than their notability or accolades, so this division should be ok. Wetrorave (talk) 14:16, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Release
  • "Weirdcore's visuals were later presented with Kirby's music in a video titled "[−0º]", in 2020.[81] It was chosen as one of the best audiovisual works of the year by the music magazine Fact.[82]" → "Weirdcore's visuals were later presented with Kirby's music in a video titled "[−0º]", in 2020,[81] which was chosen as one of the best audiovisual works of the year by the music magazine Fact.[82]"
Partly done; changed to "In 2020, Weirdcore's visuals were presented with Kirby's music in a video titled "[−0º]"; it was chosen as one of the best audiovisual works of the year by the music magazine Fact." Also just realised that there isn't a source for Weirdcore being called "Nicky Smith", so I've just changed it to "anonymous visual artist Weirdcore" in the beginning of the paragraph. Wetrorave (talk) 19:13, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Critical reception
  • "In March 2021, it peaked as the best-selling record on Boomkat,[92] the platform Kirby uses for his physical releases.[5] As of 5 March 2022, it remains as one of Bandcamp's best-selling dark ambient records.[93]" This part would work better in the "Impact and popularity" section.
Not done. This is per other FA articles of Mid-importance albums, such as ACLaM. Plus, even the best-selling album of a very niche genre, or very niche website, is still a niche album, so I don't see how that would indicate emotional impact or popularity. Wetrorave (talk) 19:12, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks Realmaxvver. I know I did not agree with some of your suggestions but am still grateful that you support this FA. Now that it's likely no more editors will review this article (though I wish some of them did), it's up to our benefac- I mean, our coordinators to have a say on this. @FAC coordinators: Yay or nay? Wetrorave (talk) 10:14, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The ping only goes through if you add it in the same edit as your signature. As stated below it does not appear that NFCC files have been evaluated so I've requested that at Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Image and source check requests. (t · c) buidhe 10:22, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh alright, didn't know that. This article did have some NFC issues in the past but I believe it's fine the way it is, even with 6 non-free files. It has 3 samples, the maximum number allowed per WP:SAMPLE, and the album covers are terrifically important. Wetrorave (talk) 14:24, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source/image review - pass

[edit]
  • Sources look all good, appropriately formatted. But why are the refs in Release history not list-defined like the rest?
  • Good question: it's because they're easier to manage this way. The refs in Release history are used only in that section, and thus thet don't need to be list-defined since they're used only once in the article. Plus, most readers don't edit Wikipedia anyways, so they wouldn't notice. oops forgot to leave my signature Wetrorave (talk) 13:19, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm I see. I reviewed the guidelines, and list-defined reference aren't given the same scrutiny as CS1 vs CS2, and this article does not have consistency template, so I'm sure it must be fine. Source pass. GeraldWL 14:19, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Wretchskull

[edit]

I've really enjoyed listening to this album. Excellent work on this article!

  • What makes ref 5 reliable? Did Kirby himself ever mention this YouTube channel and confirm that it is his? There is another link in the YouTube description (this one). Is it more reliable?
I don't see how one source would be more reliable than the other, per WP:SELFSOURCE, and Kirby confirmed that this is his YouTube channel throughout various interviews that are used as references for the "Impact and popularity" section (plus the Electronic Beats one). Bandcamp would be particularly unreliable for sourcing this type of info per WP:VENDOR. Wetrorave (talk) 13:57, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 9q states "Stage 5 doesn’t let us forget the inhumanity it documents, with titles like “Stage 5 Advanced plaque entanglements” and “Synapse retrogenesis", but the article states "Hazelwood considered names such as 'Advanced Plaque Entanglements' to be 'inhuman'". I'd change the article text to "Hazel wood considered names such as 'Advanced Plaque Entanglements' to be documenting "inhumanity".
Done. Wetrorave (talk) 13:57, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • At external links, is the "(CAPTCHA required)" needed? Personally, a CAPTCHA didn't appear, but even if it did, it doesn't need to be mentioned. Notes about external links are usually only about whether it requires subscription or registration. I'd remove it.
As someone who added this note recently, I had my doubts on whether this should be here but added it anyway. Removed. Wetrorave (talk) 13:57, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Wetrorave: More to come. Wretchskull (talk) 10:52, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing the review:

  • "In 2020, he was due to perform live for the last time at the "[Re]setting" Rewire Festival, which would have occurred in April at The Hague in the Netherlands. However, the show was cancelled due to the COVID-19 pandemic." Not really relevant to this FAC, but I definitely think you could add that to Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the music industry.
  • Actually it's already linked.
  • Why is Leyland Kirby linked in the Stage 6 release note but nowhere else? It should be as consistent as "Ivan Seal".
Because Leyland Kirby is simply a redirect to the Caretaker (musician), which is already linked before. It's linked only in the quote box per MOS:REPEATLINK: "Generally, a link should appear only once in an article, but it may be repeated if helpful for readers, such as in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, hatnotes, and at the first occurrence after the lead."
  • Done.
  • In "see also", Patience (After Sebald) should be removed; it is already linked in the lede (The Caretaker chronology).
  • Done.
  • I see that the first mention of Everywhere at the End of Time of each section is given the full name and is shortened to Everywhere when mentioned again. Smart choice, but in the "Impact and popularity" section, the full name is given multiple times.
  • Shortened them to Everywhere, except in the first sentence, where I feel the full title is appropriate similar to in "Critical reception".
  • Have you found anything about the topic on WP:TWL?
  • Wetrowave, I can help with the TWL if you can't access it.
I can but, to be honest, I think the article already has more than enough in terms of references. Those could be included but I think the article should easily pass FA criteria in terms of references even without those TWL sources, per WP:ONUS. I'll still search there though. Wetrorave (talk) 16:42, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also, are all sources on TWL considered reliable? Many of the sources there seem to be WP:RSSM (and I won't repeat that mistake again lol). Wetrorave (talk) 16:59, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you're interested, Wetro, some of the interesting results I found in TWL are the articles "We found the greatest: Everywhere at the End of Time", which has some interesting interpretations; "Art transcending aura", analyzing the album with an artistic theory; "Casual Cadenza", which has an interpretation on the album's message. These all are accessed from Gale, publisher by UWIRE. There's also a very extensive essay at Teen Ink which I can share via wikimail. GeraldWL 17:05, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think I'm gonna check all "Find sources" links on EATEOT's talk page and see what I can add. Wetrorave (talk) 17:32, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Wretchskull: Actually, I probably won't have time to check the Google Search link, but I did with all the other ones. Besides the ones you've already mentioned, some of the results that I found interesting are "Utilize music in education for better results", "Music highlights you might have missed in October", and "Catching up with Leyland Kirby". I'd add them now but am unsure how to; is there some specific template for Gale citations or something? Wetrorave (talk) 18:31, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Wetrorave: If you want to cite from a database, you should probably check what type of media the article you want to cite is, but {{Cite journal}} should probably work for most of them. InvalidOStalk 12:56, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Alright thanks. Wetrorave (talk) 13:00, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Gale actually has more than journals. The ones I mentioned are all news articles, thus must use Cite news. Just sayin'. GeraldWL 13:30, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Wetrorave: I messed up. Read above. InvalidOStalk 14:26, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Too late Invalid, I already did lol. I'll see how I can change those refs to Cite news again. Wetrorave (talk) 14:36, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately none of them actually talk about the album, and the one that does is WP:SELFPUB. Wetrorave (talk) 16:49, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there not a single available image of Leyland Kirby?
Would it not be possible even under fair use? This is the only article that would use an image of him so I don't really see a problem with that. Wretchskull (talk) 17:36, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Actually IMO, the Caretaker article would be the one that would use an image of Kirby. Unless there's critical commentary available to relate the image to the album, it shouldnt be here. GeraldWL 13:30, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Wretchskull and Gerald Waldo Luis: This is all honestly very strange. Coming back to this, the deletion log left by a Commons admin says "No permission since 14 July 2021", but I found an archived copy (before July though) where the permission seems to be just fine (Own work). Did someone inadvertently remove the CC 4.0 license from the article and got it removed? If so, should it be reuploaded? The image is still very much available here. - Wetrorave (talk) 21:11, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Depending on the nature of the image (which I can't load), a claim of "own work" might not be enough to establish that it is infact own work. (t · c) buidhe 21:43, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Buidhe: Oh nevermind, just realised I do have one photo of Kirby from his "Everywhere, an empty bliss" art exhibition (which is also where I got the Ivan Seal photo from). It doesn't show his face very clearly but it's better than nothing, and it also makes for an image to accompany this article if it goes to WP:TFA some day. As you seem a good reviewer of free images, do you find a claim of "own work" for this photo to be enough? Wetrorave (talk) 22:04, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Which image? Is there a link? (t · c) buidhe 22:10, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Buidhe: Yes, here it is. Guess I forgot to upload it lol. The original image had 720x540 pixels but here it's cut for focus purposes. I believe you weren't notified so I'm pinging and resigning this edit. Wetrorave (talk) 22:49, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Looks fine to me. (t · c) buidhe 23:30, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nice :). Wetrorave (talk) 23:31, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Wetrorave: Ping me when you're done. Wretchskull (talk) 15:31, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Wretchskull:, I believe I've addressed all points (including the addition of TWL refs). I did not find any CC photo of Kirby on the Internet or in my gallery, though I do plan on travelling to Barcelona to see Kirby at the festival and take some photos of him there. I'd like to know what's your position on this nomination. Wetrorave (talk) 22:26, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Very well done! As a side note unrelated to the FAC, I mentioned that the following fact: ("In 2020, he was due to perform live for the last time at the "[Re]setting" Rewire Festival, which would have occurred in April at The Hague in the Netherlands. However, the show was cancelled due to the COVID-19 pandemic.") could be added to the article "Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the music industry". You, or whoever replied, misunderstood my comment as suggesting that said article should be linked, which it already is. Regardless, I support this nomination. Wretchskull (talk) 23:55, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wretchskull, apologies for moi's misunderstanding. I think it can be added to that article, if Wetro pleases. GeraldWL 01:35, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Ovinus

[edit]

Really excited to see this article brought so far; I listened to this album a few years ago and was disappointed to see the article in mediocre shape. I made some tweaks as I read, so feel free to challenge those.

Yeah I also get pretty disappointed when I look through archived versions of this page and find the article in a sincerely deplorable state lol. I've added "In 1999" in the beginning of Background. Wetrorave (talk) 21:49, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "empathy for carers" Empathy for carers and suffers, or just carers?
Sources in Impact and popularity tell us it's patients only (+ not really a reliable source but the whole EATEOT YT comment section is about how dementia is horrible), so changed. Wetrorave (talk) 12:01, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "However, as viewed by some commentators, Kirby's work does not focus on physical decay, while that record does." Can we really take a stance here and say it in Wikipedia voice?
Agreed; changed. Wetrorave (talk) 12:01, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "reflecting the memory and its deterioration" The memory of...
The patient's memory; changed. Wetrorave (talk) 12:01, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Will continue in a bit and do an NFCC review per buidhe's comment below.
  • Sentence starting with "The songs sampling ..." needs a citation (which should be straightforward to find)
There's [27], which I'm not sure is "high-quality" but for such basic info, I think it's fine. Wetrorave (talk) 12:01, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "contrary to Stage 1's first signs" Eh... I don't know if "contrary" is exact here. Maybe "in stark contrast with"
Agreed; changed to "in contrast with". Wetrorave (talk) 12:22, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "lack of feelings" maybe link to apathy ?
Changed it to apathy altogether. "Lack of feelings" feels kinda awkward to read in my opinion. Wetrorave (talk) 12:22, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "sample the aria "Lasst Mich Ihn Nur Noch Einmal Küssen"" As played by whom?
Source says it's played by Bach; changed. Wetrorave (talk) 12:22, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's definitely not who played it. Bach might've written it, but I don't think we can find recordings of performances from the 18th century. There's a likely candidate for the actual record it came from, but there's no reliable sources for that. I'd say it's probably best to remove it entirely. InvalidOStalk 13:46, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed it to "The last six minutes sample a performance of Bach's aria". Is this acceptable? Wetrorave (talk) 14:44, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Seems fine to me. InvalidOStalk 16:50, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Due to his prolific way of working" A bit odd and NPOV? Maybe just remove
Removed "prolific". Wetrorave (talk) 12:22, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "One difference Kirby noted between Stage 1 and Stage 2 is that ... samples fully play." Belongs as a short sentence in the previous section (on Stages 1–3), since it it's more of a musical choice apparent (to an astute listener) in the end product than a production element
I think it's still fine to include this here. This information is already mentioned on Stages 1–3 ("The songs play for longer times and feature fewer loops,") not to mention that some songs on Stage 2 are still loops (C3 and D3). Wetrorave (talk) 12:22, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "aleatoric music" maybe define?
I've added "leaving certain elements random", is this fine? Wetrorave (talk) 12:22, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which modern software is capable of" Software and hardware has been capable of "removing specific frequencies" for a while, in the literal interpretation—see Electronic_filter_topology#Biquad_filter_topology. So maybe remove, since it doesn't add much either
Done but only for the modern software part. Wetrorave (talk) 12:22, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "pedagogical documents" I don't know what "pedagogical" means in this context; Kirby is writing lecture notes on his music?
Removed pedagogical since, well, I'm not really sure what it means either to be honest. Only one õut of the three sources says "Dossier Pedagogique" anyway. ~~
  • "sense of time passing" passing... in the life of the dementia patient?
I believe it's to the listeners; added "to the listeners". Wetrorave (talk) 12:22, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "When releasing Stage 5, Kirby's press release spoke about comparisons of the series' progression to the then-ongoing Brexit process." Is this really relevant?
I think it is when you consider the fact that Kirby is Bri'ish British. Wetrorave (talk) 12:22, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "described by several critics as better, although some disagreed" Rough sense of proportion here, in your reading?
I'm not sure what you mean by this but I've changed this part to "generally described as better". Wetrorave (talk) 12:38, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'highlighting Stage 6 as "going fully corny in its final minutes"' Doesn't corny have a negative connotation? It's in a sentence pretty uniformly about praise
I've changed this part altogether to "with a Tiny Mix Tapes writer alternately highlighting Stage 6's "corny" ending as 'giving us the release his concept might want to refuse but that our decaying, sappy minds want.'" Is this fine? Wetrorave (talk) 12:38, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Kirby asserted he knew about the phenomenon by noting an exponential growth of views" Why is this relevant?
I think it's relevant. It's the first time Kirby noted his work got popular, so it's pretty relevant imo. Wetrorave (talk) 12:38, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Going back to the empathy thing in the lead: Is the empathy directed toward dementia patients or their caretakers?
Already answered. Wetrorave (talk) 12:38, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "however, music has been proven to make patients happier" Erm, what? Remove unless a source is specifically talking about Kirby's work; I doubt a dementia patient—or really anyone—will be made happier by Stage 6 :P
Yeah this is kinda awkward. So this was previously just a footnote but I agree with you that it's not worthy of inclusion anyways. Wetrorave (talk) 12:38, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The claims triggered a negative backlash" The claims, or the challenge?
Per the sources, both of them; added "and the challenge". Wetrorave (talk) 12:38, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "to be authentic" Authenticity to himself, or faithfulness to the disease?
To himself I believe; changed. Wetrorave (talk) 12:38, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: Sources for Track listing, while not by default reliable, are fine for this case imo.
  • First footnote needs a period at the end.
Done. Wetrorave (talk) 12:38, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Some more comments

A few more mild concerns. Ovinus (talk) 17:57, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • "The series' exploration of dementia drew comparisons" Hm? The sources compare Basinski's usage of deteriorating loops, not dementia
Changed to "exploration of decay".
  • "Due to his way of working" mentioned above, but I'd suggest removal. It effectively means nothing without further information, and the following information speaks for itself.
Yeah agreed, this is redundant. Removed. Wetrorave (talk) 20:47, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is The Fader a high-quality RS?
I think so. The Fader has been used by a source in many other news articles per a Google search and it has interviewed notable musicians. Plus this context doesn't use the source to assert a fact, but rather the source IS the fact. Wetrorave (talk) 20:47, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the album is stylized "Everywhere at the end of time", why is the article title (and work throughout) in sentence case?
But it isn't. Titles are in title case per MOS:CT. Wetrorave (talk) 20:47, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah shoot, forgot that doesn't apply to works of art. Thanks!

Great and thorough read; I'm really impressed. Perhaps long for an article on a piece of music, but given its monumental complexity and length, is quite reasonable (esp when the alternative would be a main article + six short articles). Ovinus (talk) 22:13, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NFCC analysis

Images have been checked above; the question is sounds. Ovinus (talk) 22:13, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • My main concern is the first sample, which ultimately is just a slowed-down version of "Heartaches" by Bowlly, with a bit of noise added. It's not a few seconds of it, either. Because the article is not about Bowlly or his work, and because "Heartaches" was published after 1926 (or whatever the date is), I recommend its removal, unless it has fallen into the PD for some reason I'm unaware of. Most of Stage 1 consists of these types of long samples, so there may not be a good alternative. Perhaps someone more familiar with music copyright can comment here.
@Ovinus: I think it's a worthy inclusion. Indeed, A1 may be just a vaporwave-ing of an old song, but it's easily the most recognisable melody of the album. One source [28] even mentions it as "an apt introduction to Kirby’s baseline working methods," not to mention Bowlly himself does have some significance to EATEOT and the Caretaker as a whole.
Unfortunately, the song was published in 1931, so it is not PD (yet), but I still think that only by including such non-free content, can the reader identify a behavior that is a subject of discussion in the article. I'll soon (tomorrow, at least where I live) be responding to the other comments but about this one, what do you think? Wetrorave (talk) 01:23, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, take your time! I agree it's worthy of inclusion from an educational standpoint; it's just a weird copyright edge case. Al Bowlly and his work only mentioned in passing; the article does not analyze Bowlly and his life, or the orchestra. That said, looking back at WP:NFCC I see that the criterion is indeed "contextual significance", not whether the authors of the item are discussed. The sample is short enough, at 19s (original song is 3:30). Just clarify in the fair use rationale that the copyright belongs to both Universal Music Group and Kirby. (Also, please desussify it.) Ovinus (talk) 02:50, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the amogus part was my main concern lol. I am fine with nearly all your prose edits, except for two things I've done:
  • changed "for example:" to "to create phrases such as" on the Stage 3 para;
  • changed letters after colons to lowercase for a more consistent style.
Wetrorave (talk) 11:48, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Samples H1 and R1 are in line with the NFCC guidelines and both have full justifications on their respective pages.

@Buidhe: Are there any other tasks to complete for this article besides NFCC? I see it's near the bottom of the FAC list Ovinus (talk) 22:25, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's no rush, plenty of time for you and Wetrowave to finish this review and a coord to look over the nomination. (t · c) buidhe 22:26, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ovinus: I believe I have addressed all issues presented. Wetrorave (talk) 12:38, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nearly everything looks good. About the colons: MOS:COLON says every complete sentence following a colon should be capitalized.
  • "more distorted than normal" What is normal, the original recording to comparing to his usual work?
It's in relation to the other tracks; changed to "more distorted than others." Wetrorave (talk) 20:47, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He believed his descriptions may distract from this" I don't understand this sentence.
Changed to "He believed his liner notes may distract from Seal's art," which I believe makes the sentence less vague. Wetrorave (talk) 20:47, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Inconsistent pronouns (he/her) for "In 2021, Hazelwood ... ".
The author is a woman, so I believe someone changed it out of confusion about the writer's gender. Changed to 'she'. Wetrorave (talk) 20:47, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "called by TikTok" should be "TikTok users", unless ByteDance did that.
It is TikTok themselves, though not all of ByteDance, since source says it's William Gruger. Changed. Wetrorave (talk) 20:47, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's all, after a second pass. I checked 14 citations at random and found no issues. My main concern about source quality was Tiny Mix Tapes, but it has been discussed in 2018 and found to be reliable. Cheers, Ovinus (talk) 16:20, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Question: If this album (or set of albums) was The Caretaker's last release under that alias, what is Everywhere, an Empty Bliss ? Ovinus (talk) 17:38, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
EAEB is more of a "bonus album" rather than a proper release or even recall of the Caretaker alias/character. This is especially noticeable when you consider the fact that EAEB is just a compilation of scrapped tracks initially meant for use on EATEOT, so I'd still say EATEOT is the final Caretaker release. Wetrorave (talk) 20:47, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ovinus: Adressed issues. I've list-defined your response to make it easier to read. Wetrorave (talk) 20:47, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Great, thanks. There are no statements about dementia that would fall under WP:MEDRS and, in particular, there is no claim that the album correctly portrays the stages of dementia—in fact, the opposite is stated by some commentators. One last thing: The anosognosia redirect headnote should probably be "For the condition of a patient's unawareness of their own disorder, see ..." since the (nonmedical) term post-awareness evokes something like, "totally unaware of surroundings", rather than the more specific anosognosia. Support nonetheless. Ovinus (talk) 21:42, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Coord note

It looks like no one has evaluated the audio files for NFCC issues? (t · c) buidhe 03:25, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Buidhe. I was wondering, do you feel like you could be bold and review those audio samples yourself? Of course, this is not mandatory. And thanks for letting me know about this page. Wetrorave (talk) 11:36, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Buidhe: Do you think the rationales for the sound samples to be fine? I'm accepting to remove some of them if they end up meaning an excess of non-free content. Today marks this album's three-year anniversary, and it'd be cool if this article got FA status exactly three years after its subject matter was released. - Wetrorave (talk) 15:16, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but I feel more comfortable evaluating licensing for free content vs. non-free content. (t · c) buidhe 15:18, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm I see. I wonder if it would be acceptable to upload a sample of "Back There Benjamin", given that Sgt. Pepper has four tracks and they are all similar sounding while EATEOT has a lot of varied songs throughout its stages. Wetrorave (talk) 13:05, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Buidhe via FACBot (talk) 23 March 2022 [29].

Mount Melbourne

[edit]
Nominator(s): Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:06, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a volcano in Antarctica that erupted during the last few centuries. Ongoing fumarolic activity has led to the formation of a moss- and alga-based ecosystem that survives in areas kept ice-free by volcanic heat at a locality called Cryptogam Ridge, which has thus been declared a protected area. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:06, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
  • File:MountMelbourneMap.jpg File:MountMelbourne.jpg the claimed origin is completely plausible, but the source links are dead or don't lead to the image
  • File:Map of West Antarctic Rift (WARS).svg needs source for the info presented in the map

(t · c) buidhe 09:17, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Passing comment from Femke

[edit]

Not inactive

[edit]

The lead lists the volcano as inactive (no citation). The typical classification (USGS) doesn't include inactive; it's either active, dormant, or extinct. Considering that it has fumarole activity I'd say active or at a minimum dormant; not inactive. BrucePL (talk) 19:53, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrote this. By the way, BrucePL, can I ask whether File:Map of West Antarctic Rift (WARS).svg was taken from this website? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:14, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The map is my own work. ANDRILL, which I belonged to years back, made mods to it for a drilling project proposal that didn't get approved. The modified version was used in a research proposal that was unsuccessful. I see this is an archived website. I thought the project was offline. BrucePL (talk) 21:49, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Buidhe:Does that (^) answer your question about the copyright of that image? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:18, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't asking for the copyright, but a verifiable source for the information displayed on the image. I guess that's also answered, and you can list the archive site as a source on the Commons description page. (t · c) buidhe 10:28, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I see you have done that, I've expanded a little. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:16, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

[edit]

Recusing to review.

I have done a little copy editing as I went. Could you let me know if any of it causes you a problem.

  • "Mount Melbourne has mainly erupted trachyandesite and trachyte". I don't think "erupted" is the best verb here. Is there a synonym?
    "Produced" comes to mind but is a tiny little misleading. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:52, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ejected? Expelled? Discharged?
"Discharged" maybe but I don't think it's better than "erupted", the first two imply explosive activity. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:06, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My objection to erupted is that it implies explosive activity. Eg see Wiktionary "To eject something violently".
"Discharged" in the meantime implies non-explosive activity, so it has the same problem. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:53, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, perhaps again you need to use more words in order to communicate the appropriate nuance?
Sorry, but I don't think the tiny gain in clarity would justify the extra length. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:24, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "tephra fall deposits" needs explaining inline per MOS:NOFORCELINK:" Do use a link wherever appropriate, but as far as possible do not force a reader to use that link to understand the sentence. The text needs to make sense to readers who cannot follow links." Leaving aside part of the 'explanation' being a red link!
    Pulled the link. For an inlined definition, would the one given on page 2 here work with that source? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:52, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Works for me.
And it's in. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:06, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. I think everyone gets that. Eg I recall struggling to source "shock troops" and "light infantry". They are such obvious military terms they are rarely defined.
Added a definition but pending source since I don't know where to find one. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:06, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So over to the nominator to accurately describe the phenomenon. Maybe you need to use more words in order to communicate the appropriate nuamce?
Well, does the definition work? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:09, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well it can't stand. I mean, as compared with a less-recent Pleistocene? How about 'formed during the past 4,000 years' or whatever.
That's in. Does it need a dash or something like that? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:06, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Only the one you have given it, IMO.
That's done then. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:53, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I am happy to make suggestions. Would you like a more complex explanation, retaining at least some plate tectonics, or a more summary, but hence basic, approach?
The latter. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:06, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe something like 'It is unclear whether this is caused by a local hotspot beneath the area or a more general movement of tectonic plates in the area of the West Antarctic Rift'?
Put part of that in, but from what I can tell "more general movement of tectonic plates in the area of the West Antarctic Rift" isn't supported by the source. The source has a bit of a non sequitur problem when explaining the tectonic aspect. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:53, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Mount Melbourne appears to lie in a graben[m] whose marginal faults are still active with earthquakes, on the eastern flank of Mount Melbourne." It could now be read as MM being in a graben, which in turn is on MM!
Corrected. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:06, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:04, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good stuff. Thanks Jo-Jo. Some come backs above. I'll get on with the rest when I have time. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:33, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done. In case you are interested, TRAPPIST-1 is another article which may need jargon explanation. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:06, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am sure that there are lots of articles which could do with jargon explanation. Any reason to single this one out?
Only that it is the next one in my list. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:53, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Three comments above. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:43, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Addressed two, the third I am not sure how much more explanation we can add given that the WARS isn't well understood/explained. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:53, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Part II
[edit]
  • "gaseous components of the Mount Melbourne volcanic field magmas consist mainly of carbon dioxide." Should that be 'consisted'?
    Good question. The volcano is dormant and not extinct, so present tense may be appropriate. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:09, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Which would mean that right now the magma of the Mount Melbourne volcanic field has a gaseous component. Is that correct?
Yes. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:24, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and away from the westerlies". Could we have an in line explanation of what this means.
    Added one. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:29, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "might be evolving, yielding genetic variation". "yielding genetic variation" doesn't mean anything. Is there a missing 'increased'? If so, evolution does not normally and certainly not necessarily increase genetic variation. What does the source say?
    Detailed investigation of the C. pyriformis population also indicated that the genetic variation observed within this vegetative population is due to mutation occurringon Mt. Melbourne "yielding genetic variants"? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:29, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes! Clever.
  • You end a section with "Nematodes and collembola complete its biota", but in the next section have "Other species associated with the vegetation are" which seems to contradict the "complete" part.
    Because that next section is about a different part of the volcano than the one discussed above. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:19, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps replace "its" with the name of the part as an aid to the slow witted such as myself?
That's in. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:11, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And that is all I have. Nice one. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:19, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fine work. Supporting. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:03, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Volcanoguy

[edit]

I don't have much to say other than the lead claiming Mount Melbourne as fumarolically inactive. The Geothermal activity section claims that the volcano contains fumaroles with no indication of them being inactive. For example, fumarole temperatures can reach 60 °C (140 °F), contrasting with the cold air. If there are fumaroles that can reach 60 °C then there is obviously at least some fumarolic activity. Volcanoguy 20:46, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How in Hathor's name did I forget to remove "in" there? Now done, but oy. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 21:16, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Volcanoguy 21:40, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review from Ealdgyth

[edit]
  • ""Melbourne". Global Volcanism Program. Smithsonian Institution." in the sources is the same as "Global Volcanism Program, General Information" but this is not intuitive to the reader who can't use the little clicky links thing for SFN - we need to fix this somehow. AND this entry needs an accessdate and publication date (if known)
    Seems like we are currently only using General Information, which is the page one gets to from clicking the link in the sources, so I don't see it as a problem. Publication date is tough - https://volcano.si.edu/gvp_votw.cfm?vn=390015 gives two different dates and I am not sure how reliable they are when https://volcano.si.edu/gvp_votw.cfm?vn=243040 gives a date of 2013 for a volcano that erupted in 2022 (https://volcano.si.edu/volcano.cfm?vn=243040). Access date is in. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:40, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same issue for the short note "PDI 2022"...links to ""Pyroclastic Deposits I" (PDF). Earth and Atmospheric Sciences. Cornell University. Retrieved 7 March 2022." which is not findable without the clickies
  • And "Polar Record 2009" - this links to ""Recommendations from the 14th Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting, Rio De Janeiro 5–6 October 1987". Polar Record. 24 (149): 173–191. 2009. doi:10.1017/S0032247400009116. ISSN 1475-3057." which isn't going to be findable easy for folks without ability to hit the clickies.
  • "DGE 2014" links to ""graben". Dictionary Geotechnical Engineering/Wörterbuch GeoTechnik: English-German/Englisch-Deutsch. Springer: 616–616. 2014. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-41714-6_71494." - not findable without using the clickies
    Wrote a more intuitive note for this and the two above, although I'll admit that I am not exactly certain what the issue is. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:40, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • The problem is the short footnote was "DGE 2014" ... so the reader would look in the list of references in the "D"s, since it's "DGE". But the entry for this source is alphabetized under "graben". That's what all the ones above are about - the short footnotes are something that the reader would look in the alphabetical listing for under one letter, but they are listed under a totally different first bit - "PDI 2022" ... the reader is going to look under the Ps for a "PDI" but there is no "PDI" - it's actually "Pyroclastic Deposits I".... not intuitive. Ealdgyth (talk) 13:38, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • what makes www.peaklist.org a high quality reliable source? Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 82#Mountain heights and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 362#Is Peakbagger.com a reliable source? touch/mention it but ...
    I am not seeing it either, so I've removed it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:40, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • ISBN or OCLCs for Badino, Meneghel Caves in the...?
    As far as I can tell, a conference proceeding like this one has neither. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:40, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Antarctic Journal of the United States? Peer reviewed? What exactly IS this journal? If it's a journal, needs the same bibliographic information as the other journals used.
    Going by this it looks like a publication for Antarctic research that is called a "journal" but isn't really (added year, volume and issue information, which it seems to have). The three articles used are cited in the literature, not very frequently. Dana C Parker of the infrared article has numerous publications on the topic, including in regular journals, and the Willow Run Laboratories apparently has a reputation for research on infrared remote sensing. I can't find information on P. Hughes but L.A.Krissek has numerous publications on the topic, including in regular journals, and his webpage at OSU likewise mentions activity in the context of polar sedimentation - is it a problem that he published this only 3 years after his PhD? JR Keys, WC McIntosh and PR Kyle (USSCAR page) have numerous publications in the field of Antarctic geoscience and volcanology, including in regular journals. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:40, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    For the sake of completeness, https://www.coldregions.org/vufind/Content/ajus-home does say that it wasn't peer reviewed, which is why I listed out the credentials of the authors. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:40, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Geyer, A. (2021). "Chapter 1.4 Antarctic volcanism: active volcanism overview". Geological Society, London, Memoirs. - is this source which appears to be a journal? Needs to be formated and give the same information as the other journal articles used.
    On this one, I'll need a second opinion: I've formatted it as a journal but the main webpage isn't certain on whether it's a book or a journal. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:40, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Double check ALL your books that they give publication location. Some do, some don't.
    I've opted to remove them and only leave them on conference articles. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:40, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you use ISSN for some journals, you'll need it for all. Suggest just not using it (it's not required or particularly helpful)
    Aye, removed them. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:40, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Harman, Jay R. (1987). "WESTERLIES, MIDDLE LATITUDE WEST WINDSWesterlies, middle-latitude west winds". Climatology. Springer US. pp. 922–928. ISBN 978-0-387-30749-7. - Per MOS:ALLCAPS, we don't use all capitals, even when the source does. Also ... seems to have a space issue there?
    Yes, removed the capitalized part since the rest does the work by itself. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:40, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Kaminuma, Katsutada (2000). "A revaluation of the seismicity in the Antarctic". Polar Data Journal: 145–157." needs the full bibliographical data for a journal like the other journals have (volume, issue, etc If not doi/scid that's fine, but should have volume/etc)
    Apparently it doesn't have an issue, but it has a volume and DOI which I've added. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:40, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Luporini, P.; Morbidoni, M., eds. (2004). Polarnet Technical Report. Proceedings of the Fifth PNRA Meeting on Antarctic Biology. SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL REPORT SERIES. Messina: POLARNET COORDINATING UNIT. ISSN 1592-5064." All caps again.
    Decapped. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:40, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I randomly googled three sentences and nothing showed up except mirrors. Earwig's tool shows no signs of copyright violations - all the things it is flagging have been checked and it's the big long journal titles and the article titles in them that are being flagged up mostly. Who knew scientific journal article titles were going to freak Earwig's tool out so much?
Otherwise everything looks good. Ealdgyth (talk) 19:36, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie

[edit]
  • "The rim of the caldera is covered by volcanic ejecta including lapilli and lava bombs": according to our article on volcanic bombs, a volcanic bomb is molten, and it is termed a volcanic block when solidified, so is "lava bomb" the wrong term?
    No, I think "lava bomb" is also used for solidifed ones. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:17, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Some of the coasts are rocky": what does "coast" mean when referring to a volcano?
    It means the coastal areas around the volcano. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:17, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Can we make it "Some of the coastal areas around the volcano are rocky" in that case? And I guess I would expect a mountain to be rocky; does this just mean there is no ice covering this part of the volcano? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:07, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes (the no ice covering part) although volcanic coasts aren't always rocks (c.f atolls) Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:18, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough. Any objection to using my suggested wording? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:54, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:28, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I made it "Some of the coastal areas around the volcano are ice-free and rocky". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:58, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The caldera hosts a névé": why "a" névé? As far as I can see "névé" means a type of snow; should this be "The caldera hosts névé"?
    It refers to Névé can also refer to the alpine region in which snowfall accumulates, becomes névé, and feeds a glacier. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:17, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mount Melbourne's volume is 43 cubic miles, and the field of 60 exposed volcanoes has a total volume of 60 cubic miles. This seems so implausible that I'm guessing the two numbers refer to different types of rock, but I can't tell what the difference is from the article.
    Well, the volcano is part of a wider field, hence the difference. Such a volume is well within the ballpark size of these volcanic fields. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:17, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I meant that unless I'm misinterpreting this, there are 60 volcanoes that are part of the volcanic field that includes Mount Melbourne, and 43 of the 60 cubic miles are taken up by the edifice of Mount Melbourne, meaning that the other 60 (or perhaps 59) volcanoes have a total volume of 17 cubic miles, which means they average less than a third of a cubic mile each. Is that really what this is saying? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:07, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. Many cinder cones are considerably smaller than one cubic mile. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:18, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    OK. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:54, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the map File:Map of West Antarctic Rift (WARS).svg is the dashed red line the West Antarctic Rift? If so I'd say so in the caption; without knowing that there's not much connection between the text and the image.
    Added. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:17, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • We mention low seismic velocity areas below Mount Melbourne at two places in the first part of the "Geology" section, with different explanatory text; are these repetitive, or do they not refer to the same thing?
    Merged both mentions. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:17, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Mount Melbourne was active beginning 3[35]-2.7 million years ago.[87]" The internal citation makes it hard to read the range; I would move it to the end of the sentence. And on my screen that looks like a hyphen; I think it should be an en dash.
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:17, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • A grammatical point: you introduce a bullet list with "Additional tephra layers attributed to the volcano are:", but if you do that, so that the list items are to be treated as grammatically part of the introductory sentence, you need to rework the list elements slightly. For example the first one would become "which have been attributed". Over a complex list of six items this would strain the reader's attention span, so I would rejig the introductory sentence to avoid this.
    Grammatically they should be separate. Any idea on how to write this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:17, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you can just say "There are additional tephra layers attributed to the volcano:", without the verb, and then use the bullet points as they are now. The problem is the word "are" before the colon. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:07, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Went for "There are additional tephra layers attributed to the volcano:" Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:18, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the probably subglacial Adelie Penguin Rookery lava field": what does "probably subglacial" mean here?
    Rewritten. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:17, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Mario Zucchelli": you refer to this earlier in the article as just "Zucchelli"; I would be consistent.
    Added Mario. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:17, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Hydrogen sulfide gas has been detected too but is not common, facilitating the development of vegetation": I read this as "Hydrogen sulfide gas (which has been detected too but is not common) facilitates the development of vegetation", but in fact I assume you mean the reverse, since it's toxic to vegetation. Suggest "Hydrogen sulfide gas has been detected, but is not common enough to hinder the development of vegetation".
    Rewrote this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:17, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Temperatures not exceeding −30 °C (−22 °F) or of −6 to −20 °C (21 to −4 °F)" I assume the different values are because we have different sources, but the result reads very oddly, as if we don't know what the temperature readings were. Suggest "Maximum recorded temperatures at the summit have been recorded as −30 °C (−22 °F) [give dates, and/or source details] and −6 to −20 °C (21 to −4 °F) [give dates, and/or source details]". Or, perhaps simpler, just say "Sources disagree on the maximum recorded temperatures at the summit...".
    Rewritten this to go for the last option. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:17, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That looks good, but we can't say "range between A to B"; it should be either "range between A and B" or "range from A to B". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:07, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Went with "between A and B". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:18, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Vegetation on geothermally heated terrain is unusual in Antarctica but other occurs elsewhere, including on Bouvet, Deception Island, Mount Erebus and the South Sandwich Islands." The South Sandwich Island are not in Antarctica; I would cut them from the list or rephrase to clarify.
    The South Sandwich Islands are often considered along with Antarctic volcanoes, though. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:17, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Some algae from Mount Melbourne were accidentally transferred to Deception Island or Mount Erebus": they don't know where they were transferred to? Then how do they know they were transferred?
    I dunno, accidental transfer of the algae Stigonema ocellatum and Chlorella cf. reniformis from MtMelbourne to thermally heated ground on MtErebus or Deception Island. is what the source says. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:17, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That's very odd. I'll strike, but in your shoes I think I might cut it. I don't like including material I can't fully explain. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:07, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Mount Melbourne was recently active, is south of the Antarctic Circle thus has a polar night lasting 13 weeks,[168] and having soils that contain toxic elements such as mercury,[182] the volcano is distant from ecosystems that could be the source of colonization events and away from the westerlies[u], which may explain why the vegetation is species-poor." Too long and hard to parse; can you rephrase?
    Rephrased this a bit. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:17, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That's an improvement. Can we cut "is south of the Antarctic Circle"? It's effectively already stated above, and the point is the polar night which you mention in the next phrase. Then if the intended structure of the sentence is to have a list of reasons why vegetation is species poor, ending with "which may explain", I think the separation between the reasons needs to be consistent -- e.g.a comma in each case. How about "Mount Melbourne was recently active, has a polar night lasting 13 weeks, has soils containing toxic elements such as mercury, is distant from ecosystems that could be the source of colonization events, and lies away from the westerlies, which may explain why the vegetation is species-poor." Also, why are the westerlies relevant to this sentence? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:07, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it's supposed to be a list which is why it was one long sentence. I went with your rewrite; the westerlies can transport organisms. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:18, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Genetic analysis has found that the mosses at Mount Melbourne might be evolving, yielding genetic variation." This seems vague enough to be not worth including. Or am I missing the point of the sentence?
    It means that mosses are evolving there and thus reproducing. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:17, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, if the mosses are there they're reproducing; evolution is not the same thing. And genetic variation is the mechanism of evolution so to say their evolution is yielding genetic variation is backwards, or at least tautological. Does the source imply that e.g. they are evolving to greater fitness for their environment? Or that they are speciating? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:07, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Detailed investigation of the C. pyriformis population also indicated that the genetic variation observed within this vegetative population is due to mutation occurringon Mt. Melbourne is what the source says. The implication is that the mosses are evolving at the site, they are not simply dying and being replaced by new imported mosses. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:18, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The source is only talking about C. pyriformis, so we shouldn't make a statement about "mosses", since that would be taken to include all the moss species on the volcano. I see the implication, but that's not in the article, and a lay reader will not see it. Is there anything else in the source that covers this? If not, and the above sentence is all we have, how about "Genetic varation in the C. Pyriformis moss on the volcano has been found to be caused by mutation within the population"? I'd like to add "implying that the variation is not causing by mosses transported to the site", if you have a source that would support that implication. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:54, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That source talks about pyriformis, the other one (https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s00300-004-0612-6.pdf) about Pohlia nutans hence "mosses". The Cambridge one discusses genetic variations from mutations not just at Melbourne but also at Erebus. I think "mutating" might be more accurate than "evolving" though. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:28, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I made it "Genetic analysis has found that some mosses at Mount Melbourne are mutating, yielding genetic variation". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:01, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:03, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support. All looks good now. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:01, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Buidhe via FACBot (talk) 22 March 2022 [30].

Khalid ibn al-Walid

[edit]
Nominator(s): Al Ameer (talk) 18:19, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Khalid ibn al-Walid, a military leader who led the conquests which brought central Arabia and Byzantine Syria under Muslim rule. Though he dealt the early Muslims under the prophet Muhammad their first battlefield defeat, he embraced Islam soon after and devoted his military talents to the budding Muslim state. His tactics and strategy, including his famous 'desert march', have become enshrined in legend. The Muslim tradition levels serious charges of moral impropriety against Khalid, while crediting him more than any other commander for the success of the 7th-century conquests. Al Ameer (talk) 18:19, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support by AhmadLX

[edit]

Great work. Some comments follow:

  • On Uhud battle, I think a map like this would be more informative than the mountain picture.
  • "The Ansar ... attempted to elect one of their own as caliph..." This is incorrect. They wanted to elect their city chief, like pre-Islamic times. The idea that Muslims should remain united under a (sort of) central government was Abu Bakr/Umar's invention. See, for example, Watt, Lewis.
  • Could you point me to the two specific sources and page numbers? Shoufani's work is devoted to the Ridda and is comprehensive on the primary sources and the modern scholars, including Watt; however, he is generally less authoritative than Watt or Lewis on Islamic history, including the Saqifah and perhaps the Ridda as well. Shoufani states explicitly that the Ansar, or part of them, initially attempted to elect their own as "caliph", "successor to Muhammad" and objected to a Muhajir (Meccan) from having this role. Al Ameer (talk) 16:26, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Can't find Watt at the moment (was long time ago). Lewis 2000 pp.48-49, and Donner 2010 pp. 97-98 make the same point. Other than these, if we take at face value the reports of the Saqifa episode (Shoufani seems to do the same), it becomes clear from the dialogue that the Ansar had limited foresight; after the arrival of the Muhajirun, the Ansar are said to have proposed two chiefs (1 for themselves, 1 for Muhajirun). Having two heads of state (or Khalifa anachronously) is hard to explain for that period. Anyway, this is OR; we have at-least 2 very good sources saying that anyway. Will search for Watt as well. --AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 17:39, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also see Wellhausen 1927 pp. 33ff and Sharon 1980 p. 126. Although less explicit than the two above, they make it clear nevertheless that the people were unclear at the time what was to be done in the absence of the prophet. That Shoufani, and many others, assert that the Ansar wanted a "caliph" of their own, is just sloppiness, just like many people write about the arbitration at Siffin that its goal was to elect a caliph. Of those who go into the weeds of the Saqifa event and still hold that the Ansar wanted a general Muslim leader (kind of successor of the prophet in political sphere) to be from them, Shaban is notable. One could also check Madelung, but am not sure what exactly he says. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 14:12, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@AhmadLX: Could not access Sharon. Madelung on p. 31 says that “Modern historians generally understand the initiative of the Ansar” to have been an attempt to seize the succession of Muhammad, echoing reports cited by the Islamic tradition where Umar accuses the Ansar of such. Madelung himself questions this, as caliphal succession had not yet developed by this point and the unlikelihood that the Ansar would meet alone to achieve such a goal. He assesses they sought to elect their own leader to rule over their native city. For this article, as this topic does not need to be so detailed, I simplified to “elect their own leader” and cited Madelung. Al Ameer (talk) 04:35, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
When referring to "modern historians" in Succession, Madelung usually means Caetani ;) Anyways, checked the page and his point, as you said, is same as of those listed above. I wasn't advocating for detail in this article; I had issue with the use of "calip" and the meaning it conveys. All fine now.AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 22:38, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Abu Bakr dispatched the bulk of the Muslim army under Usama ibn Zayd against Byzantine Syria...and defeated a group of the Ghatafan tribe at Dhu al-Qassa in the Hejaz". This is irrelevant. One can make it just one sentence that Medina itself was threatened and the threat was then neutralized. One should then move to Khalid.
  • Revised. The point (which perhaps was not made properly) of mentioning the deployment to Syria was contextual: Abu Bakr was consequently left with a relatively small force to deal with the opposing nomad tribes. But I agree it is not necessarily relevant to this article so it has been trimmed from the prose. Al Ameer (talk) 16:26, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Seems nice. Sorry for late. Some more comments follow. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 23:40, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The tribes in Bahrayn may have resisted the Muslims until the middle of that year." Two years (233 and 234) are mentioned in the preceding sentence. To which does "the middle of that year" refer?
  • " though the historian Khalid Yahya Blankinship, argues "Khālid at least ..." I think you have an extra comma after Blankinship.
  • "Khalid was instructed by Abu Bakr or requested by al-Walid ibn Uqba to reinforce the Muslim commander Iyad ibn Ghanm's faltering siege of the oasis town." In what capacity was al-Walid ibn Uqba requesting reinforcements?
  • Bahra' → Bahra
  • "It is unclear whether Khalid was appointed supreme commander of the Muslim armies in Syria ... Umar may have confirmed Khalid as supreme commander." That it is "unclear" is not supported by the rest of the paragraph. 5 accounts say Abu Bakr "appointed" him, and 1 says that commanders on the field "did" through consensus. Then it is mentioned that Athamina doubts such a consensus among the commanders. None of this suggests that there is doubt regarding his "appointment", whether by Abu Bakr, Umar, or the local commanders.
  • "The sizes of the forces cited by the medieval traditions are disputed by modern historians;..." But you don't give any numbers cited by them at all.
  • "Khalid consequently withdrew, taking up position north of the Yarmouk River,[141] close to where the Ruqqad meets the Yarmouk." Was his new position closer to the Byzantine camp or farther away? If the former, you can't use "withdrew". In that case you one should use "moved" or "relocated his camp" or something similar.
  • "Byzantines were unsuccessful in encouraging desertions on the Muslim side." Whom were they encouraging to desert? Couldn't have been the Arabs of the Peninsula I think.
  • At one place you call de Goeje and Caetani "late 19th-century/early 20th-century historians" perhaps to distinguish them from the more recent ones. But later you call de Goeje and Muir "modern historians". The former, i.e. "late 19th-century/early 20th-century historians", is very awkward IMO.
  • In the discussion of the Shi'ite hostility towards Khalid you should mention that he is held by them to have mistreated Ali. AFAIK, this is the main reason of their hostility.
  • I will keep a look out for a better explanation of the Shia disdain for Khalid; has to be more to it than Malik ibn Nuwayra. Probably related to Khalid's strong support for Abu Bakr's succession and apparent opposition to Ali in that regard, which I added recently to the article. Shoufani does not mention explicitly that this was a source of the Shias' negative views toward him though. Al Ameer (talk) 18:19, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, it's like this: The Book of Sulaym b. Qays, an 8th/9th-century composite work believed by many to be written by Ali's companion Sulaym and documenting Ali's utterances, has it that Khalid dragged Ali to force his submission to Abu Bakr. Now, for Shi'is it is much bigger a crime than executing Malik ibn Nuwayra. I hoped to find it cited in some better source, but no luck so far. If I come across something in the future, I will add it.AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 18:52, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for clarifying. Yes, please do. I was under the impression that Sulaym never really existed, but his book is still considered authoritative in Shia religious literature so in either case it would be pertinent to add this once you have the RS. --Al Ameer (talk) 19:29, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the nomadic tribe of Banu Khalid, which dwelt in the vicinity of Homs during the Mamluk (1260–1516) and Ottoman (1516–1917) eras, was unrelated to Khalid." Why mention them if unrelated? However, if they made a claim of decent from him, it should be mentioned before the refutation. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 13:51, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
  • Suggest converting the family tree to a chart instead of an image
  • Suggest adding alt text to all images
  • All of the maps are challenging to interpret at current sizes, and see MOS:COLOUR
  • All maps scaled up. Let me know if MOS:COLOUR has been addressed by revised captions.
  • File:Hayton_BNF886_9v.jpg needs a US tag

CommentsSupport by Borsoka

[edit]
  • The Makhzum under Abu Jahl commanded the war against the Islamic prophet, who had emigrated from Mecca to Medina in 622, until they were routed at the Battle of Badr in 624. Consider rewording. Perhaps: "After the Islamic prophet emigrated from Mecca to Medina in 622, the Makhzum under Abu Jahl commanded the war against him until they were routed at the Battle of Badr in 624."
  • ...the Qurayshites Zayd ibn al-Khattab and Abu Hudhayfa ibn Utba... Is this correct grammatically?
  • ...the caliph appointed Khalid supreme commander I assume Abu Bekr is the caliph. Could you name him?
  • The Byzantine infantry, which may have mutinied under Vahan, was afterward routed. Who thinks/suggests/proposes this and why?
    • I referred to the possibility of mutiny under Vahan. I think we need some explanation or the text could be deleted.
  • Clarified. It was according (solely) to Theophanes. Jandora views this report as plausible and offers the infantry's view of the cavalry commander's failure as the possible cause for their mutiny under the distinguished veteran Vahan, who was probably popular among the troops. Al Ameer (talk) 06:23, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...a later order redeployed the bulk of Khalid's former troops to Iraq I understand Khalid's invasion of Iraq may have been a later inventions, so it is not sure that his troops were redeployed to Iraq.
  • I assume the term "personality cult" is anachronistic in the article's context.
  • According to my experiences, the term is used in 20th-century context. However, I am not a native speaker, so I may be wrong.
  • In Kennedy's assessment, Khalid was "a brilliant, ruthless military commander, but one with whom the more pious Muslims could never feel entirely comfortable". Why?
  • The leeriness toward Khalid by the more pious Muslims, as the tradition would have us believe, was due to several events: his decisive role in the defeat of Muhammad at Uhud, his attack on the Jadhima tribe for personal reasons, his execution of the chieftain Malik ibn Nuwayra and immediate marriage of his widow, his unilateral actions on campaigns, alleged fiscal misconduct and consumption of wine in Syria, and many of the early Muslims crediting of him personally for his battlefield victories (which the pious would have attributed to God exclusively). These events are mentioned throughout the article, as well as the consequent flack he received for them, so I do not think restating them here would make sense. Al Ameer (talk) 16:56, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
*Perhaps you could mention this shortly. Borsoka (talk) 03:27, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reading it again, there is further elaboration in that passage. I have rearranged it a bit now so that this elaboration comes immediately after the sentence ending in "pious Muslims could never feel entirely comfortable". Al Ameer (talk) 06:23, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Khalid had a son called Sulayman, hence his kunya ('paedonymic') Abu Sulayman ('father of Sulayman'). Do we have any other information about Sulayman? For instance, his mother is unknow, or he died in infancy, or he was Khalid's eldest son.
  • I am a bit leery about him even having a son of that name. I only found this to be said explicitly by a primary source (Tabari), have not found anything about this supposed son in any modern sources; others besides Tabari also mention Khalid's kunya of 'Abu Sulayman', but do not say that he in fact had a son by that name. Usually, that would be the case: unless a man had no sons and was given an honorary kunya (so-to-speak), the kunya usually denoted the person's eldest son. Khalid did have sons so it would be natural to presume he did in fact also have an older son named Sulayman (who maybe died young or played no eventful role), but this remains a presumption on my part. I will say further, besides his military career, ancestry and some aspects of his early life, I have found that biographical details about Khalid, including about his sons, wives and descendants, are relatively scant. Had trouble finding anything about his last three years too (639–642), even his age at death (or at any other interval of his life). Al Ameer (talk) 16:56, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mentioned that he was the eldest son, but not the point about no other info about his son as this would still be a presumption on my part—there could be credible info about him out there and I just have not found it. Al Ameer (talk) 06:23, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this excellent article. Borsoka (talk) 07:10, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • He played the leading military role in ... the early Muslim conquests of Sasanian Iraq in 633–634...; and Khalid subsequently moved against the largely Christian Arab tribes and the Sasanian Persian garrisons of the Euphrates valley in Iraq. The quotes from the lead contradicts the main text which implies that he had no role in the conquest of Iraq.
  • The body does not imply he had no role, so far the only major historian to hold that view is Patricia Crone. Most others do credit him for launching the campaigns in Iraq, but differ on the extent or purpose of the campaigns. I could revise to "early campaigns in Sasanian Iraq" as opposed to the conquest of the region? Al Ameer (talk) 06:23, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are so many different reasons offered by the sources, old and modern, that it would be excessive to specify them here (alleged moral and fiscal misconduct, personal hostility by Umar, excessive fame, the need for an administrator rather than a military man at the helm, a compromise of sorts with the powerful native Arab tribes in Syria, etc.). I agree it is vague as it stands, but as a solution I would rather just remove "for a range of causes cited by traditional Islamic and modern sources" altogether, and just make it a full stop after "by Umar". Al Ameer (talk) 06:23, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Most of my concerns were addressed and the remaining issues are not highly important so I support this article. As to my last remark, I think a full stop after "by Umar" would be the best solution. Borsoka (talk) 01:21, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Borsoka, Al Ameer (talk) 04:46, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source Review - Pass

[edit]

Source Quality

  • How is Umari 1991 an RS? What are the credentials of the author? The Introduction starts with "Praise be to God and blessings upon the messenger". The publisher is an Islamic organization. The book is written from a Muslim point of view and can be used to describe the Muslim POV but not for statements of fact or for analysis.
  • The author is an Arabic-language historian of nascent Islam (and an observant Muslim). His education credentials include history degrees from Baghdad and a PhD from a leading Cairo university. His main occupation for decades afterward was as a professor and academic of Islamic history in Baghdad and Medina. In the academic circles of the Arab world at least he appears well-known. In general, he presents a sober, straightforward and carefully cited work in Madinan Society. While his apparent lack of recognition in Western academia could be considered a weakness, it contributes some healthy diversity to the article—an established Muslim historian from the Muslim world as a source about a prominent Muslim historical figure. In any case, I have limited using him to fill in a few gaps of Khalid's biography during Muhammad's lifetime and half of these instances are either an opinion attributed to him directly or to the early Islamic scholars he cites. Al Ameer (talk) 16:40, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I will accept that based on your assessment of the work. From my experience, authors who spell such formulas in their books/articles usually lack neutrality and in the worst case don't hesitate from stating outright falsehoods, and hence fail our RS criteria. If you find his treatment of the material sober, then I think we're good. I removed a couple citations from this sources though, as the material was supported by others/was not relevant.AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 18:52, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting

  • Kister 2002, p. 7, 13–17. : pp.
  • Donner 1981, p. 121, 126. : pp.
  • Kennedy 2007, pp. 92, note 52. : p.
  • Kennedy, Hugh (2007) should come after Kennedy, Hugh (2004) in biblio (the classic Kennedy issue not found though;))
  • Kister, M. J. (2002): doi/jstor unknown/non-existent?
  • Lynch, Ryan J. (2013): as above
  • Lecker, Michael; Lecker, M. : standardize
  • Watt, W. Montgomery; Watt, W. M. : ditto
  • Kaegi, Walter E.; Kaegi, W. E. : this one too
  • Mulder, Stephennie (2014): this one should certainly be Brill ;)
  • Sirriya, Elizabeth (April 1979) : drop April
  • Athamina, Khalil (July 1994) : drop July
  • Shorter EI: ISBN/OCLC unknown?
  • For Arabica you give publisher, but not for other journals. I think the easiest thing is to drop the publisher of Arabica.
  • Better is to give this link for Kister 2002; it has free pdf.
  • The link of Tab. vol 12 goes to vol 15.
  • The link of Tab. vol 13 not working as id parameter missing.
  • Gil, Moshe (1997) [1992] is a translation. You haven't named the translator.
  • Kaegi, Walter E. (1992). The link is of 1995 edition, which is not a reprint of the 1992 edition, so page numbers may be different.
  • Pourshariati, Parvaneh (2008). Consider changing link id to o9WLDwAAQBAJ. Has preview.

Spot checks
Checked around one quarter of the citations from the sources available to me. Given below only the problematic instances.

  • "According to Sayf ibn Umar, ...al-Ash'ath ibn Qays.[169]" : correct page number is 106
  • "...and streets are named after him all over the Arab world".[181]" : correct page number is 76
  • "Abd al-Rahman's son Khalid was the overall commander of the Arab forces in the campaigns against the Byzantines in 668/69.[18]" The source only says that he was "a commander in 48/668-9". No mention of the campaign, and not the "overall commander".
  • "Khalid claimed such an order was his prerogative...rejoined Khalid after internal deliberations.[46]" : correct page numbers 44-45
  • "After his victories against the Bedouin of Najd...should he be victorious.[57]" : correct page number is 33. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 22:26, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for addressing these Al Ameer. I would want to give formatting another go before I pass the source review. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 18:52, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie

[edit]
  • "he is commemorated throughout the Arab world until the present day": do we need "until the present day"? I think "is" does that work, or perhaps "is still".
  • "After the Islamic prophet emigrated from Mecca to Medina in 622": I think it would be more natural to make it "Muhammad".

Looking very good so far. Out of time for this morning; I've read down to "Commander in the Ridda wars"; more tonight or tomorrow. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:14, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Mike Christie, looking forward to the rest of the review. Al Ameer (talk) 15:22, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing:

  • "His forces consisted of the Muhajirun and the Ansar." Earlier in the section these two groups are mentioned in the discussion of Abu Bakr's claim to be caliph. From that description it seems the terms describe demographic groups, not just the warrior elements of these groups, though I understand there would be considerable overlap given that only adult men's voices would be relevant in the attempt to elect a caliph. To say his forces consisted of the Muhajirun and the Ansar makes it sound to me as if he took the entire tribe with him, women, children, and all. I would have expected wording such as "His forces were drawn from the Muhajirun and the Ansar". Or am I misunderstanding how these terms are used by the sources?
  • "Malik had also been cooperating with Sajah, his kinswoman from the Yarbu": I had to hunt back through the article for Sajah's name to understand that since Sajah claimed to be a prophet this would have meant Malik was apostate as far as the Muslims were concerned. I think a few words to make this point would be helpful.
  • "whose inhabitants were expelled or enslaved and resettled with tribesmen from clans of the Tamim": I think the intended meaning is that the two villages were resettled, not that the inhabitants of the villages were resettled.
  • "The bulk of the Muhajirun may have withdrawn to Medina before Khalid embarked on his campaign and he consequently reorganized his army": if the withdrawal is not certain, "consequently" should be conditional too. If it's certain he reorganized but not certain why, perhaps "Khalid reorganized his army, possibly because the bulk of the Muhajirun may have withdrawn to Medina". But from the following sentences it appears that perhaps it's only the timing of the withdrawal that's uncertain?
  • "Athamina notes hints in the traditional sources that Khalid initiated the campaign unilaterally, inferring that": suggest either "and infers that" to match the form of "notes", or "implying that".
  • "particularly amid the economic crisis in Arabia in the aftermath of the Ridda campaigns": this crisis has not been mentioned, so something like "particularly amid an economic crisis in Arabia which had arisen in the aftermath of the Ridda campaigns", or else a footnote explaining it.
  • Also, given that the map doesn't contain some of the key placenames mentioned in the possible itineraries (e.g. Jabal al-Bishri) I think it would be worth specifying in the text which coloured line represents which itinerary, either in the body of the article or in the caption.
  • "the traditional accounts agree on the following events", and then you give a list introduced by a colon. There are only two events, so I think it would read more naturally to make this "Excluding the above-mentioned operations in Dumat al-Jandal and the upper Euphrates valley, the traditional accounts agree on only two events of Khalid's route to Syria after the departure from al-Hira: the desert march between Quraqir and Suwa, and a subsequent raid against the Bahra tribe at or near Suwa and operations which resulted in the submission of Palmyra; otherwise, they diverge in tracing Khalid's itinerary."
  • "though there are no toponyms associated with Quraqir or Suwa": I think " though there are no placenames that can be interpreted as Quraqir or Suwa" might be clearer.
  • "In the Dumat al-Jandal–Damascus route, such toponyms exist, namely the sites of Qulban Qurajir—associated with "Quraqir", along the eastern edge of Wadi Sirhan—and Sab' Biyar, which is identified with Suwa 150 kilometers (93 mi) east of Damascus." This is a very picky stylistic point, but you have a parallel structure, listing two sites, with subordinate comments about how they are identified, but non-parallel ways of presenting the subordinate points -- parenthetical dashes for the first, and a subordinate clause for the second. I think parenthetical commas instead of dashes would be better.
  • Why do you write "ʿAmr b. al-ʿĀṣ" when quoting Athamina? I assume it's just because it's a direct quote that you don't want to change. Given that you've already introduced Amr, with slightly different orthography, I'd suggest making the quote "it is inconceivable that a man like [Amr ibn al-As] would agree".
  • "assaulted a group of Ghassanids": suggest "attacked" rather than "assaulted". A force can assault a fortified position, but assaulting people, or collective nouns for people, has connotations of individual bodily attacks, rather than military operations.
  • "making it the first major city to fall to the Muslims": should this be "making it the first major city in Syria to fall to the Muslims"?
  • "the personal feud between Khalid and Umar": we haven't really said there was a personal feud before this; the only hint is that earlier in the article we say that Umar pushed for Khalid to be punished for his treatment of Malik and marriage to Malik's widow, but that's mentioned just above in this paragraph.
  • I could not find enough material in reliable secondary sources about a preexisting feud between Khalid and Umar (just vague hints), but tweaked the wording, which hopefully takes care of this point. Al Ameer (talk) 19:47, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the enormity of his contributions to Islam": "enormity" means something very wrong -- suggest "despite his tremendous contributions".
  • "Umar expressed remorse over dismissing Khalid and the women of Medina mourned his death en masse": suggest using historic present for this, as you do elsewhere: "Umar expresses remorse over dismissing Khalid and the women of Medina mourn his death en masse".
  • Not a source review, but you might consider adding page ranges to the citations to book chapters: Lammens and Zetterstéen in the bibliography section, and both the chapters cited in "Further reading".
  • Done for Lammens and Zettersteen. Unfortunately I do not have access to the online encyclopedia articles in the Further reading section and I did not add these to the article. Al Ameer (talk) 03:17, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Overall this is very impressive work; just a few points to deal with above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:20, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your great prose suggestions, there are still two points (Malik/Sajah and the Umar/Khalid tension) which I am working on. Al Ameer (talk) 03:17, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've struck the other points. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:01, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Mike Christie: I made revisions regarding the last two points. Let me know if they are satisfactory. Al Ameer (talk) 19:47, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. Supporting below. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:34, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support. This is a fine article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:34, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Buidhe via FACBot (talk) 22 March 2022 [31].

Seagram Building

[edit]
Nominator(s): Epicgenius (talk) 13:45, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a landmark International-style skyscraper in Manhattan, New York City, erected in the 1950s. As the name suggests, the building was erected for the Seagram Company and designed by several architects, most notably Ludwig Mies van der Rohe. This building's development was influenced by Phyllis Lambert, the daughter of Seagram's CEO at the time, who pushed for the building to be a New York City landmark in the 1970s and 1980s, and who even today maintains a connection with the building, over 60 years after its completion. It's been called one of "New York's most copied buildings" and, even before it became an official New York City landmark in 1989, had a large influence on other International style buildings.

This page was promoted as a Good Article a few months ago after a thorough GA review by GeneralPoxter and was copyedited through the GOCE a few months ago. I am very grateful to Twofingered Typist of the GOCE, though he unfortunately passed away not long after he copyedited this page. I think it's up to FA quality now, and I look forward to all comments and feedback. While the previous nomination was archived due to lack of commentary, I hope that isn't the case this time around. Epicgenius (talk) 13:45, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review by ZKang123

[edit]

I will do an image review of this article soon. But a couple of quick comments: Most of the ALT descriptions are quite lacking in detail, with only the bare minimum used (just with "refer to caption"). To further elaborate. Images all have appropriate licensing (in public domain or creative commons license), either taken from flickr or wikimedia commons.

More to come. ZKang123 (talk) 02:57, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • ALT issues:
    • Seagram Building (35098307116).jpg – Should have an alt (e.g. A tall glass building between two other buildings) and also a caption in the infobox
    • Park Avenue from 64th Street to Grand Central Terminal - panoramio (34).jpg – ALT instead could be: The plaza with a fountain facing the building at southeast
    • File:Seagram Building-NewYork-4.jpg – The caption (Looking from Park Avenue into the (building) lobby at night) could be the alt. Suggest caption instead to be: Night view of the building lobby and facade.
    • File:Seagram Building (6268045534).jpg, File:Four-seasons-ny.jpg – Captions are descriptive enough (similar for others with "refer to caption")
  • Other image issues:
    • I wonder if this image (File:Seagrambuilding.JPG) can be further touched up to remove a fragment of roof at the top left hand corner of the photo?
    • Are there other interior photos that can be used to further illustrate the article? (especially inside the lobby or the office?)
      • Sadly, the owner is one of these people who considers a public lobby to be a private space (it's not in the article, but this is his reputation in NYC real-estate circles). I can try to walk into the lobby and take pictures, but the owner might have me thrown out even if I were visiting someone on the offices. As for the offices, these are even harder to get good pictures of, since they're actually private spaces. Epicgenius (talk) 14:43, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • For "Design influence" section you can probably add an image of the Union Carbide Building as an example of similar buildings of similar design.

That's all for now.--ZKang123 (talk) 06:33, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ZKang123: Thanks for the image review. I've responded to all these issues now. Epicgenius (talk) 14:43, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Alright passed for image review. Also no archival photos of the building's construction? ZKang123 (talk) 01:47, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Regarding archival photos of the construction, I could determine whether any are available under a Wikimedia-compatible license, though I doubt it. – Epicgenius (talk) 13:56, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Vami

[edit]

Reserving a spot. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 07:43, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • [...] 599 Lexington Avenue and Citigroup Center [...] Missing "the" after "and".
  • The Seagram Building was never officially named for its original anchor tenant, Canadian conglomerate Seagram, and is legally known as 375 Park Avenue.[21] This sentence seems to me a better fit for #Design.
  • Unlike Lever House's mullions, which General Bronze also manufactured, the Seagram Building's mullions are only for aesthetics and are thus susceptible to thermal expansion or contraction. How relevant exactly is the Lever House here? Were they designed by the same people? Its only prior appearance in the article is in #Design, in the 'list of things near this building' section.
  • Mumford wrote, "outside and inside are simply the same"" Double quotation marks, no period.
  • After a 2017 renovation, the Lobster Club contains a design by Peter Marino. What design? The 2017 renovation?
  • The second dining room is a private dining room with white partition walls, [...] There are two "dining room"s too many here, methinks.

Up to #History. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 16:10, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Following the 1933 repeal of Prohibition in the United States, Seagram Distiller's CEO Samuel Bronfman was planning a large Manhattan headquarters. The use of future tense in the second clause is odd to me.
  • Following the 1933 repeal of Prohibition in the United States, [...] In 1951, the company bought [...] That is a lot of time to plan! What did Seagram do with that time?
  • [...] said he was happy to come back for a "repeat performance". This feels as though more of the quote than is quoted made its way into the prose here, specifically "happy to come back".
  • When was the Seagram Building nominated for inclusion on the NRHP?

Reading complete. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 19:45, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Vami IV: Thanks. I have addressed the issues you raised. Epicgenius (talk) 14:36, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Cool beans. Content to support. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 14:39, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Lee Vilenski

[edit]

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

Lede
Prose
Additional comments
  • Terrible article. :P.

Additionally, if you liked this review, or are looking for items to review, I have some at my nominations list. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:53, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Lee Vilenski: Thanks for the review. Yeah I agree it's pretty terrible. :D In any case, I've addressed all the issues you raised, except for the last one (for now). The text does say that "Mies reused the building's design for towers in [...] Toronto", in Canada, but I haven't yet found reliable sources for other structures around the world that were inspired by the Seagram Building. Epicgenius (talk) 17:02, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support Nick-D

[edit]

My architect sister dragged me to see this building during a visit from Australia to NYC in 2009, so it's interesting to learn about it. I'd like to offer the following comments:

  • "a prominent instance of corporate modern architecture" - can this be tweaked to something more specific? It's quite vague and uninteresting, when the material in the body of the article explains the significance of the building.
  • " The building's Construction " - overcapitalised
  • "The Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association of America purchased the building in 1979, but it remained Seagram's headquarters until 2001" - do we need the 'but'? Lots of companies rent their headquarters.
  • "and became known as an unofficial landmark" - needlessly clunky
  • "Its design was copied by other structures" - surely it was copied by other architects for other structures?
  • "which provided developers with a zoning "bonus" for including plazas outside their buildings" - it is unclear what this means
  • Can ' International style' be linked? If not, it should be explained.
  • "manufactured by General Bronze.[62][63][64" - does this really need three references?
  • "According to the New York City Department of City Planning, the building has 849,014 square feet (78,876.0 m2) of interior floor space" - is the first half of this sentence needed? (do other measurements exist?)
  • "The three additional dining rooms are two dining areas" - bit confusing: please tweak the wording
  • Do most sentences in 'The Lobster Club' section really need three references each?
  • "The flexibility of the office stories derives from the superstructures' wide bays" - what's a 'bay' in this context?
  • The 'Design' section says that there was no budget for the building, the 'History' section puts the initial budget at $15 million and the final budget at $20 million, but it's later state that the total cost of the project was $43 million. This seems confusing.
    • I clarified this a little. Mies was basically told that he would not be constrained by cost (i.e. when he was planning the building, he was not told that he had to design a structure that cost at most $X). Regarding the three cost estimates, these were not budgets per se. The initial estimate was $15M and the final estimate was $20M, and both of these estimates were made before construction had started. The final cost was $43M. Epicgenius (talk) 13:39, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Seagram Building has received both praise and awards" - this is a bit clunky after a section noting some of the praise the building has recieved
  • The 'Design influence' section is also not clear about what a 'zoning bonus' is.
  • " However, the Seagram Building was specifically cited as an influence on the 1961 zoning code" - this sentence seems to repeat the first one in the para Nick-D (talk) 03:43, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Nick-D: Thanks for taking a look. I have fixed some of these and will work on the rest shortly. Epicgenius (talk) 19:31, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Nick-D: Thanks again for the feedback, I really appreciate it. I've addressed all the comments you've made above. Epicgenius (talk) 13:39, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support The above changes look good, and my comments are now addressed. This is a really great article. Nick-D (talk) 09:37, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

@Epicgenius: Please ping me when you have received one or two additional supports. JBchrch talk 18:44, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@JBchrch, thanks for the offer. Vami and Nick-D have now given their support to the nomination, if you are still interested in reviewing. – Epicgenius (talk) 18:06, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Epicgenius Thanks! I'll do it over the next week or so. JBchrch talk 16:39, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I got a bit overwhelmed at work and it slipped out of my mind.

Here are a few comments a first pass:

Will do a second pass later or tomorrow. JBchrch talk 17:54, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@JBchrch, thanks. I have now addressed all of your above comments. Epicgenius (talk) 01:20, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is National Park Service 2006, p. 3-19 a high-quality source? It appears like it has been prepared by a consulting company with the aim, if I understand correctly, of getting a historic designation? JBchrch talk 03:00, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it is a high-quality source. Even though it was prepared for the purpose of the landmark designation, I don't think this is controversial because it was merely written for the purpose of preservation, rather than for profit or some ulterior motive. The articles on Surrogate's Courthouse and Tweed Courthouse also use designation reports as sources. (If the same source had been written for commercial purposes, on the other hand, I might have doubts about the reliability of the source.) – Epicgenius (talk) 04:03, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    But surely property owners have an interest in applying for a designation, right? I mean I wouldn't expect "375 Park Avenue. L. P. c/o RFR Holding LLC" to apply just for the kicks of it. In any case, I think it should be fine for basic factual claims about the building (which seems to be the way you are using it, but I'll quickly double-check). However, I think the author should be more clearly labeled (i.e. Higgins & Quasebarth) because as of right now, one could think that the author of the doc is the National Park Service. JBchrch talk 04:50, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @JBchrch, the laws are actually set up such that many property owners are against designation. (It's mentioned in the article explicitly for the NYC Landmark designation, but this is also true of National Register of Historic Places listings.) Landmark statuses generally make it harder for landlords to make improvements to their properties. An NRHP listing is less restrictive than NYC Landmark designation, as the latter prohibits major changes of any kind without approval, but many landlords still fight proposed NRHP designations.
    In any case, the responsibility of applying for NRHP status typically falls to the owner, preservation groups, historical societies, or government agencies. Furthermore, the property owner (in this case, 375 Park Avenue. L. P.) is always listed on NRHP applications where possible. I'll fix the author name in the short footnotes, though. – Epicgenius (talk) 13:44, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah but that's what I thought too -- I guess I'm still confused about who applied for the designation and why... Anyway, doesn't really matter, I'll just double-check the use and it should be fine. JBchrch talk 15:55, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • And this is more of a question than a suggestion but have you considered using Template:Inflation instead of MeasuringWorth? JBchrch talk 03:05, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Spot checks

  • 2b OK
  • 22 OK
  • 43 OK
  • 56. Does the source say "custom"?
  • 63 OK
  • 98 The sources seem to place the restaurant on the ground floor and first floor, but perhaps there’s some transposing of architectural lingo that I don’t understand?
    • Typically, in the U.S., the ground floor is the first floor. An American second floor is commonly known in other parts of the world as a first floor. Here, the situation is more complicated, as the site slopes down. The "ground floor" being referred to here is almost one story below the lobby. The "first floor" is a few steps above the lobby. I clarified this now and hope this makes sense. Epicgenius (talk) 16:04, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • 140 OK
  • 163 OK
  • 199 OK
  • 201a OK JBchrch talk 04:03, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi JBchrch, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either pass or fail this source review yet? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:20, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
JBchrch, thanks for your spot-checks. I've responded to the two issues you brought up. Epicgenius (talk) 16:04, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild @Epicgenius Based on the answers above I don't believe any additional spot-checks are necessary (unless told otherwise), so I'm happy to pass this source review. JBchrch talk 21:35, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Gerald Waldo Luis

[edit]

Where to begin uh... good building? Nice architecture... the blacks are amazing though, blends in with the modern surroundings. Location kinda awkward I guess... looks significant. Anyways, comments it is. GeraldWL 02:16, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerald Waldo Luis: Thanks for your comments. I just passed by it this morning (well, actually I pass by every day) and the Racquet and Tennis Club is probably the only non-modern building in the immediate area. So yeah, I suppose it has some good company. Epicgenius (talk) 14:55, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, nice to hear then. At least it's not boring and poorly designed (although i feel like every nyc building is at this point the same lmao). GeraldWL 15:00, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from GeraldWL 05:47, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
* I generally try and make hatnote descriptions as short as possible. Here, in "For the structure in Niagara Falls that was originally named Seagram Tower", "that was" can be easily dropped; I've seen similar hatnotes on other articles and they don't have the "that was".
  • "The Seagram Building is at 375 Park Avenue"-- perhaps the word "located" between "is" and "at" would make the tone more natural
    • I have reservations about this. The word "located" (used in a context like this) is almost always redundant if you already have a locative word like "at". I can still add "located" if you think it would be better for the article. Epicgenius (talk) 13:42, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The eastern portion of the site is lower than the western portion." The second "portion" can be removed as its repetitve.
  • "designed the Seagram Building in the International style"-- title case in "style"
  • "A "spine" with"-- why is this "spine" not defined? And the "bustle".
  • "low granite retaining wall"-- should "granite retaining" be hyphenated or nah?
  • "At the eastern ends of the side-street, retaining walls"-- "of the side-street" can be removed here
  • I'm wondering of, in this article, what you consider the 'number limit.' Usually for me, for numbers ten or higher I would use digits. Here you have 3.75 ft in digits, but "forty" in text.
    • Yeah, I generally write numbers above 10 as digits, as well as decimals below 10, per MOS:NUMERAL. I think I wrote it as "40", which is the correct way, but again this was changed. "3.75" is also correct unless I were to manually write out "three and three-quarters". Epicgenius (talk) 13:42, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "at their perimeters forming an arcade"-- suggest adding a comma between "perimeters" and "forming." I suppose you're implying that "ends of the slab overhang the plaza" + "supported by bronze-clad columns" = "an arcade in front of the entrance". Now, without the comma, it feels like "ends of the slab overhang the plaza and are supported by bronze-clad columns [...] that formed an arcade in front of the entrance".
  • "The eastern portions of the 52nd and 53rd Street wings" --> "The eastern portions of both wings" to avoid repetition.
  • "At the time, American building codes"-- should we link to building codes? I feel like they're not a very common term.
  • As well as trusses
  • Per MOS:ACRO1STUSE, "CCTV" must be written in full form first. It's pretty weird, I agree, so I'd like to hear what you think. I mean there's WP:IAR.
  • "As of 2020, the garage was being renovated into a 35,000-square-foot (3,300 m2) gym." Any updates?
  • "The lobby, designed as if it were an extension of the plaza, is divided into three parts"-- pretty weird connectors there. Suggest "The lobby was designed as if it were an extension of the plaza, and is divided into three parts" which for me sounds more natural.
    • I actually reworded the sentence before I saw your comment. Now, it reads as two sentences: "The lobby is designed as if it were an extension of the plaza... It is divided into three parts". Epicgenius (talk) 17:58, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The western part of the lobby has three bronze revolving doors and is interrupted by two bronze columns. The central section comprises three corridors connecting the western and eastern thirds of the lobby, within four elevator and stair enclosures"-- duplicate ref 86s.

More later. Apologies for the long interval -- school is seriously messing with me, but I'll try to finish this review. GeraldWL 15:10, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I appreciate the comments Gerald Waldo Luis. Epicgenius (talk) 17:58, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "with travertine walls and floors; cement ceilings with gray-glass mosaic tiles; and bronze engaged piers." Why are they in semicolons?
  • "The rooms had a maximum capacity of 400 or 485." Or or and? Considering there are two rooms.
  • "containing metal curtains that rippled from air released by hidden ventilating ducts." why is "rippled", as in past tense? Or an I not understanding the sentence?
  • "redesigned it from 1995 to 1999 after a fire damaged it." Repetitive verb+it. Suggest "redesigned it from 1995 to 1999 after a damaging fire."
  • "The Lobster Club's main dining room has brightly colored furniture and upholstery; 150 drip-painted concrete floor tiles by artist Laura Bergman; and three bronze-partitioned booths on the south wall." Similar to the semicolon question above. Also, ref 112 should be first.
  • "The office suites generally have a flexible plan, [...] The flexibility of the office stories"-- so is it the suites or stories that are flexible?
Indeed. MOS:NUMNOTES: "Avoid beginning a sentence with a figure". Gog the Mild (talk) 14:20, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, I remember learning this from Talk:See You in the Cosmos/GA1 but that was a long time ago, and rarely do I encounter this situation, so I must've forgotten about it, sorry. Anyways moving on to the history :) GeraldWL 16:52, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "though this plan was not executed for almost two decades." Is there a more specific number than "almost two decades"?
  • "and he wanted to celebrate the company's centenary" --> "whose opening was to coincide with the company's centenary"
  • "by William Pereira and Charles Luckman of Pereira & Luckman"-- suggest changing to "by William Pereira and Charles Luckman of the company Pereira & Luckman", as for visually-impaired readers, it might sound like a confusing repetition of the two's surnames.
  • "The building was projected to be complete in 1957 for the 100th anniversary of Seagram's founding." Isn't this a repetition of from the paragraph above "Development"?
  • ""This letter starts with one word repeated very emphatically [...] NO NO NO NO NO."" Should there be a colon after "emphatically"?
  • "several leading Modernist architects"-- decapitalize the "M"
  • I don't think the "state" is needed in "New York state", as it'll be either "New York" or "New York City"; in some places you don't use this word too.
    • The issue is that New York City does not give out architecture licenses, only New York state. The use of "New York" alone, without "state", may be imprecise as a result. By contrast, in other parts of the text where "New York" alone is used, the context is clearer. Epicgenius (talk) 19:46, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Ultimately, Mies selected the 5-by-3-bay rectangle" --> "Ultimately, Mies selected the former"
  • "Upon Bronfman's suggestion, the architects specified that the tower would be made of bronze and glass, Mies moved to a nearby apartment to oversee the Seagram Building's development"-- did you intend to use a full stop after "glass"?
  • Here you said "the American Institute of Architects (AIA)'s New York chapter", but in the Impact section it's "New York division".
  • "Because of a no-standing rule implemented"-- why not just use "idling", per the linked article? I initially got confused on "standing" before hovering over the link.
  • Fixed. "Standing", in the context of traffic, is commonly used in NYC to refer to idling, but I didn't consider the other possible uses of this term until you pointed it out.
Epicgenius (talk) 19:46, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "By July 1958, the Seagram Building was 90 percent rented." How is a building partially rented, if I may ask?
    • The space was not fully rented. Common practice in the real estate industry is to refer to a building as partially rented (rather than the building's space). Though, I suppose it could be made more clear, so I've done that. Epicgenius (talk) 00:38, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Cushman & Wakefield were hired as rental agents." But it's just one firm, so shouldn't it be singular?
  • "to celebrate the 13th anniversary of the founding of the United Nations." If it's an anniversary I think readers already know what it's commemorating, so "the founding of" is removable.
  • Should Mesoamerican be linked?
  • "Moai" shouldn't be italics.
  • "displayed in 1967, as well as"-- comma to semicolon.
  • "Architectural writer Ada Louise Huxtable called the tax a beginning of the city's "architectural annihilation". She believed the higher tax assessment was a "special method of taxing architectural excellence"." Can be combined: "Architectural writer Ada Louise Huxtable called the tax a beginning of the city's "architectural annihilation", believing the higher tax assessment was a "special method of taxing architectural excellence"."
  • "There was still high demand for office space in Midtown"-- add "Manhattan", per your other mentions of MM.
  • "The same year, Seagram's president Edgar Bronfman Sr., Samuel Bronfman's son"-- "Samuel" can be dropped as the full name has been said earlier. Same case with "History", paragraph 1
  • "but the city took no action on the proposal." But did the LPC responded in any way? If no, suggest trimming this down to "but no action was taken."
  • "mandated the new owner preserve"-- change to either "mandated that the new owner preserve" or "mandated the new owner to preserve"
  • "For decades after the sale, Phyllis Lambert"-- drop the "Phyllis". Additionally, at "Planning" paragraph 2, "Bronfman's 27-year-old daughter, Phyllis Lambert" can be changed to "Lambert, who was Bronfman's 27-year-old daughter"
  • "second restaurant interior"-- you mean "second interior restaurant"?
  • "for $375 million; he completed his purchase that December." --> "for $375 million, completing his purchase that December."

That's all I can find for the 21st century sub, and those are all the points I have for this article. I do have a concern of the repetition of "The" as a starting sentence, at "The building was 99.5 percent occupied, but only six original tenants remained. The following year, the Seagram Company moved its headquarters out of the building. The Seagram Building continued to be held by Rosen's RFR Holding.", however I feel like it's unchangable so it's fine. If all comments are resolved I'll strike and support. GeraldWL 15:37, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerald Waldo Luis, thanks. I have done that and also tried to get rid of that particular repetition of the definite article ("The"). However, the inclusion of the definite article at the beginning of a sentence is sometimes unavoidable, since it almost always comes before the building's name (i.e. "the Seagram Building"). – Epicgenius (talk) 16:47, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Overall I love the prose, they are moving and simple enough for readers not fond of architecture to understand. And yeah, avoiding definite articles are definitely a hard thing to navigate around, which is why I made that a trivial point, though I saw potential in changing it. The images are good enough and it looks pretty comprehensive-- well done! GeraldWL 05:47, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Question from nominator

[edit]

@FAC coordinators: This nomination has now received several prose supports, as well as a source review and an image review. Do I need to do anything else for this nomination, or should I just wait? Thanks in advance. Epicgenius (talk) 03:52, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Buidhe via FACBot (talk) 22 March 2022 [32].

RoboCop

[edit]
Nominator(s): Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 17:21, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about RoboCop, the 1987 science fiction action film directed by Paul Verhoeven, known for its excessive violence, prescient themes and concepts, the catchphrase "Dead or alive, you're coming with me," and that time RoboCop shot a guy in the ****. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 17:21, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass

[edit]
Done. Thanks Gerald Waldo Luis Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:53, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome, and that's a pass for image. I'll post a full prose comment on this later. GeraldWL 13:11, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Gerald Waldo Luis

[edit]

As hard of a cinephile as I am, I must admit I've never seen this movie. Hopefully one day; I've been a longtime Basil fan and I'm really curious as to his work here. GeraldWL

Resolved comments from GeraldWL 13:42, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
* "directed by Paul Verhoeven and written by Edward Neumeier and Michael Miner"-- confusing multiple use of ands here. Suggest "directed by Paul Verhoeven, with a screenplay by Edward Neumeier and Michael Miner"
  • Link Detroit, Michigan
  • And Dallas, Texas
  • And probably practical effects since it's kinda a technical term
  • "Verhoeven emphasized violence throughout the film, making it so outlandish it became comical. Even so, censors believed it was too extreme, and several scenes were shortened or modified to secure an acceptable theatrical rating." This can be made the first sentences in the third paragraph instead since it's more Release-related.
  • "censors" --> "censorship boards"
  • Link Motion picture content rating system within "theatrical rating"
  • "The film was nominated for several awards, and received an Academy Award and numerous Saturn Awards" --> "The film was nominated for several awards, notably an Academy Award as well as numerous Saturn Awards"
  • "Since its release, the film has been analyzed for themes including the nature of humanity, personal identity, corporate greed, and corruption, and is seen as a rebuke of the policies of Ronald Reagan." This can probably be added after the reviews sentence.
  • Here, Detroit is just "Detroit" but in the lead there's "Michigan" too?
  • "Murphy, and his new partner"-- redundant comma
  • "goes on strike; and Detroit"-- semicolon must be comma
  • IMO, paragraph 2 can be combined with p1, p4 with p3.
  • Breaking the line to have a one-line description is pretty awkward-ish. Suggest just combining them, e.g. "Peter Weller as Alex Murphy / RoboCop, a Detroit police officer murdered in the line of duty and revived as a cyborg."
  • "has a cameo" --> "makes a cameo appearance"
  • "A fan of robots, science fiction films, such as Star Wars, and action films" --> "A fan of robot-themed science fiction films such as Star Wars, as well as action films"
  • Link kill off
  • Remove link to Japan as country links are discouraged, unless the country's not so common
  • "P" in "Presidency" must be decapitalized
  • "b" in "boys" must be capitalized
Done Gerald Waldo Luis Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 17:07, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Little note, no duplicate links detected :)
  • "The first draft of the script, then titled RoboCop: The Future of Law Enforcement"-- considering it's the first, not final draft, "then" is easily redundant
  • "An experienced producer of exploitation films and B movies, such as the parody film" --> "An experienced producer of exploitation and B films, such as the parody film Airplane!"
  • "Davison showed Neumeier and Miner films" --> "He showed Neumeier and Miner films"
  • "Orion greenlit the project, and Neumeier and Miner began a second draft." Duplicate use of and, suggest "After Orion greenlit the project, Neumeier and Miner began a second draft."
  • "and discarded the script, calling it a "piece of shit"; reports vary." The "reports vary" just makes the sentence more convoluted than it should be. I think this can easily be "and discarded the script as awful."
Done Gerald Waldo Luis Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 17:55, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The two sentences can be merged: "discarded the script as awful,[10][13] causing the project to be stalled.[21]"
  • Additionally, paragraphs 3 & 4 can be combined.
  • "looking for a comic-book-on-film tone." Ehh not really a fan of that hyphenated phrase. It sounds like you're talking about Transmedia storytelling, so you can change this to "looking for a transmedia tone."
  • "Alex Murphy/Robocop"-- capitalize C
  • After "The Terminator (1984)", I feel like a comma is more appropriate in lieu of semicolon.
  • "performance in The Adventures of Buckaroo Banzai Across the 8th Dimension (1984). He also" --> "performance in The Adventures of Buckaroo Banzai Across the 8th Dimension (1984), and also"
  • "Weller spent months working with mime Moni Yakim, developing a liquid-movement style, with a stiff staccato ending"-- I'm assuming this is martial arts related, because I can't understand the terms "liquid-movement" and "staccato". Are you referring to fluid movement? Also see Staccato (disambiguation) for potential links.
  • Link police lieutenant
  • "Give up" means to "cease making an effort; resign oneself to failure." When you decide to not smoke anymore, you dont cease making an effort, you cease doing something. So "giving up smoking" --> "quitting smoking"
  • "B movie" --> "B film" for consistency
  • "Nazi party" --> "Nazi Party"
  • "Verhoeven cast him as the villainous Dick Jones to play against type." Latter part repetitive: --> "Because of this, Verhoeven cast him as the villainous Dick Jones."
  • "Jones, he said, has absolutely no compassion, he is an "evil S.O.B."." --> "Jones, he said, has absolutely no compassion, calling him an "evil S.O.B."" I don't think the last period is needed.
  • "he believed the idea was stupid; he praised the finished film." --> "he believed the idea was stupid, though later praised the finished film."
  • "Filming took place almost entirely on location in Dallas, Texas, with additional shooting on sets in Las Colinas, and in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania." Remove the state names per consistency.
  • "Neumeier said it was also a "[trade union] town""-- if several words were replaced with another word, and the only thing left quoted is a simple word (town), it would be better to remove the quotes and square brackets altogether.
  • "Chicago was dismissed for aesthetic reasons, New York City for high costs, and California because, according to Davison, Orion wanted to distance themselves from the project." --> "Chicago was dismissed for aesthetic reasons; New York City for high costs; and California because, according to Davison, Orion wanted to distance themselves from the project."
  • "filming scenes "under the influence"." under the influence means nothing but drunk, so: "filming scenes while drunk."
  • "Neumeier was on set throughout filming; he occasionally was inspired to write additional scenes: including a New Year's Eve party, after noticing some party-hat props" --> "Neumeier was on set throughout filming and was occasionally inspired to write additional scenes, including a New Year's Eve party, after noticing some party-hat props"
  • Link matte paintings
  • "and the city hall is the"-- "with the city hall being the"
  • "The SHELL gas station"-- "The Shell gas station".
  • "Arts district"-- capitalize the d.
  • "The nightclub is the former Starck Club." --> "The nightclub was filmed at the former Starck Club."
  • "and music" can be removed as scoring also is part of post-prod.
  • The Frank sentence is better to be part of para 2 as it is more relevant there, para 1 is about the increase in budget.
  • "The latter scene lessened the triumphant feeling of the former"-- this sounds like we editors think it's lessening the feeling, when its the editor's. "The latter scene was said to lessen the triumphant feeling of the former" makes it neutral.
  • The MPAA paras can be combined, and the penultimate sentence can be moved to "marketing" para 2.
  • "Verhoeven said people "love seeing violence and horrible things." --> "Verhoeven concluded that these objected scenes were in the best interests of the audience."
  • "film's score" --> "film's score"
  • "Box office" is generally the first section in "Reception".
  • "Jack Mathews described RoboCop as a "terrible title for a movie that anyone would expect an adult to enjoy."" --> "Jack Mathews said that the title RoboCop is unmarketable to adults."
  • "The campaign" --> "The teaser campaign"
  • "RoboCop began a wide North American release on July 17, 1987." This is more suited in "marketing" para 2, and thus "During its opening weekend" can be changed to "During its North American opening weekend".
  • "which was outside the norm for an action film." There's no norm in the film industry for specific genres, suggest "which was unconventional for an action film."
  • "ahead of Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs" --> "ahead of Snow White"
  • Para 2 sentence 1 can be merged with the above, while sentence 2 can be merged with the below.
  • "Figures are not available for the film's performance outside North America." This is not true, as this source suggests.
  • "which featured multiple blockbuster successes" --> "which featured multiple blockbusters"

That's all I get for Prod and Release. I plan to review the Special effects section later, but cant do it tomorrow as I'll be celebrating my birthday. You've made me tempted to buy the Criterion now-- oh yeah, the part where you mentioned Criterion Collection, the "The" must be decapitalized. GeraldWL 10:14, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Happy birthday for tomorrow Gerald Waldo Luis. I've made most of these changes, except for about 4:
  • The link you provide for figures outside of North America is for 2010s remake, not this film.
  • "Verhoeven said people 'love seeing violence and horrible things.'". I think this is an interesting and tellinge quote about his perspective on the violence. I'm not sure "Verhoeven concluded that these objected scenes were in the best interests of the audience." carries the same message.
  • "Jack Mathews described RoboCop as a "terrible title for a movie that anyone would expect an adult to enjoy."" --> "Jack Mathews said that the title RoboCop is unmarketable to adults." - Per the above, I think the quote is more interesting than paraphrasing it.
  • Box office can go in reception but the guideline allows for Release, where I think it is imore appropriate, and is in line with the other Featured Articles I've submitted in the last couple of years. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 13:20, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I see, thanks for clarifying those points. And tbh yes, I can see the quotes being interesting. GeraldWL 15:20, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey um, I just want to say apologies but I need some time off-wiki. Birthdays as it turns out isn't roses and birds, I've been depressed for a while recently due to some real-life problems. I just had the worst panic attack and my mind is so numb, I couldn't even write stuff in my draft. I hope this is okay, and I'll be back. GeraldWL 10:10, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No problem Gerald Waldo Luis, hope things improve for you, get better soon. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 10:59, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Me back. Continuing with the review :) I won't be commenting on the Critical response section until the issue below has been resolved, for the sake of stability.. or whatever it's called. GeraldWL 08:46, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • "The special effects team, led by Rob Bottin, included Phil Tippett, Stephan Dupuis, Bart Mixon, and Craig Davies, among others." --> "The special effects team was led by Rob Bottin, and included Phil Tippett, Stephan Dupuis, Bart Mixon, and Craig Davies, among others."
  • In "Cruxificion", the C must be decapitalized.
  • "because the audience did not get to know him well beforehand" --> "as his personality was not well established"
  • "prosthetic arms were cast in alginate and filled with tubing that could pump artificial blood and compressed air."-- Link alginate and Tubing (material) as they're uncommon terms.
  • "velcro"-- link Hook-and-loop fastener
  • "monofilament wire"-- are you referring to Monofilament (science fiction), Monofilament fishing line, or..?
  • Link Latex (not LaTeX, jesus christ whats with that name)
  • Suggest expanding "squib" to "blood squib", as "squib" also has meanings in other topics.
  • "shaking with fear" --> "shaking in fear"
  • "The head was loosened so it would fly off, and by chance" --> "The head was loosened so it would fly off; by chance"
  • "because it would likely be censored" --> "out of censorship concerns"
  • "Page's body was covered in 200 blood squibs"-- remove duplicate link, as well as the "blood" as it's already established
  • "re-film" --> "re-shoot"
  • "plus plastic bags" --> "as well as plastic bags"
  • Link sawdust
Done Gerald Waldo Luis Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 09:48, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and comic book superheros" --> "as well as several comic book superheros"
  • In the hatnote, "RoboCop character" must be changed to the article's real title, "RoboCop (character)". According to WP:HNR there are some exceptions when a redirect/pipe is permitted, but I feel like this case falls out of that exception bubble.
  • "The RoboCop costume was unprecedented"-- what does unprecedented mean here? In what way is the costume "not expected"?
  • "Polyurethane" should be decaps-ed.
  • "semi- or completely rigid"-- I'm assuming you mean "semi- and completely rigid"? If so, "and a fiberglass helmet" must be changed to "as well as a fiberglass helmet".
  • "Corsair Jet" is a colloquial in lieu of formal term, must be changed to the official LTV A-7 Corsair II
  • "because they would make ED-209 more sympathetic" --> "opining that they would make ED-209 more sympathetic"
  • Digitize "fifty-five"
  • Hyphenate "black and white"
  • Link "backlit" to Backlighting (lighting design)
  • Link acetate
  • Link "thermographic photography" to Infrared photography
  • "The Taurus was chosen" --> "It was chosen"
  • "The 6000 SUX" must be defined in a first mention. Specifically, that is "was one of the demands of former city council worker Ron Miller if he was to release his captives", according to my 5-second research.
  • "plus a third" --> "alongside a third"
Done Gerald Waldo Luis, thanks Chompy Ace Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 14:34, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I find it weird that the Academy bit is combined with the British bit, and then the Saturn bit is in a separate paragraph. I also wouldn't prefer having British and Saturn together as it makes the Academy superior (it's not). I experimented the idea of having each awards in their own paragraphs then making them a bullet list. What do you think?
  • "RoboCop was one of the earliest film releases in the S-VHS video format"-- when?
  • Link VCR
  • Self-trout for not reading the whole sentence. Considering you already have an "a", the "The" in "The criterion collection" can be omitted
  • Should also state when the Criterion was released
  • "commentary" --> "audio commentary"
  • "The scheduled Blu-ray disc debut in 2006 by Sony Pictures Home Entertainment was canceled only days before release. Reviews indicated that the video quality was very poor." I would also love to see review summaries for the succeeding releases too, as a comparison.
  • The hatnotes must be changed to {{See also|List of RoboCop video games|RoboCop (comics)|l1=List of ''RoboCop'' video games|l2=comic books}}
  • Link Marvel Comics
  • The "t" in "t-shirts" should be capitalized
  • "by the National Entertainment Collectibles Association, Hot Toys, Sideshow Collectibles, clothing, and crockery." "By the [...] clothing and crockery"??
  • "RoboCop Versus The Terminator"-- add "(1992)"
  • "A 1988 side-scroller, RoboCop," --> "A 1988 side-scroller of the same name"
I've done most of these Gerald Waldo Luis, I don't quite understand what you mean by the "by the National Entertainment Collectibles Association, Hot Toys, Sideshow Collectibles, clothing, and crockery." "By the [...] clothing and crockery" part. I've merged the accolades into one paragraph, it didn't really need to be two. Technically it's organised by release date and a-z. I'm not a fan of bullet pointing, especially with prose. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 14:30, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I was in a rush sorry for the former lmao. What I meant was that I'm confused with that sentence, as you mentioned brand names but then also nouns ("clothing and crockery"). It can also be read as "collectible action figures by clothing and crockery", which is confusing. The accolades now look fine, and I can understand the avoidance of bullets. GeraldWL 15:36, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, Ok I removed the brand names. I was trying to get across they're more "prestige" figures than just kinda cheap £20 things you get from a regular store, but I guess collectible action figure covers it and makes the sentence less wordy Gerald Waldo Luis.Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 00:17, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aight getting into the last batch! GeraldWL 15:13, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • I find it weird that the section's about critics and there's an audience polling. I see no other sections that can shelter that sentence, so I suggest changing the name to "Reviews" to be less specific.
  • "Others, such as Dave Kehr and the Chicago Reader"--add comma
  • Amazing improvement after the extensive discussion with Mike! However, I'd suggest that not all the time do you need to include the different reviewers. "The Christian Science Monitor, The Washington Post, and the Los Angeles Times" can be trimmed to "Some publications". "The Los Angeles Times, The Philadelphia Inquirer, and Desson Thomson appreciated the film's adaptation" can be trimmed to "Some reviewers appreciated the film's adaptation".
  • Why do you use author names in one instance and publication in the other? Note that a publication (say NYT) can make multiple reviews of a film and have differing opinions because they're thoughts by the writer, not necessarily representing the editor-in-chief's view.
  • "Those depicted in the film are corrupt and greedy; their goal is privatizing public services" --> "Those depicted in the film are corrupt and greedy, privatizing public services"
  • "President Ronald Reagan"-- "Ronald" can be ommited since you mentioned him in full previously.
  • "The Old Man was modelled after Reagan"-- modeled the verb refers to fashion/engineering, or organization. Suggest changing "modelled" to "conceived" or similar words.
  • Suggest linking fascism considering u linked liberalism too.
  • "or paradise" --> "or a paradise"
  • "The website's consensus reads:" --> "The website summarizes the reviews with:"
  • Unitalicize Rotten Tomatoes
  • Link The New York Times
  • Link erotic film
  • "and Ken Russell"-- considering you have an "and" previously, the "and" here must be "as well as".
  • "The crowdfunded documentary" --> "The crowdfunded making-of"
  • "PG-Rating" --> "PG rating"
  • Change first mention of MGM to Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer.
Done all of these Gerald Waldo Luis apart from the CinemaScore one. The section header is pretty standardized across articles, and cinemascore technically falls under that as a professional company aggregating responses. In more modern films you'd have Rotten Tomatoes there for instance. I get your point, I just don't think it affects the section in a significant way. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 17:00, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm aight then it looks all good :) I'd like to note that I've made two small changes to the article. I'd wait for a confirmation by Mike then I'll support. Amazing article anyways! GeraldWL 17:39, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Hi Gerald Waldo Luis, just letting you know Mike has supported now. Thanks for your help. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 13:01, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support :) GeraldWL 13:42, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie

[edit]

Just looking at the critical reception section, I thought I would have a go at copyediting one or two of the paragraphs, but I want to be sure I understand how you've structured that section. In the paragraph starting "Some saw Robocop as a self-aware comic book film..." I see some comments about the direction, and about style, and humour, and scale. The first sentence doesn't seem to really summarize that very well -- what did you intend to be the topic of that paragraph? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:01, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think the gist of the first two paragraphs is just overall sentiments about the film as a whole, so I'm not sure if the opening sentence is a mission statement in and of itself, it's been a while since I wrote it Mike Christie. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 15:54, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I see that. Then the next paragraph is the actors; then the violence; then the satire. I'll see if I can come up with some copyedit suggestions on that basis. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:38, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have put a paragraph in a sandbox that I'd like you to take a look at. I decided to try to write a paragraph based on the comments about violence in the reviews, without re-reading your paragraph, in order to try to get an independent approach. I think your paragraph on the violence makes a good selection of quotes, and has a definite sequence that it looks like I partly matched: first the reviewers who find the violence is redeemed by comedy, then the more critical reviews. The main thing I don't like about your paragraph is that it feels listy, which is extraordinarily difficult to avoid in these sections. I am certainly not suggesting you should substitute all, or even any, of my version into the article, but I do think it reads more smoothly, and I'd like to know what you think. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:37, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It seems fine except for the Time magazine retrospective because the section is strictly contemporary reviews, and the Shane reference seems kind of random. Also one of the reviews references McKenna, an LA Times reviewer, but then makes separate reference to just a "The LA times review", so without the references it's difficult to know where the content has specifically come from for me to integrate it. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:37, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agree on the Time magazine retrospective and Shane, but I wasn't suggesting you use this (though if you want to use any part of it I can easily give you the cites). What I'm saying is that the reception section as you have it is listy, and doesn't flow as well as I think it should, and the paragraph I wrote was an attempt to show you what I mean, rather than give you a vague "do it better". Pinging Popcornfud and Czar, who have both spent a lot of time thinking about how to write reception sections; I'd like their opinions in case I'm overreaching here. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:16, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No that's fine. TBH I wish there was a Guild of Copy Editors Specifically for Critical Reception sections because they're my weakest part, especially with older films where the reviews tend to barely mention the film itself and just waffle on about random stuff. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 14:40, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To my eyes, both versions of the violence paragraph are missing some sense of common themes. Were there camps of opinion on ultraviolence as a stylistic choice? Who moralized the choice? What did reviewers find agreeable or disagreeable about its presentation? I.e., if two reviewers found its over-the-top violence to be comical, simply state that and the reasons why. The allusions to Charlie Chaplin and Bambi are lost on me as the general audience because I'm reading to understand how critics considered the role of ultraviolence in the film, not to be impressed by their rhetorical and referential flourishes. Complicating this point, I'd ask whether a major stylistic theme belongs in the Reception or the Thematic analysis (I don't know). The sandbox revision clusters the paragraph's topics a little neater but the ultimate test is having someone unfamiliar with the article (like me or an acquaintance) read the paragraph and not be lost as to why these individual reviewer opinions strung together in the paragraph are meant to impart as a whole. (edit conflict) re: random waffling, I think that tends to make the job even easier! Ignore the waffling and stick to their limited points of substance, which might be none at all. :) (not watching, please {{ping}} if needed) czar 14:51, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Czar do you have any top shelf examples of such sections for reference? Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:26, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I thought Why Marx Was Right#Reception was a good recent example of grouping by topic czar 20:30, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Czar, Mike Christie, what about something like:
Many reviewers discussed the film's violent content. Ebert and Wilmington found the violence to be so excessive that it became deliberately comical, with Ebert writing that ED-209 killing an executive subverted audience expectations of a seemingly serious science-fiction film, making them uncertain what type of film they are watching. Wilmington believed the violent scenes succeeded at creating experiences of sadism and poignancy simultaneously. Other reviewers were more critical, including Kehr and Walter Goodman who believed the satire and critiques of corporate corruption were excuses to indulge in violent visuals. Graham found the violence had a "brooding agonized quality... as if Verhoeven were both appalled and fascinated" by it, and Sterritt said critical praise for the "nasty" film demonstrated a preference for "style over substance".
If I'm missing something I apologize, if I'm honest the original, MC's version, and the Marx version I don't see a great deal of difference between them. As I said, Crit Reception sections are the hardest and my least favourite part. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 23:05, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think Czar and I were making different points. I think he felt neither you nor I made it clear what the camps of opinion were among the reviewers, though to be honest I'm not sure I agree with him; I've read every linked review a couple of times and I think the selections you and I each made are defensible. My intended point was different: I was looking at the writing style, not the content. Read the last four sentences of the current article version out loud. Doesn't that sound just like a list to you? I think the writing should be more fluid than that, and that's what I tried to illustrate in the sandbox. I wrote WP:RECEPTION, which I know I've pestered you with in at least one previous FAC, and I tried to put what I know about writing these sections in that essay -- vary length, vary rhythm, try to avoid consecutive sentences with a similar structure. These are mechanical things to try but they do help. I really like your Guild of Copy Editors Specifically for Critical Reception sections and I am going to post a note at GOCE talk asking if there would be any interest in a subgroup of GOCE editors who take on reception sections. Re your revised paragraph: yes, it definitely flows a bit better, but I would try to find a way to avoid the identically structured last two sentences. I would also take advantage of Ebert being mentioned in two consecutive sentences to join those into a longer sentence, again to help flow. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:14, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've tweaked the above a bit. Yes reception sections are the worst because, from my experience, it's as subjective as comedy. Some sections pass without concern and others not and as mentioned above, and commented on by Czar, the older reviews, where the critics seemed to be like weird little rockstars, such that they now have their own Wikipedia articles (how many can say that today?), tended to wax poetic about things unrelated to the actual content of the film, making very little content I can actually draw on, making it seem brief and stunted. I don't mind your version apart from the aforementioned Shane reference and it potentially just being a bit long. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 09:55, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't mind, I'd like to carry this conversation on on the article talk page, and see if I can suggest a copyedit of the whole section. Then we can come back here once that's settled rather than taking up FAC space. It might take a few days; I am travelling from Thursday through Sunday and don't know how much time I will have until early next week. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:49, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fine by me. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:27, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just wanted to say that I think your rewritten paragraph above is great, @Darkwarriorblake. It does a good job of connecting related themes within the topic without delving into original research. I might invert or rearrange within some sentences, but that's just for stylistic variety, not content. czar 00:37, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree -- I hadn't reread or commented since you made the last tweaks; like Czar I might change something if I wrote it myself, but this is absolutely fine. Would you have a go at a similar rewrite of the other paragraphs in that section? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:35, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I'll move it into a sandbox and have a go then link you guys to it. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 10:41, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok Mike Christie and Czar, Yay or Nay?. I might have overdone it tbh. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:50, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's much improved, in my opinion. As before I can see some things I might do differently but this flows much better. If Czar agrees, I'd say move this in to the article. Then I owe you a review of the whole article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:13, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Looks great! Drop it in and I'll make some copy edits. One stylistic comment: When the reviewer is unknown, I don't think it's worth also mentioning their name. (Or alternatively, it's only worth saying the reviewer's name when they are independently notable.) I.e., the review is more likely to be referenced by our readers as "the WaPo review" than "Kempley's review" because a minor/unlinked name is a fleeting detail for a reader to hold in their head between paragraphs whereas the publication's name is almost always linked and comes with an associated history. czar 01:21, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's in SITU Czar, thank you. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 09:25, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Review
[edit]

Starting a fresh section for the review.

  • "As well as being inspired by comic books and his personal experience with corporate culture, Neumeier was influenced to kill off his main character early on by the psychological horror film Psycho (1960), whose heroine was killed in the first act. Neumeier wanted to satirize 1980s business culture, noting the increasing aggression of American financial services in response to growing Japanese influence and that a popular book on Wall Street was The Book of Five Rings, a 17th-century text discussing how to kill more effectively. He also believed that Detroit's declining automobile industry was due to increased bureaucracy." I think the "inspired by comic books" and "influenced to kill off his main character" points are unconnected to the corporate culture comments. How about "Neumeier was influenced to kill off his main character early on by the psychological horror film Psycho (1960), whose heroine was killed in the first act. Inspired by comic books and his personal experience with corporate culture, Neumeier wanted to satirize 1980s business culture, noting the increasing aggression of American financial services in response to growing Japanese influence and that a popular book on Wall Street was The Book of Five Rings, a 17th-century text discussing how to kill more effectively. He also believed that Detroit's declining automobile industry was due to increased bureaucracy."?
  • "Detroit was dismissed because it had many low, featureless, and indistinct buildings": how can a building be indistinct?
  • "Weller was to be referred to only as "Murphy" or "Robo" and Smith was hesitant to speak to him as a result. However, they developed a friendship, and the rule was ignored": I don't see this in the cited source. I see it in the Esquire article, but there it's "they said this guy wants you to call him", not third person, and it seems it turned out not to be accurate anyway. If the Esquire article is your source for this it's so vague I think it should be dropped.
  • Surely Murphy's death was not done as a "pick-up shot"?
  • "efficient way to gain sympathy for Murphy as his personality was not well established": I think we could just make it "efficient way to quickly gain sympathy for Murphy."
  • I don't think we should list all thirteen movies that ranked ahead of it in box office, or even any of them. A link to an article on the year in movies would be OK, if we have such an article.
  • "The extended violent content removed from the theatrical release": since the UK release did not cut this material, shouldn't we make this "from the US theatrical release"?
  • The first paragraph of the "Corporate power" section has a bit of the "A said B" problem that you've fixed in the reception section. Can you take another crack at this paragraph?
  • "Another central theme centers on defining what is humanity": can we avoid "central...centers"? Perhaps just "Another central theme is the question of what is humanity".
  • "a man between death": between death and what?
  • "Unlike many films of its time, the central character is not a...": needs rephrasing -- as it stands this says the central character is a film.
  • The status of the statue in Detroit is described as of 2020 but a quick Google will find several updates that could be included.
  • There's some overlap between the "Post-release: Other media" section and the "Sequels and adaptations" section; can we reduce it? Or combine the sections?

That's everything; generally looks in good shape. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:34, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Christie, I've done most of these if you want to take a look. The only thing I'm a little confused about is your last point about the sequel section. I can't really see any overlap outside of the first line of the sequel mentioning the comics/video games, etc so I've removed that line. Other than that the only overlap I can see is the mention of one of the animated series in both sections, though it is mentioned in "Other media" in relation to an action figure line, and given more detail in the sequels section. Oh and Murphy's death was done in post production, I can change it from pick up shot but my understanding was that pick up shots are post production filming. It's basically tied into the schedule overrun and the suit taking up so much time, and that scene is very special effects heavy. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 14:51, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Mike Christie Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 13:00, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Your changes look fine; the rework of the "Corporate power" is a huge improvement. The overlap you removed was all I was noticing, and the explanation of Murphy's death being a post-production shot is fine; it's just my unfamiliarity with the terminology. Nice work. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:34, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pamzeis

[edit]

Markin' my spot :) Pamzeis (talk) 13:33, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pamzeis, I don't know if you're free to begin your review but Mike Christie and Geraldo have finished up now. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 13:27, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the delay... will leave comments in two or three days... hopefully. Pamzeis (talk) 13:33, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Geraldo"-- damn I'm flattered. /lh That's what my friends dub me when joking. GeraldWL 13:53, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry XD, It's the Waldo immediately afterward that confuses me, I used to call my cousins Lune and Jen instead of June and Len. Namelexia. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 15:58, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Let's try not to screw this up ;)

  • "project: RoboCop. ... RoboCop, a powerful and heavily-armored cyborg with no memory of his former life." — why can't it be explained what RoboCop is at the first mention of its/their name...?
  • "The first draft of the script, titled RoboCop: The Future of Law Enforcement, was given to industry friends and associates." — any sources discussing when?
  • "The connection between Clarence Boddicker and Dick Jones was not in the first script; it was added at Orion's suggestion." — I'm a bit iffy on this bit. I think it would be pretty obvious that the part was not in the first script if it was done at Orion's suggestion, because Orion was not involved with the first script (I think, I forgot everything I read five minutes ago...)
  • "Kaplan left to direct Project X" — had he already signed on? This wording suggests so, but the article makes no mention of it, only that he was offered the job or he offered to direct
  • "Verhoeven is said to have looked at the first page and rejected the script as awful, stalling the project." — are there sources that contradicted this or something? If not, can the "is said to have" part be dropped?
  • "Being not fluent in" — awkward...
  • "The low salary he required was in his favor, as was his body control from martial arts training and marathon running, and his fan base in the science fiction genre, following his performance in The Adventures of Buckaroo Banzai Across the 8th Dimension (1984)." — I don't get this. What does body control and his fan base have to do with a low salary?
  • "Cinematographer Jost Vacano previously" — MOS:SOB?
  • "on location in Dallas" — huh? I thought the film was set in Detroit?

Still more to come... Pamzeis (talk) 11:07, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think it flows better this way in terms of plot. In the film we don't know what RoboCop is until we see it, it's just a project that Morton mentions, and stating what RoboCop is alongside Murphy becoming RoboCop makes it clear what he has become. To me anyway.
I don't have a specific month but I've added early 1985.
He led the project at that point and was offered the director role and he was involved up to the point he left. I've added an extra source though that seemed a bit clearer.
Done
Done
Maybe you misread this or it might be worded badly. It's saying that because he was a cheap hire that worked in his favour, but they also liked he had good body control which was important to the role, and he brought with him an existing fanbase from his last film meaning he wasn't a complete unknown and had some drawing power. Is it confusingly worded? I can try to rewrite it.
Done
It is set in Detroit but it's filmed in Dallas.
Done for now Pamzeis Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:48, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Pamzeis, sorry to bother you, any more notes to add? Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:39, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, sorry, sorry, sorry, sorry, sorry! I've got a bit on my plate at the moment, but more comments will hopefully come tomorrow... (but no promises!) Pamzeis (talk) 13:46, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Continuing...
  • Before I forget, cast lists should not have full stops at the end unless accompanied by (a) full sentence(s) per MOS:FILMCAST
  • Ref order in note k should be fixed
  • "explode in a predictable way" — any way that "predictable" can be elaborated?
  • "A mold of Weller's face was made" — a tad awkward...
  • I get what you mean by "fabricated" in #Special effects, but given the more common (and negative) usage, could this be substituted with another word?
  • "Verhoeven recalled how one reviewer was confused by the jarring in-film ad breaks and complained the projectionist had used the wrong film reel." — what relevance does this have to the film's marketing? It seems rather trivial to me
  • "depicting unchecked greed and callous disregard alongside witty criticisms of subjects including game shows and military culture." — ...uhh, what? I genuinely have no idea what this means
  • The first paragraph of #Critical reassessment is mostly not about critics' assessment.
  • Also... reassessment? The reception seems mostly the same from reading the article...
  • According to the Deus Ex article, Human Revolution is a prequel, but this article refers to it as a sequel
  • I don't see anything in the body supporting that RoboCop Returns ignores the other entries in the series as stated in the lead
  • "behind Crocodile Dundee ($53.6 million), La Bamba ($54.2 million), comedy film and Dragnet ($57.4 million)." — any reason these four films are mentioned specifically?
  • "million between them" — also awkward-ish
  • "older audiences (those aged over 25), who had been ignored by the teenage-centric films of previous years" — how do teen films ignore people...?

OK, think that's it from me! Hopefully, you don't mind the out-of-order comments, because I read the article out-of-order. Great article, but definitely not a film I'm interested in seeing as violence is not my cup of tea. Pamzeis (talk) 10:00, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK Pamzeis I think I've addressed everything except for the list of films in the BO section. I just like to list the next or preceding five to show the type of competition it was against as if you weren't around them you might not know what other films were out and running against it (and even if you were you probably forgot), plus it gives an organic way to create interior links to other interesting articles. And yes it's very gory, it's a philosophically interesting film but even the cut down version has some gore in it. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 17:46, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support, nothing else to say (oh, wait, that was something else). Pamzeis (talk) 04:26, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass

[edit]

Spot-checks not included.

  • Source 59 should be marked as dead since the main link is not working. While we're at it, what makes Dallas Film Commission a high-quality, reliable source?
  • Source 71, 119 - British Board of Film Classification does not need to be in italics.
  • Source 159, 160 - what makes Hi-Def Digest a high-quality, reliable source?
  • Source 189, 190, 254 - why are only these three's titles italicized? FrB.TG (talk) 19:17, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Dallas Film Commission is the official Dallas department for liaising with and promoting filming in Dallas so it's an educated entity being used to cite non-controversial information.
Done
Hi-Def digest does have an "About Us" with an editorial team, and is owned by InternetBrands which is a billion dollar company. Like the Dallas Commission, it's a specialist website being used to cite information within their speciality that is non-controversial.
Fixed as best I can, the Cite Rotten Tomatoes and Cite Metacritic templates automatically italicize the website names. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:46, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My question regarding the italics was based on the sources' title, not the publishers'. For some reason these three have been picked. I thought it was because it had the film in the title but there were many others with the film's name in it and they were not italicized. I suggest removing the italics from these three as well. FrB.TG (talk) 20:00, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah ok, well htat's something unfortunately built into the citation template, but I've replaced them with standard Cite Web ones. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 20:47, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you to Gerald Waldo Luis, Mike Christie, czar, Pamzeis, and FrB.TG Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 11:26, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Buidhe via FACBot (talk) 22 March 2022 [33].

Eduard Fraenkel

[edit]
Nominator(s): Modussiccandi (talk) 10:46, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the German classical scholar Eduard Fraenkel. He has by far the most eventful life of any classicist I've brought here: he started his career as a rising star in the German academic world, fled to England after Hitler came to power, and had an impactful second career as a refugee scholar at Oxford. The article was recently reviewed for GA status and improved by the generous comments of Amitchell125. I will be happy to work with your suggestions. Thank you, Modussiccandi (talk) 10:46, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review—pass

[edit]
  • Any photos published before 1927 would be in the public domain. I take it none were found?
  • File:Leo Friedrich retouched.jpg No PD-US rationale, likely still copyrighted because of URAA

The third image looks fine (t · c) buidhe 10:54, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for not getting back to you on this, Buidhe. Regarding the first point: I've been in touch with someone who might be able to provide a free alternative. However, until this lead yields some results, we might have to live with the fair-use image. Re. the second point: I just assumed that any picture of Leo, who died in 1914, would be in the public domain. Would you suggest I find a different image if that isn't the case? Modussiccandi (talk) 09:04, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For the Friedrich photo, the photographer died in 1934, which means that it was still copyrighted in Germany on the URAA date, which means that it is likely copyrighted in the US (unless published before 1927). So yeah, either more documentation is needed or swap to a different photo with a solid PD-US rationale. (t · c) buidhe 10:10, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Buidhe: I have removed the picture of Leo and replaced it with an image of the Law for the Restoration of the Professional Civil Service. Please let me know if there are any further issues regarding this or the other images in the article. Modussiccandi (talk) 20:26, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Kavyansh

[edit]

(edit conflict) Will try to take a look soon! Looks solid from a quick glance. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:57, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

More later – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 11:07, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • "by the National Socialist German Workers' Party" — can we just say "Nazi Party"?
Done, Modussiccandi (talk) 20:43, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at Lloyd-Jones 2004 (a source of the highest quality), you'll see that he says about Fraenkel's death: ... Fraenkel chose not to survive her and died at his home. There is no doubt Lloyd-Jones says that Fraenkel took his own life. Quite apart from this, I would say that he had no will to continue living is merely a thinly veiled, decorous way of saying 'suicide'. Modussiccandi (talk) 22:01, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'll still like to hear what our medical editors say; can that narrow definition be used to cite an sensitive claim of suicide? – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 11:31, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is mostly it. I hope that comments would be useful. Thanks for this excellent article! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:44, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral until the point about assertion of suicide is further clarified. Advise of a coordinator of medical editor is appreciated. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:18, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from passerby: I added a source from the Gnomon obituary, which, while still somewhat euphemistic in the British style, I think is clear enough. Note also this book (found with a Google Books search), which indicates Fraenkel died from an intentional barbiturates overdose. blameless 02:27, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, this is reliable enough, and explicitly mentions that he committed suicide. Other than that, very solid article. I Support it's promotion as a FA. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 03:22, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by JBchrch

[edit]

Congrats on your adminship Modussiccandi! Will take a look over the coming days. JBchrch talk 18:52, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

  • Why is Berlin is in “education” and Göttingen in “Alma mater”? Not that I ever truly understood the difference between these two parameters, but since you make a distinction, I figured I would prong at it.
  • Without being 100% sure why I put it there, I think it's because of a believe held by some editors that Alma Mater is the last institution of one's education. I don't subscribe to that view, so will be happy to put everything under 'Education'. Modussiccandi (talk) 14:01, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

  • "Antisemitic legislation". I find the wikilink to antisemitism a bit underwhelming. Would we have a better target?
  • "introduced by the Nazi Party" -> enacted in Nazi Germany?
  • "Corpus Christi College, Oxford". I am aware that Oxonians (and Cantabrigians) place a heavy weight on the constituent colleges, but I often feel like texts written for a general readership should refer to the University of Oxford rather than the college, for reasons analogous to WP:COMMONNAME and WP:WORLDVIEW.
  • You are right: it's a bit insider-ish to constantly refer to the constituent parts of a well-known university. In this instance, the name of the uni itself will work. Sometimes, however, it's better to have the name of the college since their not always equivalent. So, in a nutshell, I will evaluate these on a case by case basis. (I've changed this one to Oxford University). Modussiccandi (talk) 14:21, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "its sub-discipline". It seems to me like the sub-discipline we are talking about is not defined or mentionned earlier?
  • "teaching at Oxford". If you decide to not act on the "Corpus Christi College" comment, I would suggest teaching at the University of Oxford, for analogous reasons.
  • "In 2017, an effort by the Corpus Christi student body to re-dedicate a room in the college honouring Fraenkel on account of allegations of sexual misconduct garnered national media coverage." I’m not a fan of this sentence :
  • Grammatically, the core claim of the sentence is that the effort by the student body garnered national coverage. Given the body and its source (I’m looking at Elsner p. 319 and 332), the core claim should be that the college decided to rename the room based on allegations of sexual harassment (possibly “on a request/proposition by the student body”).
  • Which leads me to the use of "misconduct" instead of "harassment". Misconduct seems to be a euphemism compared to "harassment", which is also the term used by Elsner p. 319 and 333.
  • Which leads me to (what I understand to be) other euphemisms in this sentence which I’m not a fan of, i.e. "re-dedicate" and "honouring": I would simply say that the room was renamed, as Elsner p. 319 does (possibly “and his portrait removed”)

More to come. JBchrch talk 01:18, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Early life and education

  • "assimilated into the German Empire" Is that correctly worded? Drawing from a cultural background with which I'm more familiar, the sentence "assimilated into the French Republic" would sound strange.

Exile in England

  • “Trinity College, Cambridge” Same comment as above about the constituent colleges.
  • Do you have the sourcing to give more details about what the seminars looked like? How they worked? What they did?
    • Without looking at the source right now, I'm sure that they read the text in the Greek and commented on linguistic/philological/literary/historical points of interest. I will go back to the sourcing and try to see if anything can be found. Best, Modussiccandi (talk) 19:35, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have gone to the best source on these seminars that I have (Stray 2017) and found that it didn't reveal much detail about their method. I have added a clause to the description of the seminars in the article, but it's nothing to write home about. I think one problem may be that that the authors of these sources have in mind an audience of classicists, who'll already know what seminars such as these are like. Modussiccandi (talk) 20:44, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retirement and death

  • ”Her death on 5 February 1970 led to Fraenkel's suicide on the same day”. That’s a lot to take in for one sentence. I would prefer to break it up into two, with the first one saying that Ruth (see also WP:SPOUSE) died on 5 February and the second saying he committed suicide on the same day.

Still more to come. JBchrch talk 20:28, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Modussiccandi I'm sorry for the delay, but you can expect answers to your replies, and the rest of my comments by the end of the week. JBchrch talk 05:26, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Contributions to classical scholarship

  • "his characters' habit to intimate their own transformation into someone else" (emph added). Perhaps it's just me but I'm not sure I understand this sentence.
    • Ah yes, this sentence... I think I tinkered with it because of the GA review, but essentially what it tries to say is that people suggests that they might be transformed into someone else. 'Intimate' was suggested by the reviewer as a more neutral version of what I had written; have a look at Talk:Eduard Fraenkel/GA1#5.1 Plautus. I'm actually fairly happy with 'intimate', but I would be willing to change it if you were to insist. Modussiccandi (talk) 20:21, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "at times very frustrating". I think readers may be curious why that is, but I understand that it's perhaps difficult to integrate the whole argument without giving it UNDUE weight.

Last bit later or tomorrow. JBchrch talk 23:28, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reception

  • Reading the sources, it seems like the allegations involve three women, not two (Iris Murdoch, Imogen Wrong, Mary Warnock)?
  • Reading the source, again, one element that seems to be important is the context of the sexual misconduct, i.e. that it happened during individual tutorials in Fraenkel's office. It seems to me that this is an important point to understand the contemporary reaction and that it would be fair to mention.

All good, supporting. JBchrch talk 16:26, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments and support from Gerda

[edit]

I met the article on DYK and am curious. Will comment as I read, lead at the end when I know more. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:33, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

Early

  • "he enrolled at the University of Berlin to study law, as antisemitic hiring conventions would have made it difficult to obtain a teaching position at a German university" - not sure what the hiring convention has to do with the choice of subject, - probably my problem
    • The point is that Fraenkel chose not study Classics because the most probable career route (becoming a university lecturer) was going to be difficult to attain for him. So he studied law to become a lawyer, a field where, presumably, his status as a Jew matters less (at least in 1906). Modussiccandi (talk) 16:09, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Perhaps say that something like it in the article, that he was more interested in Classics but ... - Completely unrelated: please indent following the essay on top of User talk:Drmies. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:14, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • translate title of thesis?

Career in Germany

Exile ...

  • "Fraenkel spent the part of 1934" - why "the", and which?
    • I have removed the superfluous 'the'. The part referred to is the summer. I changed 'summer' to 'part' in response to a reviewer's comment because we shouldn't use the names of seasons in articles because they differ in different parts of the world. Since I didn't know the precise months, I settled for the vague 'part'. I'm definitely open to suggestions. Modussiccandi (talk) 16:09, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reception

  • "the philosopher Mary Warnock wrote that Fraenkel had touched her ..." - I was not prepared for "touched" meaning literally "touch", because the German "berührt" is often used to describe being positively influenced. - I also wonder if it belongs under "Reception". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:21, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • You are right, the German connotation of 'berühren' is different. However, English idiom is clearer on this, so I would prefer to keep the current word choice. Regarding the position in the 'Reception' section: I put it there because it forms part of a larger thematic complex on how Fr. was discussed after his death. You are right to say that these events happened while he was alive, but they only became public knowledge afterwards. On the whole, I found it best to tell the story of these controversial events in the reception section as opposed to having different bits in two sections. Modussiccandi (talk) 16:09, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Thank you, and all fine, just one minor thing. I have rehearsal today, will read the lead probably tomorrow. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:14, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

Source review

[edit]

Spotchecks not done. Version reviewed

I have tried to address you replies, Nikkimaria. Is there anything else in terms of sourcing that I should take care of? Modussiccandi (talk) 10:32, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:24, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 17 March 2022 [37].

A and B Loop

[edit]
Nominator(s): truflip99 (talk) 20:56, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a service of the Portland Streetcar system in Portland, Oregon, U.S. It is a vital transit option in the Central City district, with connections to many of Portland's most iconic landmarks and institutions. The route itself is notable for operating the first U.S.-built streetcar in 60 years at the time of its opening. Should this article achieve FA status, it would accompany three Portland transit-related articles that are currently FA. truflip99 (talk) 20:56, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Serial

[edit]

Might look in later; in the meantime, a map would be good. It's a rail line, and if we do a thing well, it's rail diagrams. SN54129 00:02, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Serial Number 54129: thanks for commenting! There's a route map right below the GA icon and a route diagram at the bottom of the infobox. Do those not suffice? --truflip99 (talk) 23:28, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you want a static image map, just link me to the KML -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 20:51, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Guerillero: I ended up creating a maplink tp with the KML. Thank you for offering though!
@Serial Number 54129: -- are you still interested in doing a quick review? I added a kml map per your suggestion. --truflip99 (talk) 22:51, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. Just wanted to ask. -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 23:00, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - Support from ChrisTheDude

[edit]
  • This was a great read, my only query is about the naming of roads. You have "via 10th and 11th avenues" (lower case a) but "the B Loop turns right onto 5th Avenue" (upper case A), and "tracks traverse Broadway and Weidler streets" (lower case S) but "a turning loop on Southeast Stephens Street" (upper case S). Maybe this correctly reflects US usage (my usage would be different but then I am British) but I thought it was worth clarifying. Other than that I couldn't find fault..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:03, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Gerald Waldo Luis

[edit]

Heiyo, it's the guy from Talk:MAX Orange Line/GA1. This article looks pretty fine, just a few comments.

Resolved comments from GeraldWL 19:17, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Prose comments:
  • The lead looks good! Although I have to comment that it took me a second read to understand the relevance of paragraph 2 due to the absence of mentions of "A and B Loop". Suggest changing "its current name" to "A and B Loop".
    • Done
  • "In February 2003, an advisory committee composed of eastside residents urged extending the proposed Broadway–Weidler alignment farther east up to 21st Avenue." Urge to who?
    • Done
  • "Metro regional government approved"-- awkward wording. Suggest "The regional government Metro regional government", or drop the "The" if that's the preference.
    • Done
  • "including the cost to purchase additional vehicles"-- isn't rolling stock the right term for railway vehicles?
    • Yes, but vehicles works too
  • "The city awarded the contract" --> "Portland awarded the contract"
    • Done
  • Some of the dates in this articles are merely month-year. I feel like some, such as the prototype unveiling one, can have a specific numeric date.
    • I use full date only on important ones (start of construction, opening, etc.) but I agree that this one is important too, so I added it
  • "United Streetcar had relied on Czech streetcar manufacturer Škoda, [...] system from Austrian manufacturer Elin"-- linking countries is considered MOS:OVERLINK
    • Great catch, thank you
  • "Portland Streetcar formed a new service called the "Central Loop Line" (abbreviated as CL Line)"-- you didn't put "abbreviated as" in the lead paranthesis of CL Line, so I don't think that term is needed here.
    • Done
  • "On August 30, 2015, CL Line service" --> "On August 30, 2015, the CL Line"
    • Done
  • "A and B Loop" is a pretty cool name ngl. Or have I been playing too much Watch Dogs--
    • Loved that game
      • Ikr, it's a comfort game for me now.
  • "Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, which impacted public transit ridership globally, the route served significantly more riders, with the A and B Loop having carried 3,612 and 3,064, respectively, on weekdays in September 2019." Would love to know the numbers amid the pandemic, although if there's none then it's perfectly okay.
    • I added Sept 2021 figures as we are still in the pandemic lol. But 2020 figures will be added to the main Portland Streetcar article (distant future)
      • I see I see, thanks for the clarification.
  • Suggest using Template:Portal bar for the portal, as the current box template makes a weird empty space on desktop, and it also makes the display cluttered on the App.
    • Done


@Gerald Waldo Luis: Thanks for taking the time to comment on this GAN! Sorry I didn't get back to you a few months ago when you messaged me, I took a long hiatus from wikipedia. But I'm back now, so let me know if you need anything. --truflip99 (talk) 18:24, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your welcome, and thanks to you for the quick response. I took a second quick read, and the last thing I would suggest is to add the Use mdy dates and Use American english template; put them according to MOS:ORDER. After this I'll support. GeraldWL 01:16, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Gerald Waldo Luis: those are done as well. Cheers! --truflip99 (talk) 17:33, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And with that I support this FAC. Excellent work! If you're interested, I have an open FLC, a source review would be great but no pressure of course. Happy editing! GeraldWL 19:17, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

Disclaimer: I wrote about 6% of the article according to XTools, but only participated in the very early stages. As such, I think I should be sufficiently distanced to be able to conduct a simple source review.

  • Formatting is generally consistent and orderly.
    • One issue I see is the use of {{rp}} on citations that have only one use; I recommend just integrating them into the citation for a tidier appearance.
      • Resolved
  • Citation 21's title doesn't match the title used in the document (The Portland Streetcar Loop, Facts at a Glance). Not a major issue, just curious as to why it was changed.
    • Fixed
  • Citation 41 uses a book from Arcadia, a known author mill. While the author seems to have good credentials (historian and art museum director), I'd like to see a higher-quality source used instead.
    • Replaced with an Oregonian source

That's all I have. Although I couldn't comment on the prose, it looks fine to me and reads well. SounderBruce 03:09, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, SounderBruce! I've addressed your comments. --truflip99 (talk) 05:01, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sources are good to go, then. SounderBruce 05:07, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by from CPA

[edit]

Nick-D

[edit]

I have surprisingly strong views on why circle lines are a rubbish idea, so strap yourself in for some robust comments! The article is in good shape, but is a bit imprecise at times. I also have concerns over sourcing.

IKEWYM -_-
  • Not sure why currency is being converted into 2019 dollars? Given that everything is pretty recent, I'd suggest just dropping the inflation calculations.
    • Futureproofing. The inflation amount has already increased pretty significantly so I don't see what the problem is.
  • "The A and B Loop is a streetcar circle route of the Portland Streetcar system " - remove 'streetcar' here and move it into the second sentence as it's pretty obvious.
    • Sure, I can do that, but that's really there for the wikilink to streetcar, to makes things easier.
  • " it consists of two distinct services " - delete 'distinct'
    • Replaced with streetcar as I still want that vital wikilink
  • The history section should briefly note the evolution of the system up to 1997 (e.g. when did it start, and what did it involve at this time?). Assume that readers don't know anything about this topic coming into the article.
  • "During that time, the council approved funding for a $16.7 million retrofitting of the Hawthorne Bridge,[3] which they had hoped would carry a future streetcar line between OMSI and the Oregon Convention Center as proposed by the Buckman Neighborhood Association" - the tense is a bit off here, and using 'retrofitting' in this context is awkward (e.g. 'The council approved a $16.7 million project to retrofit' seems better)
    • Fixed
  • "In July 2001, the Lloyd District Development Strategy unveiled" - doesn't make sense as the strategy can't have 'unveiled' anything.
    • Reworded
  • "Concurrent revitalization efforts of nearby Rose Quarter supported this plan" - pretty much ditto
  • "The total cost of the project, including the cost to purchase additional vehicles, amounted to $148.8 million (equivalent to $167 million in 2019 dollars), with a federal share of just over half ... On April 30, 2009, U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood announced $75 million in federal funding for the project" - please explain the role of the Federal government here: from an Australian perspective it seems surprising that local governments were in effect committing federal government funds before this was approved by the federal government.
    • Local governments can approve local transit projects whenever they want, they just rely on federal funding (usually a 50% share) to proceed with construction. If they are unable to acquire the federal funding, they either try to look for other sources or suspend the project.
      • This is still confusing I'm afraid. The order in which stuff happened is described seems unnecessarily convoluted here. Can this be restructured as a) the budget at the time the project was approved b) where this money came from and c) what the actual cost ended up being? At present c) seems to come first, it's not clear if a) is anywhere and b) is hard to follow. Nick-D (talk) 21:23, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Portland awarded the contract to Stacy and Witbeck" what's 'Portland' in this context?
    • The city government
  • "and construction began the following year" - spot check failed: a 2009 source can't verify a statement about something that happened in 2010.
    • Thanks for catching that, error on my part. Fixed.
  • "For most of the project route, crews laid tracks in three-to-four-block increments" - is this referring to city blocks, or a technical term? Also, verification is also failed here as the source says that this is how all the construction was done.
    • Clarified city blocks. Also, not sure how you can say this is an outright source fail. Parts of the route are on bridges and overpasses, hence "most of the route".
      • It fails as the source does not support the current text (spot checks tend to work best when they're binary). Surely another source could be used here? Nick-D (talk) 09:28, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • Clarified text again. It's inferred that we're talking about streets here. I'll try to look for more sources, but what's there now really should suffice.
        • Update -- Found another source from Portland Streetcar itself.--truflip99 (talk) 21:37, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The U.S. Congress approved a spending bill in 2005 that included $4 million for a locally produced streetcar vehicle" - this should be more precise.
    • Clarified
  • Are there any proposals to modify or expand these lines? (the long gaps between services seems a problem, for instance)
    • Regarding this article, no, this project is complete. There are plans to expand the overall system, the Portland Streetcar, and such information would be better suited for that article.
  • I feel that the article is missing a bit of critical analysis: did this project achieve its goals?
    • A lot of critical analyses cover the entire system in general, not a particular route. As such, that information is better suited, again, for the Portland Streetcar article.
      • I was expecting to see discussion of whether the line has hit the levels of ridership that were expected when it was approved (which is common for these kinds of articles), and other reception of the line. For instance, what do locals think about the usual problem with circle lines in that they're often a very slow way to get across the 'circle'? (or does this not matter as most riders use it for shortish trips between stops?). Nick-D (talk) 09:26, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've expanded on the ridership, but I'm perceiving some bias from you regarding the circle line bit. While you're not incorrect (and I agree with you; I've ridden the line myself and have many times opted to just walk across it), that discussion regarding this particular topic just hasn't taken place formally nor on a level worthy of coverage on WP (that I can find). Best I could find is from The Oregonian (here and here), which unfortunately has bias all over it.
          • Heh, I'm not actually biased against circle lines! (aside from the insanely bad one in Melbourne). The public transport literature I've read often notes that they're a dud idea though. Nick-D (talk) 06:26, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
            • I still find this material underwealming, and lacking in credibility to be honest. Public transport projects tend to be heavily debated (including between enthusiasts for them, as well as their opponents), and this aspect of the light rail line is missing. The article seems to imply that there was political consensus for the project throughout its existence, for instance, which seems unlikely. Nick-D (talk) 21:23, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
              • @SJ Morg: any thoughts on this? --truflip99 (talk) 22:30, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
                • Nick-D has a valid point, given the high bar for FA, although I don't have nearly enough experience with FARs to know what types of content are generally considered essential for FA approval. However, you (Truflip99) may also be correct that there has been too little coverage in reliable sources to be able to add a critical anaylsis section. But the project certainly did not have universal support (no major project like this does, not even in Portland, where public works projects often do have fairly strong public support), so Nick-D's comment that the article appears to lack any content on that seems fair. Unfortunately, this is not something I want to spend time on in the near future, and when the point was raised the only examples of criticism that came to my mind were the 2013 Oregonian article you already noted above (about the line's average travel time being slow, which I agree was not very objective) and a similar one in Willamette Week. It seems likely that there must have been other articles (or some kind of document from Portland Streetcar Inc.) reviewing the Eastside streetcar project a few years after opening, but I cannot immediately recall, and don't want to spend time looking for such, as I have too much else on my WP to-do list. Sorry. – SJ Morg (talk) 05:43, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I spent a couple days looking through local publications in the archives available to me and found nothing. I'm not really willing to spend any more time than I already have on something that's THAT hard to find. If it's THAT hard to find, then I start to question the notability of what's being asked for. An editor simply cannot write about what wasn't thoroughly covered. And again, we are referring to this particular project of the system. The original line (NS Line), as well as the overall line (Portland Streetcar) were critiqued more thoroughly. --truflip99 (talk) 16:31, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
                    • I'm from Australia, and found some commentary in a few minutes of Googling. I can't comment on the reliability of sources, but this is suggestive. [38], [39], [40] and [41] (the last likely not being a RS, but it would be interesting to know what the result of the lawsuit was given what it presents looks like a poor design choice). [42] also has some good details on how this was funded, noting that the Obama Administration used funds for public transport in ways that the Bush Administration was unwilling to with this being the first project to benefit. Nick-D (talk) 05:57, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd suggest a full source review given the problems I found above. Nick-D (talk) 10:26, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • @SounderBruce: as the one who did the source review, could I ask for your input?

@Nick-D: Thanks for the input! I've responded to your comments. --truflip99 (talk) 18:17, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Nick-D and Buidhe: I too speak native Pacific Northwestian. Holding my ground per MOS:TIES, although I don't have a problem changing it for non-locals, but that would contradict said MOS, IMO. Local publications use this phrasing regularly, albeit often preceding it with "the" save for headlines: The Oregonian, Willamette Week, Portland Business Journal, KGW, KOIN, City of Beaverton, bikeportland --truflip99 (talk) 18:59, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The MoS makes no allowance for regional dialects. It speaks of "strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation" and that such articles "should use the (formal, not colloquial) English of that nation". (Emphasis added.) If I were closing a nomination I would not promote if the article used regional colloquialisms in its normal prose. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:14, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that the phrasing that Nick-D objects to could be confusing because it's difficult to parse for someone who isn't already familiar with Portland local government. (t · c) buidhe 22:33, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Misinterpreted the MOS. Fair enough. Reworded. --truflip99 (talk) 22:35, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nick-D, how is this one looking now? Gog the Mild (talk) 17:08, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

While my comments are addressed and I have no objection to promotion once a further source review is conducted, I have to say that I remain unenthusiastic about this article. I'm really not convinced that it's the best possible article on the subject. Nick-D (talk) 07:37, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review from Ealdgyth

[edit]
  • Gog asked me on my talk page to weigh in because of Nick's concerns above.
  • "Rose, Joseph (September 22, 2012). "The little trolley that might not". The Oregonian." current footnote 46 lacks accessdate
    • This might be a misunderstanding on my part, but I thought access-dates were used only on refs with urls. This is not the only footnote in the article that lacks access-date.
  • Okay, onto my soapbox/etc ... most of the article is sourced to ... news reports and information from various transport agencies connected to the project. Is there no actual secondary coverage that covers the history of the project AFTER it happened by something not connected to the project? The news reports are concurrent with the development, to a great degree at least, so they are primary sources, not secondary. Basically, it reads like the article is a secondary source - it's taking primary sources (news reports and information from the agencies involved with the project) and writing the article based on those. While yes, we can use primary sources, they should be used sparingly.
  • Spot checks -
    • "when Tilikum Crossing opened to the public and began permitting streetcars to carry passengers on the route section across the bridge" is sourced to this source from 2014 and this source from slightly before the route opened on 12 Sept 2015. Since both sources are from BEFORE it opened, it strictly speaking doesn't support the sentence.
      • Replaced
    • "Metro, the Portland metropolitan area's regional government, approved the eastside streetcar extension with the selection of a locally preferred alternative on July 20, 2006" is sourced to this and this sources which support the information.
    • "The U.S. Congress approved the Transportation Equity Act of 2005 that included $4 million for a locally produced streetcar vehicle." is sourced to this source which while strictly speaking supports the information, it leaves out a lot of detail - like the fact that the money was for a prototype, not all the streetcar, which is the implication given in the article.
      • Clarified
    • "On April 30, 2009, U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood announced $75 million in federal funding for the project, the full amount that was requested. It was the first streetcar project to receive funding under the New Starts program in part due to the Obama administration's departure from the practices of the Bush administration, which saw streetcars as slow-moving and preferred other modes." is sourced to this source which does not support the "US Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood" ... in fact "LaHood" does not appear in the Times source at all. Nor does it support the date in April, the fact that it was the full amount requested, nor the "New Starts" name.
      • This only happened yesterday after I inserted a sentence in between the name and the supporting source. Rectified.
  • Having spot checked four statements, and found issues with two not supporting the information, and one other being slightly misleading about it, I would suggest that someone needs to do a full check of sources against the statements they support, looking for other issues.
  • I randomly googled three sentences and nothing showed up except mirrors. Earwig's tool shows no signs of copyright violations.
I think there needs to be some further work done to check sourcing with this article. Ealdgyth (talk) 15:40, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the source review. I'll go ahead and do a full overhaul. Will need a few days. --truflip99 (talk) 18:24, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note

[edit]
Hi Truflip99, I am going to state what you probably already know, just so we are clear. You could do with checking all of the citations in the article - yes, that's a brute of a job. Nick-D's and Ealdgyth's comments should have given you a clear idea of what is needed. Once you clarify that you have done this, we then need to see if we can find a volunteer to go through them, or a hefty proportion of them. And essentially they need to be pretty much 100% if archiving is to be avoided. There is a clock ticking and if no one volunteers for this - tedious and thankless - role, then archiving is likely anyway. Clear? Gog the Mild (talk) 21:58, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Crystal. I still want it to be fixed though as I take pride in the articles I've written. --truflip99 (talk) 22:24, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: What's the time frame? I'd like to request an extension (or exception) since I found someone willing to do the full review, and given how much work has been put in this nom already. --truflip99 (talk) 23:57, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There isn't one as such. We are loath to chop a nomination off at a precise time regardless of what else may be happening. If a review is making progress and looking both thorough and positive you can expect considerable, but not endless, patience. We want articles to be promoted! Obviously, only when they are up to scratch, but we will give leeway for that to happen. Gog the Mild (talk) 01:05, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source checks by Epicgenius

[edit]

As per Gog's statement above, I'm checking all the citations in the article. Citation numbers are per this version

  • 1 ("Construction Overview, The Portland Streetcar Loop Project". Portland Streetcar, Inc.) - No issues.
  • 2 ("Portland Streetcar Loop Project (Formerly the Eastside Transit Alternatives Analysis) Locally Preferred Alternative" (PDF). Metro.) - No issues.
  • 3 ("About Us Ridership + Performance". Portland Streetcar, Inc.) - The ridership figures are out of date in both places where this citation is used.
    • Updated. Relying on archived url as pdf figures have not been updated since 2019.
  • 4 (Streetcar Loop Project Before-and-After Study (2016) (PDF) (Report). Federal Transit Administration. 2016.) - This citation is mostly OK, but it doesn't support "The CL Line operated the eastside extension and ran an additional 1.2 miles (1.9 km) on the west side via 10th and 11th avenues"
    • Rephrased.
  • 5 (Ames, Sarah Carlin (October 18, 1990). "City Council goes forward with trolley line". The Oregonian. p. B10.) - The Central City Plan isn't mentioned, but the Central City Trolley Advisory Committee is.
  • 6 (Stewart, Bill (July 31, 1997). "Streetcars will return to Portland; the city council votes to pay for a westside loop of streetcars described as cheaper than light rail". The Oregonian. p. D1.) - No issues, assuming the Eastside is the part east of the river.
  • 7 (Stewart, Bill (January 22, 1998). "Closure launches bridge make over". The Oregonian. p. D2.) - No issues.
  • 8 (Stewart, Bill (April 24, 1999). "Wait no more: Sunday marks Hawthorne Bridge reopening". The Oregonian. p. C1.) - No issues.
  • 9 ("Lloyd District Development Strategy" (PDF). Portland Development Commission. July 27, 2001. pp. 24–26.) - No issues.
  • 10 (Leeson, Fred (July 17, 2001). "Portland grand plans in works in Lloyd District". The Oregonian. p. B3.) - No issues, but this mentions the plan in passing, while #11 is much more comprehensive.
  • 11 (Leeson, Fred (July 20, 2001). "New streetcar route follows different mission". The Oregonian. p. 24.) - No issues.
  • 12 (Wood, Sharon M. (April 23, 1984). "Robust Broadway Bridge celebrates 71st year in fine shape". The Oregonian. p. B5.) - Dates are fine. There are two rail lines mentioned, but which one is the streetcar line?
    • Both were streetcar lines.
  • 13 (Oppenheimer, Laura (February 17, 2003). "South Corridor MAX plan unveiled". The Oregonian. p. E1.) - The part about extending the proposed Broadway–Weidler alignment farther east up to 21st Avenue isn't mentioned. Sources 14 and 15 do mention that the eastside citizens support that proposal, however.
    • Oppenheimer was added later. Fixed.
  • 14 (Leeson, Fred (February 17, 2003). "Streetcar officials seek eastside desire". The Oregonian. p. E2.) - No issues.
  • 15 (Leeson, Fred (June 6, 2003). "Streetcar backers propose loop through inner eastside". The Oregonian. p. D2.) - The reference doesn't seem to mention that the officials supported a routing via the new bridge, only that such a plan had been proposed, and that Portland officials endorsed some form of the loop.

More later. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:22, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still working on this, but I should be done soon. Epicgenius (talk) 00:34, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comments added. --truflip99 (talk) 19:10, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New reference numbers as of this version. I see refs 1-15 are now refs 1-16 with the addition of 5.

  • 5 (Mayer, James (March 31, 1988). "Portland City Council boldly goes into 2000". The Oregonian. p. 1.) - No issues.
  • 17 ("Eastside Streetcar Alignment Study" (PDF). Portland Office of Transportation. June 25, 2003.) - No issues.
  • 18 (Stern, Henry; Nkrumah, Wade (June 26, 2003). "City Council watch". The Oregonian. p. C2.) - No issues.
  • 19 (Mortenson, Eric (May 2, 2008). "Panel realigns route of new light-rail span". The Oregonian. p. D1.) - No issues.
  • 20 (Portland Streetcar Loop Development Strategy (Report). Portland Office of Transportation. April 14, 2008. p. 1.) - This reference is a page that only contains a link to a PDF document. I could confirm this on p. 1 of the document, but the document itself isn't linked in this article.
    • replaced with PDF
  • 21 (Portland Streetcar Loop environmental assessment: Finding of no significant impact (PDF) (Report). Metro. July 9, 2008. p. 2.) - I'm not sure why the link in this reference does not work for me, but it may just be my VPN configuration. The archive link does, and I could confirm this on p. 2.
  • 22 (Eastside Transit Project Locally Preferred Alternative Report (PDF) (Report). Metro. July 20, 2006.) - This is a 164-page report. Which page in particular is being referred to? I could find the date of the report on p. 1 (PDF p. 15), but I'm not sure if this is being used to cite the whole route that was approved, or just the date.
    • Added page 1.
  • 23 (McGrain, Maureen (July 28, 2006). "Metro says yes to expansion for streetcar". Portland Business Journal.) - This reference merely states that the route was approved "last week" from July 28, 2006. It didn't give a specific date.
    • The date is confirmed by previous and accompanying source. This ref is to support that Metro indeed approved it.
  • 24 (Mayer, James (September 7, 2007). "Streetcar extension gets green light". The Oregonian. p. D1) - No issues.
  • 25 ("The Portland Streetcar Loop Facts At a Glance" (PDF). Portland Streetcar, Inc. May 2010.) - No issues.
  • 26 (Pope, Charles; Rivera, Dylan (April 30, 2009). "Feds approve $75 million for streetcar expansion". The Oregonian.) - No issues.
  • 27 (Miner, Colin (October 26, 2009). "Funding a Desire Named Streetcar". The New York Times.) - The NYT does allow limited access to articles published after 1980 for non-subscribers. As for verification, the source says that the Bush administration funded projects based on their speed across long routes, but it doesn't mention that the Bush admin singled out streetcars specifically; it merely makes that implication.
    • Fixed both
  • 28 ("Feds give $75 million for Oregon streetcar". Portland Business Journal. April 30, 2009.) - No issues.
  • 29 (Hamilton, Don (August 5, 2005). "Iron firm forges streetcar desire". Portland Tribune.) - No issues.
  • 30 ("Oregon Iron Works gets contract for streetcar". Portland Business Journal. January 26, 2007.) - No issues.
  • 31 (Brugger, Joe (July 1, 2009). "Transportation secretary watches as 'Made in USA' streetcar makes debut". The Oregonian.) - No issues, based on simple calculations of the day of the week.
  • 32 (MacKinnon, Merry (May 13, 2009). "Streetcars soon to be made in Oregon". Portland Tribune.) - No issues.
  • 33 (Redden, Jim (June 13, 2012). "Streetcar on a roll, but not just yet". Portland Tribune.) - No issues.
  • 34 (Rivera, Dylan (August 14, 2009). "Portland inks $20 million deal for locally made streetcars". The Oregonian.) - No issues.
  • 35 (Webber, Angela (July 20, 2011). "Eastside streetcar loop will be delayed, number of cars reduced". Daily Journal of Commerce.) - No issues.
  • 36 (Schmidt, Brad (July 19, 2011). "Portland's $148.3 million eastside streetcar project delayed five months, includes five streetcars instead of six". The Oregonian.) - No issues; this ref also supports the info backed up by #35.
  • 37 (Baer, April (June 25, 2009). "Construction Begins On Eastside Streetcar Loop". Oregon Public Broadcasting.) - The link is dead, but there were no issues with verification.
  • 38 (Carinci, Justin (February 17, 2009). "Stacy and Witbeck wins streetcar contract". Daily Journal of Commerce.) - No issues.
  • 39 ("Streetcar History". Portland Streetcar, Inc.) - No issues.
  • 40 (Carter, Dan (February 9, 2010). "Streetcar Loop Project". Daily Journal of Commerce.) - No issues.
  • 41 (Rose, Joseph; Bella, Rick; Muldoon, Katy (July 18, 2010). "Portland – Broadway Bridge will close". The Oregonian.) - Technically, this was published before the closure.
    • Does this need to be fixed?
  • 42 (Rose, Joseph (September 2, 2010). "Two lanes, sidewalk of Portland's Broadway Bridge set to reopen Saturday". The Oregonian.) - This was also published before the reopening, but I don't think this is a big deal unless something happened that pushed back the bridge's reopening at the last minute.
  • 43 (Rose, Joseph (July 5, 2010). "Streetcar work shutting down Broadway Bridge". The Oregonian. p. A10.) - No issues.
  • 44 (Vorenberg, Sue (February 18, 2011). "Streetcar work wraps up on Broadway Bridge". Daily Journal of Commerce.) - No issues, but the archive link doesn't work.
  • 45 (Vorenberg, Sue (November 5, 2010). "Pearl streets reopen with changed traffic patterns". Daily Journal of Commerce.) - No issues.
  • 46 (Carter, Dan (December 22, 2010). "Portland Streetcar flyover bridge near OMSI". Daily Journal of Commerce.) - No issues.
  • 47 (Rose, Joseph (April 26, 2012). "Portland Streetcar Loop extension's overhead wires go 'hot' Friday morning". The Oregonian.) - No issues.

More later. Epicgenius (talk) 14:23, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Added comments. Thank you for working so hard on this! --truflip99 (talk) 00:50, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Epicgenius and many thanks for undertaking this. Note that there is no requirement for you to check every cite. Only enough for you to either be satisfied that the article preserves source to text integrity or, as the case may be, that it doesn't. Just how much checking that requires is piece of string issue. If I am not being clear, feel free to come back at me. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:02, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild, I see, thanks. Based on my checks so far, I'm satisfied that the article preserves source to text integrity. I checked roughly half the sources and it seems that most of the issues are either because the references have since been updated or because the source was added in the wrong place. – Epicgenius (talk) 15:33, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: anything else that needs to be addressed? --truflip99 (talk) 15:23, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Buidhe via FACBot (talk) 15 March 2022 [43].

Frederick Browning

[edit]
Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:59, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Boy Browning, a British Army general and Olympian who served as head of the Duke of Edinburgh's office. His wife is more famous than he is. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:59, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]

HF - support

[edit]

Recusing to review - I recognized the name from reading A Bridge Too Far a couple years ago. Hog Farm Talk 16:09, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • I read the book as a boy. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:51, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • " was a senior officer of the British Army who has been called the "father of the British airborne forces"." - shouldn't this quote be somewhere in the body as well?
    Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:51, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm assuming it's from an old paragraph split, but the first paragraph of early life has no citations
    Yes. Put the paragraph back together. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:51, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "although only hospitalised for four weeks, did not rejoin the 2nd Battalion at the front until 6 October 1916" - any specific reason why?
    There's a difference between needing to be in hospital and being fit for duty. Expanded on this, since you are interested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:51, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and mentioned in despatches on 23 May 1918" - maybe an ENGVAR issue, but should it be "and was mentioned in despatches"?
    Sounds okay to me, but added a second "was". Using an auxiliary verb this way seems normal to me. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:51, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "When he found that the 2/503, was to take part" - not sure the comma after 2/503 should be there
    Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:51, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Some saw him as "a ruthless and manipulative empire builder who brooked no opposition"" - recommend naming Browning instead of using "he", since Lathbury and Urquhart are discussed more recently before this than Browning
    Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:51, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In his pack, Browning carried three teddy bears and a framed print of Albrecht Dürer's The Praying Hands" - is this really due detail?
    I think it was there as a DYK hook, but the article was never submitted to DYK. I thought it was a nice human
  • " although he did not officially retire from the Army until 5 April 1948" - this is stated twice in about two or three sentences. I think there can be a way to smooth the transition and avoid repeating information
    Deleted one. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:51, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't imagine the generals.dk external link is really useful in any way
    Agreed. (I think someone went around adding it to articles. Removed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:51, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sourcing looks fine.

Hog Farm Talk 03:31, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

[edit]

Recusing to review.

  • " including shortages of photographs". Could we elaborate on what is meant by "photographs", for the uninitiated. And is there no link?
    Linked. Added a bit. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:43, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He relinquished command of the 1st Airborne Division to Brigadier George Hopkinson"; "He relinquished command of the 1st Airborne Division to Brigadier George Hopkinson". Suggest removing one of these.
    I think I get what you mean. Trimmed second mention. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:43, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The garish logo seems a bit large and tends to overpower an article which otherwise approaches perfection. Perhaps a little smaller? Perhaps a shorter caption - much of the current one repeats the article.
    I don't want to force a size (MOS:IMGSIZE), so removed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:43, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild (talk) 21:59, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie

[edit]

I can't find much to comment on; this is in excellent shape.

  • Can you confirm the spelling is "Ygdrasil" in the source? I've always seen it as "Yggdrasil", and Google confirms that's the correct spelling, though of course Browning was at liberty to mis-spell it for the name of his boat if he wished.
    I checked it against the source to make sure it wasn't a misspelling on my part, and then against a second source to make sure that my source hadn't misspelt it. Added a second source to the article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:14, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Because of this he has been called the "father of the British airborne forces"' makes it sound as though he's called this because he designed his own uniform; perhaps "Because of his role he has been called..."?
    Move the sentence to avoid the ambiguity.
  • "an apathetic War Office and an obstructionist Air Ministry": not knowing any of the history, I don't know why the War Office would be apathetic in 1941-1942, or why the Air Ministry would be obstructionist -- perhaps they were biased towards the RAF? Could a couple of words of explanation be added?
    That seems a bit harsh. Deleted the adjectives. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:14, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps a word or two on whether Browning was correct to criticize Operation Ladbroke?
    Added a bit. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:14, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • This doesn't necessarily require a change in the article, but I'm curious: it appears from the fact that Ernest Down was Browning's subordinate (you say "Browning sent his...commander, Major-General Ernest Down") as GOC 1st Airborne that Hopkinson would have been Browning's subordinate too, so how did Hopkinson get round Browning to sell Montgomery on Operation Ladbroke? Or is the chain of command in the army not as rigid as I'm imagining it?
    As head of Airborne forces, Browning was not in the chain of command for Husky. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:14, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Browning sent his most experienced airborne commander...": this sentence is long and hard to parse.
    Broken up the sentence. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:14, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The next sentence, starting "Down's replacement in command..." is also long, and appears to be missing its verb; I think it should be "was" instead of "by".
    Tweaked sentence. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:14, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "While retaining command...": another serpentine sentence that needs breaking up.
    Broken up the sentence. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:14, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Browning was forced into a humiliating backdown": suggest "Browning was forced, humiliatingly, to back down", to avoid "backdown" as a noun, which to my ear is a little casual.
    Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:14, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "under which the drop was staggered over several days, and not to make two drops on the first day": I don't think the syntax that joins these clauses works. How about "under which the drop was staggered over several days, with only one drop on the first day"?
    Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:14, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • How is the furore at SEAC relevant to this article?
    Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:14, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it would be more usual to say that Princess Elizabeth came to the throne; yes, she was also Duchess of Edinburgh, but that title is less well-known and in any case presumably a junior title.
    Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:14, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 04:36, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support. All the fixes look good. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:07, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

Support Comments from JennyOz

[edit]

Hi Hawkeye, CUB time! One man - Olympian, two world wars, royal household, famous wife, Bogarde, commodore, knight - there's enough for several bios. I am having intermittent connection problems. If I disappear, don't wait, I can always ask anything further on talk page after promotion.

lede
  • Operation Market Garden is mentioned twice intentional?
    Probably, but re-worked the lead to only do so once.
  • Daphne du Maurier is also there twice - ditto. It looks like the first para is a summary of the next 2 paras in the lede - intentional?
    Probably, but re-worked the lead to only do so once.
Early life
  • Probably, but re-worked the lead to only do so once.
  • and his wife Nancy (née Alt) - her real name was Anne (per Mead and per Browning snr's article - maybe change to Anne "Nancy" (née Alt). Or Nancy (Anne)
    Wow. The source says Nancy, but the Peerage says Anne. Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:57, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    In Mead chapter 1 there is a passage that reads, "Freddie also found time to get married on 1 March 1894 at St Mary Abbots, Kensington, to Anne Alt. Always known as Nancy, his bride was the daughter of...". Sorry I can't give you a page number. It's possibly p5 which is already included in ref 5, so no further action needed. JennyOz (talk) 11:19, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it is on page 4. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:17, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • He had one sibling, his older sister Helen Grace - an older
    Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:57, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
First World War
Inter-war period
Second World War
Operation Market Garden
Later life
Legacy
Images top down
Notes

That's it. I have rushed to finish in case connection drops out again. If you don't hear from me... I certainly have nothing to oppose. Thanks for a great read. Very interesting life, very engaging prose. JennyOz (talk) 16:10, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I greatly appreciate you and the other reviewers taking the time to review. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:57, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Back for a minute. I have added five replies above. All else is fine thanks. JennyOz (talk) 11:19, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Great! Happy to add support. (Thanks for fixing my formatting.) JennyOz (talk) 19:40, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 13 March 2022 [44].

G-8 and His Battle Aces

[edit]
Nominator(s): Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:43, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about an air-war pulp magazine set in World War I. Apparently the Germans used zombies, mummies, Martians, and giant bats to attack the allies in World War I, but somehow none of these events made it into the official history books, perhaps because the heroic G-8 stopped the German threats over and over again. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:43, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]

Based on your comments at Talk:G-8_and_His_Battle_Aces#Copyright I believe the reason for believing these are free is the lack of any copyright notice on the issues in question? If so, it's better to use {{PD-US-no notice}}. (t · c) buidhe 11:56, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Ceoil

[edit]

Placeholder comments, but I do like these articles as they remind me of one of my favourite piece of retro-futurism:

  • The magazine was successful and still draws praise from pulp historians - a sentence here (in the lead) for why it is still regarded (the Lee Server quote suggest why it last so long, but not why it is still remembered). Also re "successful", say if critically, commercial, or both.
    It was commercially successful; added. It's difficult to be specific about why a pulp is liked -- mostly the modern sources don't go into detail. The full quote from Server is "It was a credit to Hogan's readable prose and great imagination that G-8 managed to last right through a new, second world war, by which time the background and aircraft in the pulp were hopelessly outdated." I've pulled a few words from that as a direct quote for the body; do you think that needs to go into the lead as well? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:29, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • a surprisingly late date in World War II ....seems like it should be attributed.
    This in the lead is just my attempt to summarize Server's comment quoted above; clearly he thinks it's surprising, or at least impressive. I've connected up the sentences in the lead a little differently to associate this opinion with Server; does that do it? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:29, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lee Server attributing Hogan's skills as prolonging the mag would have more credibility if we could mention a few of the (as hinted) me-too publications that shut down earlier.
    I can identify some air-war pulps that shut down earlier than this did, but would that be original research on my part? Server doesn't really compare this magazine with others. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:29, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Robert Lesser calls it a pulp oath: it starts by asking why so many of their fellow Americans are bored with their lives, and then asserts:. He believes "it starts by asking..."
    Not sure what you're asking for here? Lesser is a modern historian, so he's just quoting it -- is that not clear? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:29, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Is "it starts by asking..." in your or his voice....Ceoil (talk) 02:43, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    My voice. The first paragraph of the "credo" is "Too often, we believe, do the citizens of our fair communities walk about in a daily fog, which cannot be attributed to the weather, nor to any gushing smoke stack. Obviously, too many people are bored. Of course, they may be suffering earnestly, and towards that we can only offer our sympathies. But why, we ask insistently, why must people be forever bored?" I felt this was too long to quote directly, so I was trying to summarize it with "It start by asking why so many of their fellow Americans are bored with their lives...". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:21, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note sure "Bibliographic details" is the best title for the final section; maybe "Title change and editorship". Ceoil (talk) 00:09, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd like to keep the title for consistency with other magazine articles. It can cover other things; not just price and pagination, but changes in format, British and/or Canadian editions, reprints, and anthologies, depending on which of those applies to each magazine. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:29, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review! I've made some changes and have a couple of questions above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:29, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Great, but I prob wont have time for another look for a week or so....that said, all looking good. Ceoil (talk) 02:38, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is Lee Server really a pulp historian - maybe blue link. Ceoil (talk) 02:41, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hadn't realized we had an article on him -- linked. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:21, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is clearly FAC standard and all gripes rationalised or addressed; happy to support an interesting, very vey well written (as usual from Mike) escapist (just what I needed), read. Ceoil (talk) 16:08, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Ceoil! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:01, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Coord notes

[edit]

We're almost 3 weeks in without supports. If there is no progress towards promotion in the next few days, this may have to be archived. (t · c) buidhe 00:10, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support by FrB.TG

[edit]

This is an excellent shape. Just some points that can easily be addressed and don't affect my support.

  • "The success of Street & Smith's The Shadow, a hero pulp (a magazine with a lead novel in each issue featuring a single character), led to many imitations and Popular followed suit in 1933 by relaunching Battle Aces as a hero pulp" - this can be simplified to ""The success of Street & Smith's The Shadow, a hero pulp (a magazine with a lead novel in each issue featuring a single character), led to many imitations and Popular relaunching Battle Aces as a hero pulp in 1933". Both these facts were a result of the success.
    I did this slightly differently, per Nikki's comment below. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:13, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It changed from monthly to bimonthly publication during the war and eventually ceased publication in 1944." Repetition of "publication" within close proximity.
    Rephrased. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:13, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It was the first magazine to specialize in fiction about flying" - would it lose its meaning in some way if it were condensed to "It was the first fictional magazine about flying"?
    I think "fictional magazine" could be misread as "magazine in a work of fiction", such as The Daily Prophet. I think the word "specialize" is important here too -- there had certainly been magazine fiction about flying before this, just not in a magazine that specialized in only those stories. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:13, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suggest linking wolf-men to werewolf
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:13, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "..To all of you who have written...may your reading thrills increase, and may your cares be cast by the wayside'." If the sentence in the source also ends after "wayside", I suggest placing the full stop inside the quotation marks per MOS:LQ. If not, it is fine as is.
    It does; done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:13, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The price dropped to 15 cents when the title changed, and to 10 cents with the March 1936 issue; the page count dropped from 128 to 112 pages in October 1935, rising to 114 pages in August 1941 before dropping again towards the end of the run, with the final issues being only 82 pages long." Three instances of "dropped" in one sentence. FrB.TG (talk) 12:52, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Changed one of them to "cut". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:13, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review and support! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:04, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

Spotchecks not done. Version reviewed

  • That The Shadow "led to many imitations" is implied but not stated in the article text
    I thought about expanding this in the body of the article, but this isn't the article about The Shadow, so I just cut it from the lead. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:13, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The magazine was commercially successful and still draws praise from pulp historians" - source and as of when?
    Hulse and Server are both complimentary about it, and I've added a supporting quote from Hulse in the body, but I decided to cut it from the lead anyway as those are the only two I have stating an opinion. I also decided to cut "commercially successful" -- the editor, Harry Steeger, says in an interview that I could cite that they always shut down magazines that weren't a big success because it was better to shut down one making a small profit and start another making a large profit. So any Popular Publications title that lasted more than a year or two must have been commercially successful. I thought about citing this interview, but I don't think it's a key point for this article. I'll probably end up putting something about that in the article about Steeger, or about Popular. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:42, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It changed from monthly to bimonthly publication during the war" - suggest specifying which war
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:13, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This was an unusually late date during World War II for a magazine featuring aircraft that were by then long obsolete to end" - source?
    Server says "It was a credit to Hogan's readable prose and great imagination that G-8 managed to last right through a new, second world war, by which time the background and aircraft in the pulp were hopelessly outdated. The final issue, featuring the story "Wings of the Death Tigers", was dated June 1944." This is the source for the comment at the end of the lead and also for the last comment in the "Publication history" section. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:08, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Hm. That is not how I would have interpreted the original statement - suggest rephrasing. (I took it to mean there were other such magazines that ended earlier during WWII). Nikkimaria (talk) 22:55, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, fair. Rephrased; how does that look? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:32, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep, better. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:48, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Missing bibliographic details for Sampson and Goulart, and the date for Hocutt and Robinson & Davidson differs between the short and long citations
    Hocutt fixed. Robinson & David I think I cited to a web copy but I now have a copy in my hands so I cited to that. Sampson and Goulart added. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:17, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Check formatting on FN4
    Fixed. Good eye! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:13, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hulse: Worldcat gives a different spelling of the publisher, can you verify?
    Seems to be an error in Worldcat -- the spelling is definitely "Murania" on the book. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:13, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see there is one citation to a chapter within Lesser, and then one to Lesser generally - is the latter meant to be a chapter citation also? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:18, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    No -- the book is by Lesser, but he has several short essays by specialists embedded in the book, and the Hocutt citation is one of those. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:05, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review, Nikki; all points addressed now. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:42, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Buidhe

[edit]

Support on 1a, 3 (see above), and 4. Other criteria not evaluated. After reading the article, I do not have any prose suggestions. (t · c) buidhe 00:16, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:55, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt

[edit]
  • "It was one of the first four magazines launched by Popular when they began operations in 1930" In American English, I think the "they" should be "it".
  • "The magazine originally appeared on a monthly schedule, but changed to bimonthly during World War II and eventually ceased publication in 1944." I'm not sure "eventually" is necessary.
  • "The pulp historian Lee Server suggests" I might strike "The".
  • The lead mentions Hogan's writing and the magazine lasting as long as it did, and the obsolescence of the depicted airplanes as connected facts, in the body they don't seem connected.
  • "side-kicks" I might render as "sidekicks"
That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:15, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All done. For the point about the magazine lasting as long as it did, the same source is used for both; I've tried to connect the sentences so the reader sees that Server is making that argument. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:42, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:49, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Buidhe via FACBot (talk) 12 March 2022 [45].

Saline Valley salt tram

[edit]
Nominator(s): ♠Vami_IV†♠ 05:08, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a defunct aerial tramway that operated in the mountainous desert of south-eastern California at various times in the 20th century. Whenever it was operating, it was the steepest tramway in the whole country. It was created by Possibly as a Draft in July 2021 and then entered mainspace that December, since then it has become a Good Article. I believe it now worthy of the bronze star. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 05:08, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support by CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

[edit]

Will definitely comment :) CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 05:14, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, after reading Wikipedia:Notability#Whether to create standalone pages, I have some concerns about the topic's warrant of an article. The sourcing are definitely good, but I think that individual contents these listings at Death Valley to National Register of Historic Places listings in Death Valley National Park would be more appropriate. I would let FAC coordinators (@FAC coordinators: ) to decide whether this is a good idea or not. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 05:24, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's notable. NRHP structures are generally held to meet WP:GEOFEAT, and I'd say DeDecker and the NRHP nomination form certainly count towards notability. Unrau contains significant coverage, as well. I would say there's also definitely a case for a separate article, as extended content on this subject would be WP:UNDUE at the NRHP list article. Hog Farm Talk 05:32, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, thanks! I will take a look at the article and do the usual FAC-picking. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 05:47, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Prose
[edit]

(strikethrough meant deletion, [brackets] meant appending)

---

  • The Saline Valley salt tram was an electric aerial tramway located in Inyo County, California. It was constructed from 1911 to 1913 to carry salt from the Saline Valley over the Inyo Mountains to a terminus northeast of Keeler, California in the Owens Valley. —— redundant phrasing of "tram", better: "The Saline Valley salt tram was located in Inyo County, California and constructed from 1911 to 1913. The electric aerial tramway carried salt from the Saline Valley, over the Inyo Mountains, and end at northeast of Keeler, California in the Owens Valley."
  • its construction and operation was ruinously [too] expensive for the business [and cause the company to go bankrupt]. —— The previous wording was very muddy
  • Its [The] salt mining operation and tram were [then?] leased to the Owens Valley Salt Company until it[s] went bankrupt[cy] in 1918. —— Better to say "the" than "it", as "it" could mean either the company, the tram's construction, and the tram itself
  • The tram did not see use again until 1929, when t[Between then and 1929, t]he Sierra Salt Company repaired and upgraded it.[the system.] —— Obviously you cannot use the tram when it is repaired
  • [In 1935, t]he Sierra Salt Company, too, went bankrupt in 1935, marking the[its] permanent closure of the salt tram. —— Unnecessary repetition of "salt tram" in prior sentences
  • It was placed on[designated at] the National Register of Historic Places on December 31, 1974. —— "placed" won't do justice to this honor

---

  • The extraction of salt from the Saline Valley began i[I]n 1864, when a farmer residing in the nearby Owens Valley began gathering[gathered] salt from a 12-square-mile (31 km2) deposit at the southeastern end of the valley[Saline Valley]. —— It is redundant to basically say "This is the beginning" at the article's first sentence.
  • The farmer sold the [99% pure] salt, which had a purity of 99%, to other settlers in the Owens Valley[his neighbour] —— "Which had a purity of 99%" break up the prose
  • but found transportation between the valleys prohibitively expensive. Located between the Panamint and Inyo Mountains, access to the Saline Valley was difficult [as the farmer found out] —— redundant, the next sentence said precisely that
  • I[Nearly four decades later, i]n 1902, the Conn and Trudo Borax Company established a mine in the Saline Valley —— It's good to give the reader some sort of length between long breaks of time
  • Directed by businessman L. Bourland as its president, t[T]he SVSC mined the valley's salt at a small scale from 1903 until [the company's president L.] Bourland died in 1905. —— Too much emphasis on a random businessman
  • Thereafter, Smith took over direction of the company and began seeking investors so as to enlarge the SVSC's operations. —— Redundant phrasings
  • In 1907, the SVSC began studying how to simplify transportation into and out of [investigating transportation to and from] the Saline V[v]alley —— I assumed that they do have access to the mine, but they want to build a proper system to transport salt. If what the source meant that they study possible transportation methods but then quit, then this sentence need to rephrase in another way. Nevermind, but this sentence works best if being placed on the next paragraph

---

  • [They considered]A railroad and a pipeline were considered, but were ruled out because of [their high] cost and [low] practicality —— Clarify the reason why they don't build other alternatives to a tram
  • Instead, the SVSC opted for an aerial tramway[,] crossing the Inyo Mountains to reach a processing plant on Owens Lake. —— Add a comma to separate run-ons
  • Surveys of the terrain to be crossed took place f[F]rom 1908 to July 1911[, the company survey the terrain] —— Date should go at the front of the sentence, unless it is not important at all. Also, this would make the information less confusing.
  • Work began the following month and was immediately complicated by the rough terrain of the selected route. —— Way too redundant. We know these information implicitly by default.
  • Construction was difficult; w[W]orkers were obliged to live out of tents[lived inside tents] while the work itself often took place in [site's temperature might rise up to] 100 °F (38 °C) heat —— No real need for passive voice here. Workers aren't forced to live in tents, it's that there is no option to live in the first place.
  • In order t[T]o transport construction materials, a road on the w[W]estern slopes had to be[was] expanded and a team of eight horses [were] employed for pulling supplies. —— Redundancy and correct grammar
  • lasted until July 1913 and was ruinously expensive for the SVSC. —— Tone not encyclopedic
  • In 1915, it[the company] leased the Saline Valley operation[salt mining and tram] to the Owens Valley Salt Company, which worked the Saline Valley until [the leasee company] going bankrupt in 1918 —— Always help to clarify broad, generic words and delete redundancies
  • In 1935, the Sierra Salt Company[company] went bankrupt —— repetition
  • It was reopened, though briefly, for the last time in 1954. —— The phrase break the well-crafted prose in prior sentences

---

  • The tramway had a length of[was] 13.4 miles (21.6 km) [long], which was divided into five sections ranging in length from 0.75 miles (1.21 km) to 4 miles (6.4 km). —— If miles aren't the indication of length, then what else?
  • Each of these sections was managed by its own [a] control station. —— Of course that it is controlled section's control station, no need to say that it is owned by the sections
  • In addition[,] to these[there] were 34 subsidiary structures for maintaining tension on[of] the line. —— Prior phrasing is a huge run-on
  • During its operation[From 1913 to 1954], the route was the steepest of any aerial tram in the United States —— Specify exact time rather than forcing the reader to do math gymnastics
  • The line rose 7,600 feet (2,300 m) from the Saline Valley [rose 7,600 feet (2,300 m)] —— Wrong order
  • which weighed 800 pounds (360 kg) [when empty] and [could] held up to 700 pounds (320 kg) of salt —— Missing words
  • The first(,) [cable] for loaded buckets(,) was 1.125 inches (28.6 mm) thick while[and] the second(,) [cable] for empty buckets(,) was 0.875 inches (22.2 mm) thick —— Comma break prose
  • Power was supplied by an 75 horsepower (56 kW) Westinghouse electric engine at each control station[, which was] that was in turn powered by the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power —— run-on
  • to perform[do] maintenance along the tramway —— Shorter is better, also, we do implicitly know that they are there to maintenance the tramway

---

  • On October 31, 1973, the Bureau of Land Management office responsible for the Saline Valley salt tram nominated it[the Saline Valley salt tram] for inclusion —— We know that the Bureau of Land Management office is responsible for the tram, therefore the agency can nominate it in the first place
  • The nomination was received on October 16, 1974(,) and was approved on December 31, 1974 —— Comma break the prose
  • The tram was named[included] a historic structure by the state of California on the same date —— "included" is better as there is already a list of California historical structure

--- Overall, I like the article! It is an interesting read. I would give a pass on the prose once everything is done. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 07:29, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Media and other stuff
[edit]
Those used to be in the article as a gallery, but their copyright status is dubious and thus they were removed from the article. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 07:44, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Coordinate is way too detailed, see WP:COORDPREC for help
  • potential ramblings

Overall, I support the article on all criteria except 1b, 1c, 1f, and 3 at what is a featured article. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 07:59, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Comments from ChrisTheDude

[edit]

Comments from Mike Christie

[edit]

I'll review this, but first you might take at look at this and this to see if you can incorporate any of the material in the article. The first clipping is just a short reference at the end of the article, but it's interesting because as far as I can tell it's not included in the history as you give it. The other one includes pictures, but they may be too poor to use. Both articles are out of copyright in case you did want to use the pictures. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:27, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa, good finds! I've plugged in the second of those to have the final cost of the tram's construction in the article. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 19:50, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There's also this, which seems like it must be the same tram, though I'm not sure if I could prove it to the extent of using this in the article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:33, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And searching newspapers.com for "Saline Valley Salt Company" finds a lot more; see this for example; I got 66 hits, though just looking at the first page, that's the only one that looks useful. Searching for "Owens Valley Salt Company" finds more: [46], [47], [48], [49]. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:47, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A quick look in Google Books finds this, which has a wonderful picture of the first day of operation. Wehrey cites the Eastern California Museum and other collections; it might be worth contacting both Wehrey and the museum to see what images exist under what copyrights -- there might be free images available. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:53, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That does indeed seem like it'd be the same tram, but I do not remember the name "Combs" from any of my research. Indeed, our tram was built by the Trenton Iron Company, a subsidiary of US Steel. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 19:50, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'll come back to this tomorrow, but would you mind if I tried contacting Wehrey and the museum? I'd like to see if we can find some additional material, and that book convinces me there is more sourcing out there if we can find it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:25, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Go ahead. We've got some additional photos already on Commons from the early 19th century that we can't use at the moment because we don't know the date of publishing. It would be fantastic to know definitively if they were put out there before 1927. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 15:30, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I emailed the museum; I'll let you know when I hear from them. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:47, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vami IV, I am starting to think you should withdraw this and work on getting more sources; I think the article can be expanded. There's a book partly visible on Google Books titled Salt to Summit by Daniel Arnold in which he tells the story of the tram's construction, though I can only see part of it. Similarly George Turner's Slim Rails Through the Sand seems to have a page or two about the tram. I've emailed the Eastern California Museum about the image in Wehrey's book but haven't heard back. I think we could probably get another picture of the current state of the tram or one of its surviving trestles. There's a 32-page article about the construction of the tram in the April 1917 proceedings of the American Society of Civil Engineers called "An Aerial Tramway for the Saline Valley Salt Company, Inyo County, California", by F.C. Carstarphen, including several photos. Another Arcadia Press book, Lone Pine, by Christopher Langley, contains more pictures of the tramway, noted as from the Bruce Branson collection; I am emailing him to see if he has more resources or can provide copyright information. That's all in addition to the links above. I know articles can be expanded while at FAC, but I think it would be best to take more time. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:00, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Salt to Summit is an autobiography and the sources already used more ably and comprehensively cover the construction, operation, route, and specifications of the tramway; I doubt Slim Rails Through the Sand has anything more to add about the train; I didn't want to use the 1917 Proceedings because it was so close in time and had information already in the sources I was using or was superfluous, like (IIRC) how much Owens Valley Salt was paying for the lease. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 01:40, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to hear you looked at these already. The Carstarphen has an elevation profile that I think could be used, on p. 530, and quite a few details about the construction, and some pretty good pictures of the tram in operation. There are a lot of engineering details that don't need to be in the article, but "The first bucket of salt arrived at the discharge terminal on July 2d, 1913, and was the occasion for a great demonstration" seems like we could use it to quote the exact date of start of operations. There's a discussion of the need to design a completely new type of cable grip (pp. 551-552) At the bottom of p. 553 there's a discussion of the risk of too-high tension on sharply rising sections of the line which is a good insight into the kind of engineering problems they encountered. There's a discussion of the bucket design and what the constraints were. Is it possible in the proceedings you were reading the section by Carstarphen responding to letters about the article? That section comes up first in the Google search, and it does talk about pricing, so I think you may not have seen Carstarphen's original article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:03, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
FYI an elevation profile, depending on exactly how it's done, is likely {{PD-chart}} and OK to upload. (t · c) buidhe 05:59, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just heard back from the Eastern California Museum, and unfortunately they have no other information about prior publication of that picture, so we can't use it. However, they did link me to two local papers that are apparently not in newspapers.com, and they seem to have relevant hits when I search for the salt tram: the Inyo Independent and the Big Pine Citizen. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:19, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vami IV, just checking in -- are you planning to use any of the Carstarphen article? I listed a few points I think could be used above. I saw you did use one of the articles I found. I haven't gone through the other articles I linked to to see what is useful, but would be glad to do that and list the results here if you haven't gone through them yourself. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:21, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm back from a trip to the local university library (for another article); I'll read and likely use the 1917 article tonight. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 23:33, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Reading now. How best should those images be extracted? –♠Vami_IV†♠ 03:55, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done, pending further suggestions. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 05:05, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looking through the additions from Carstarphen, here are some more points I think are worth mentioning.

  • Carstarphen says a survey was begun in April 1911, but it appears Unrau says surveys were going on before that? I don't know if Unrau makes it clear, but it would appear that the earlier surveys were not specifically to plan a tramway, but were to look into the possibility of a pipeline or railway, since those had not been ruled out. So I think we can use Carstarphen to say when the survey that resulted in the tramway was started.
    • Carstarphen and DeDecker contradict this reading; Carstarphen says on page 257, "Surveys had demonstrated the impracticality of building a railroad into the [Saline] valley." I have however expanded on the surveying as Carstarphen allows. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 14:03, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The location was selected in July 1911.
  • Searching for "Trenton-Bleichert" finds a couple of books -- 1914 and 1929 -- by American Steel and Wire about the construction of aerial tramways. The 1914 one can be read here, and there are some excellent pictures of other tramways and components; one or two could be used as representative. The 1929 one is more likely to have pictures of the Saline Valley tramway but I can't find online access -- it would have to be requested through WP:RX.
    • The Trenton-Bleichert thing struck me as too esoteric to include. I welcome any future contributors to our coverage of aerial tramways to contradict me and add on to the article in the future, though, if RSs provide. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 06:45, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the section on design you mention the length of each section of the tramway. Carstarphen makes the point that the sections were chosen to make the height differential on each section the same, and that this was important for engineering reasons.
  • The line was planned to pass through a saddle in the range with a height of 8500 ft.
  • Any reason not to use the map and the elevation diagram?
  • The end of the tramway was adjacent to a spur of the Southern Pacific. Later (p.544) Carstarphen says the selection of the discharge point was a major cause of delay and led to additional cost, and gives details. This seems significant enough to describe in the article.
  • The description of the difficulty of the survey on p. 532, including the bit about taking days to find paths out of canyons, seems like a nice bit of colour to add to the mention of the survey.
  • We say a road was extended on the west slopes and a temporary tram put in on the east for transporting materials; Carstarphen says the temporary tram was put in because it was impossible to build a road, and I think that's worth mentioning.
  • Heavy equipment was brought in by a wagon road from Big Pine, and moved further by a go-devil which he describes; I think this is interesting enough to mention, at least briefly, and to link to go-devil.
    • I left this out in the first writing process, and continue to, for approachability; for those so inclined to learn more, the sources (Unrau, DeDecker, and Carstarphen) that discuss – and quite literally! – the nuts and bolts of the tram are available online. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 06:45, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can we use any of the images? The quality is not great but they are out of copyright and are images of this specific tramway; I think we should try to find something we can use.
  • There's a discussion of the problems caused by shipping wet salt, which led to the buckets being over the specified weight (pp. 544-549)
  • You mention the need for new grips, but I think a little more detail could be justified -- the fact that two lines were necessary because one line would have had to be so large it would have been uneconomical, and then the fact that having two ropes led to problems with the grips. You might also name the grips "Universal Wico grips". Searching for information on those led me to the Salt Tram blog which is no doubt not reliable but I think it would be worth contacting the blogger to see if we can get pictures or any leads to more sources.
  • The discussion of tension at the bottom of p. 553 seems worth mentioning to me as an example of a place in the tramway where particular care had to be taken in the design.
  • In the last few pages there are some minor operational details that might be worth mentioning -- the problems caused by high winds, the installation of telephones along the tramway, the crew complement (which I think you have covered already), and the loading mechanism (p. 557). I also like the mention of the crew using it to cross the mountains in preference to going around on horseback!

I have not looked through the various newspaper articles to see what could be used there, but I will try to get to that tonight. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:34, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And there's a Facebook group for the tram here which announces they have thousands of photos of the tram; again I'd suggest asking about ones we might use. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:21, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies. With the invasion of Ukraine, it will take me a while to address all of this. I am now considering withdrawing the nomination. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 19:52, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No hurry, but if you are busy, that might be best. I'd be happy to give you a pre-FAC review before you bring it back, if you like. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:58, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Vami_IV, this is looking close to done. If you need a little extra time, consider asking the coordinators rather than withdrawing it. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:21, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think I'm finished; I have chosen to withhold more engineering details at this moment because I judge them minutiae. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 19:04, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK -- I'll take another look, today if I get time. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:13, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: : I am not going to oppose or support. If I were writing this article I would include more of the engineering details but I think it's a judgement call and I see no reason to oppose because of that. Vami IV, the only remaining issue I can see is that your cites to Carstarphen are to pages in the 228-244 range, but the cited source has pages in the 525-558 range. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:22, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how I didn't notice that. Fixed now. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 23:10, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

[edit]

Recusing to review.

I see three names on the front cover and a, possibly optional, collaborator on the title page.
  • Cite 19 - Saline Valley Salt Tram Historic Structure - is a nomination. Where in this source does it cover "then approved on December 31, 1974" and "The tram was designated a historic structure by the state of California on the same date"?
    • The cited NRHP document is signed and dated by the Keeper of the Register, and then stamped with that dated and the word "ACCEPTED". The reference for the California designation is not a nomination and also has the date it received its California designation. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 16:30, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Then could you point me to at least the page where it indicates the date it received its designation? And is there no reliable secondary source which covers this? Primary sources should only be used at FAC when secondaries aren't available - which seems improbable in this case.
Done. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 20:56, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The inflation calculator currently only runs up to 2020. I have added a template to reflect this. As new data becomes available the inflation calculator will use it, and the template I have added will automatically updayte accordingly. Let me know if you have an issue with this. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:47, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 20:56, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "until the latter went bankrupt in 1918." Suggest 'until it went bankrupt in 1918.'
  • "repossessed by the Trenton Iron Company." So had this company owned it previously?
    • I have no idea what specifically happened here. From newspaper clippings I've read, the Trenton Iron Company sued in 1917 to repossess the tram for failure by the SVSC to pay for an (iirc) construction-related debt, but they got that worked out. I would then assume that something like that happened here, but Trennert is not specific. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 16:30, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Can I suggest avoiding "repossessed" then? The "re" bit makes it seem that it was coming back into its possession. Maybe "taken over"?
Done. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 20:56, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It was reopened briefly for the last time in 1954." Are the dates of the start and end of operations known? Is the company which operated it known?
    • No. Norwood & Bull do not have much to say about this venture except that that venture began and ended within 1954. The only names associated with it are the three guys behind it. I've deleted this venture from the article since it has nothing to do with the tram itself now (along with the subsequent mention of the year 1954 - I don't know why I wrote 1954 in #Design rather than 1935). –♠Vami_IV†♠ 16:30, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "From 1913 to 1954, the route was the steepest of any aerial tram in the United States". Which tram took over the title in 1954? (Coincidentally in the same year the Saline Valley tram ceased operation.)
  • "thus, 20 tons of salt could be moved in an hour." I don't think "thus" is appropriate here. Suggest deleting and starting a new sentence.

Gog the Mild (talk) 14:29, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just the bolded comment above to go. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:24, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is done. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 23:02, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

By Gerald Waldo Luis

[edit]
Source review - pass
[edit]

All the sources are reliable, just a few things. If it's all resolved I'll give it a pass.

  • Does there need to be a subsection on Books and articles? I'm aware it's personal preference, but there's not much sources to warrant division.
  • The =work, =publisher, and =via in refs 23 and 24 must be linked for consistency with the others.

** Done, except that there is no article for The Press-Tribune I cited. We do not have an article for that newspaper.q –♠Vami_IV†♠ 00:04, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • In the first source in the "Sources" section, "pdf" must be capitalized.

** Done. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 00:04, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Have to disclose that I've added archives and accessdates on most of the refs; made the GBook links usurped since they're unusable. However, the first source in the "Sources" section still has no acc-date.
Comments Support
[edit]
Resolved comments from GeraldWL 01:09, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
* I almost wanted to comment on the lack of images but seeing the above threads I can understand it. However this has already been reviewed by the VRT; what do you think? Other than that, I would suggest too adding Template:Commons category-inline with c:Category:Saline Valley salt tram.

Motion to close

[edit]

@FAC coordinators: Motion to close as Promote. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 10:01, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 9 March 2022 [50].

PlayStation (console)

[edit]
Nominator(s): ♦ jaguar 17:04, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The PlayStation is a Faustian story of trust and betrayal, animosity and friendship, and strive to power. It is one of the most important video game consoles and also among the most recognisable. I started work on this back in 2014, left it for six years, and picked it up again last year. Since then its length has been tripled and much needed comprehensibility added. It has recently come out of a GA review which has improved the article even more. My thanks goes to Indrian for his invaluable knowledge and support, and TheJoebro64 for picking up where the review left off. Seeing this as a Featured Article along with the Sega Saturn would do both consoles of the electrifying 1990s great justice. ♦ jaguar 17:04, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
  • Suggest adding alt text
  • Don't use fixed px size
  • File:Playstation_logo_colour.svg is tagged as lacking source information. Given that this is a 3D model design, not sure the simple geometric shapes tag is appropriate
  • "A photo of the only known SNES-based PlayStation prototype" - source? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:58, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Nikkimaria: thank you, I've addressed your points. I've added alt text to the appropriate images and removed fixed pixel sizes. The rationale for the PlayStation logo is correct since it uses "PD-textlogo", the same found on other video game company logos such as Sega. I've also added a separate source. ♦ jaguar 21:44, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Panini!

[edit]

Since you've done literally hundreds of video game-related reviews (including two of mine), I should most definitely return the favor. I'll be here Monday, and if I'm not, I forgot. Don't take it personally, I don't even remember my girlfriend's name. Jenna, probably. Please ping me if I slack on my job. Wait, no, it was Emma. Emily? Hmm... Panini!🥪 05:02, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, let's do this. I'm no PlayStation expert, in fact I actively despise it. So please, if I question something I'm incorrect about, joyfully deny it.

Resolved comments
Lead
  • PlayStation didn't necessarily "compete" with Sega and Nintendo, they temporarily blew them out of the water. In fact, as the Console war article puts it (written by Masem), it completely "evaporated" that well-known console war between Sega and Nintendo due to how successful it performed in North America. I think it deserves a tad bit more credit here.
  • Using "premier" to describe the popular franchises makes it sound like they debuted as the first games in their series or were one of the first games on the consoles. Contrarily, Final Fantasy had six other games on Nintendo hardware and Gran Turismo released two years after the console. Is there another way this can be phrased?
History
  • I'm seeing Ohga's name being thrown around a lot here. Is he worthy of a picture?
  • He certainly would be, but sadly I can't find a free image of him. The image on his page is non-free and its rationale would undoubtedly be shot down in this FAC (the only free file I found of him actually was this extremely bizarre image). I've always wanted to insert an image in that big wall of text but haven't been able to find anything relevant. I'm open to ideas. ♦ jaguar 22:45, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Development

"This was in contrast to Sega, which had a versatile and well-equipped in-house software division for its arcade games and could easily port successful games to its home consoles." - Wouldn't the same apply for Nintendo? The two were in the same league around this time.

  • "since the system's rival, the Saturn, was produced by Namco's rival in the arcade market, Sega" - Since "rivaled with the Saturn" and "rivaled with Sega" are one in the same, this can be shortened. "Since Namco rivaled Sega in the arcade market"
  • "television variant of the console" - I'm not really sure what this refers to, and feel it could use some more clarification.
  • Rephrased to "a television with a built-in PlayStation". Just found out that Hetherington passed away a few weeks ago, he really was one of the unsung heroes in the PlayStation project. ♦ jaguar 22:45, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there something linker can hyperlink to like the other two around it, assembler and debugger?
  • "it was bought out by Sony in 2005" -> "and was bought out by Sony in 2005"
Launch and Marketing success
  • Like I said about the lead, PlayStation was the reason why the console war between Sega and Nintendo fizzled out (more info over at that article). Might be beneficial to give it a mention in this area somewhere.

I'm gonna skip over the hardware section; the technical content is far from my strong points and I won't be able to give adequate advice about it.

Me too, don't tell anybody. ♦ jaguar 22:45, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Reception and Legacy
  • The Famicom Tsūshin's low rating is mushed between positives; could it be moved elsewhere?
  • It may be worthwhile to mention it's one of the bestselling video game consoles of all time (in the top 5).
  • The PlayStation 2 is also credited for being one of the final nails in the coffin on Sega consoles; might also be worth a mention.
  • The addition of the Xbox pops in out of nowhere like that aunt that claims she changed your diapers when you were little. Might also also be helpful to briefly mention it's a new competitor in the ring.
  • Fun fact, when Square pulled the Final Fantasy series from the Nintendo 64, Nintendo said "fine, we don't need you anyways" and made the Paper Mario series to make up for the lack of RPG content. Is this byproduct worth tacking on somewhere in that final paragraph of the CD format section somewhere? I doubt it, but it's your call.

That's all from me! Lemme know when you get around to satisfying them, and I'll leave my support. Panini!🥪 14:30, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Panini!: thank you for the review! Sorry it took me a while to address all the comments. I've added some more content in and made some tweaks to the legacy section. Please let me know if you think I've missed anything or if something is amiss. I'm going to make myself suffer more and start work on PlayStation 2. ♦ jaguar 22:18, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sleeps-Darkly - Support

[edit]
CES announcement
[edit]

I should mention that the CES announcement part, specifically "At 9am on the day of the CES, instead of announcing a partnership between Sony and Nintendo", is quite lacking in detail. There's way more stuff to this, specificially that Sony announced their console, and then Nintendo announcing their pulling out.

Going to list sources:

  • Jones, 2015, p. 10 : "and on the first day proudly announced the details of its new alliance with Nintendo"
  • Jones, 2015, p. 10 : "what happened next is one of the most infamous double-crosses in the history of the videogame industry"

In regards to the planned Sony+Sega console, it has a name:

  • Also mentioned in Sheff's book, "Game Over", chapter "Sonic Boom" : "Sega made the additional announcement of a deal with Sony, which planned to create games for the Sega Multimedia Entertainment System based on its entertainment companies—the Columbia and TriStar studios and Sony (CBS) Records"

Otherwise, very solid, though I believe these details should be in the article. I've wrote some stuff in the article before, and was writing the Russian counterpart, but put it on the hold until English article getting a GA or FA status in hopes that there will be more sources to look at. Support.

Also, additional part w/r/t sources: The author of a "Retroinspection: Playstation" article in a Playstation Book is not Darran Jones, it's Damien McFerran, and it was published previously in a previous issue of Retro Gamer. Probably should just change the reference from `Jones, 2015` to something like `Playstation Book, 2015` --Sleeps-Darkly (talk) 17:58, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, apologies for the delay in addressing this. I've fleshed out the CES details and added that Nintendo's withdrawal provoked backlash. I've also changed the author of the RG source and added the name of Sega's proposed system. ♦ jaguar 17:12, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would've still expanded the CES part. With something like this, I wrote this quickly:

Kutaragi and Nobuyuki Idei, Sony's director of public relations at the time, learned of Nintendo's actions two days before the CES was due to begin. Kuturagi telephoned numerous contacts, including Philips, to no avail. In June, at the beginning of the first day of CES, Sony announced its partnership with Nintendo and its new console, the Play Station. But the next day, in what observers call "the greatest betrayal" in the industry and Nintendo's biggest mistake, Howard Lincoln took the stage, but instead of the expected confirmation of the contract with Sony, he announced that he was breaking the agreement and signing a new contract with Philips. The event came as a shock to many in the Japanese business community, who saw the cancellation as a grave betrayal - one Japanese company humiliating another Japanese company in favor of a European company - which seemed unthinkable to Japanese businessmen.

You can reword this as you see fit. --Sleeps-Darkly (talk) 04:43, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the suggestion. I've expanded on the CES paragraph slightly. The after-effects of Nintendo's betrayal has also been expanded on in the inception section. ♦ jaguar 21:45, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's better, thanks. --Sleeps-Darkly (talk) 03:51, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Dreamcast and PlayStation 2 and retirement
[edit]

Forgive me for adding more comments, but because it's a candidate for a featured article status, I would strive for the information fullness. In general, other gaming consoles articles, for example Saturn and Dreamcast both have the ceasing of manufacturing in the end of their history sections. This one does not, and delegates the "by the time it was discontinued in March 2006" into the Models section. I'm of a belief it would be better being also mentioned in the History section.

I would be of an opinion that the end of history section would alse be in a need of adding a Dreamcast/PSOne sales competition; for example: Jones, 2015: p. 13: "the launch of Sega’s technically superior 128-bit Dreamcast in 1999 was unable to upset the status quo".; and: Kent, 2001, pp. 588—589 says that Sega was unable to keep the competition with both PSOne and PS2, and decided to retire Dreamcast early. --Sleeps-Darkly (talk) 20:52, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Sleeps-Darkly: thank you for your comments and support! I know what you mean, I always felt that the history section was unfinished. I've added a new paragraph detailing the PlayStation's later years and its renewed conflict with the Dreamcast. It feels like the final piece of the puzzle has been slotted in. ♦ jaguar 22:49, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
SCEA and SCEE source?
[edit]

Sony formed its North American division and European division, known as Sony Computer Entertainment America (SCEA) and Sony Computer Entertainment Europe (SCEE), in May and June 1995.

This isn't in the source that is put at the end of that (Charla 1996, p. 39.). It only covers the followup PSX part. Needs sourcing. --Sleeps-Darkly (talk) 04:58, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Added two additional sources.[51][52]. Also corrected an error: SCEE was formed in January 1995, not June. This is corroborated in SIE's timeline. ♦ jaguar 21:24, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by FrB.TG

[edit]
Resolved
  • "A total of 7,918 PlayStation games were released, with cumulative sales of 962 million units." There needs to be a {{nbsp}} between 962 and million, per MOS:NBSP.
  • Check the infobox figures to make sure they also have NBSP, wherever needed.
  • "Although Kutaragi was nearly fired because he worked with Nintendo without Sony's knowledge,[19] Sony president Norio Ohga" - repetition of "Sony" in such close proximity.
  • "What became the released PlayStation dates back to a 1988 joint venture between Nintendo and Sony." I don't know why but this sentence's structure is rather strange. I had to read it multiple times to understand the significance of "what became". Maybe it's just me?
  • "Although the initial agreement between Nintendo and Sony was about producing a CD-ROM add-on, Sony had also planned to develop a SNES-compatible Sony-branded console, but one which would be more of a home entertainment system playing both SNES cartridges and a new CD format named the "Super Disc", which Sony would design." This sentence uses "Sony" four times, is incredibly long and uses two contradictory conjunctions. Splitting it into two would solve most of the problems.
  • "Sony's American branch considered allying with Sega to produce CD-ROM hardware, but Sega's board of directors in Tokyo vetoed the idea when Sega of America CEO Tom Kalinske presented them the proposal." Sega.. Sega.. Sega
  • "Sony halted their research, but decided to develop what it had developed with Nintendo and Sega into a console based on the SNES." Maybe not the best suggestion (please look carefully if what I'm suggesting is possibly changing the meaning) but how about decided to continue developing with Nintendo.. to avoid the repetition of develop.
  • I've changed 'developed' to 'made'. By this point Sony was not developing anything with Nintendo, rather some additional (albeit futile) negotiations were still taking place. ♦ jaguar 23:07, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "To determine the fate of the PlayStation project, Ohga chaired a meeting in June 1992" - NBSP
  • "where companies were familiar with one another and could conduct "civilised" business negotiations" - the source says "and where business negotiations were conducted in a civilized manner". Change to "civili[s]ed".
  • "..known as Sony Computer Entertainment America (SCEA) and Sony Computer Entertainment Europe (SCEE), in May and June 1995." NBSP
  • "A team from Epic Sony visited more than a hundred companies throughout Japan in May 1993" - same as above. I will point it out wherever I see it missing one, but do check for other instances I might miss.
  • " This changed in 1993 when Sony acquired the Liverpudlian company Psygnosis (later renamed SCE Liverpool) for US$48 million", "When Psygnosis arranged an audience for SN Systems with Sony's Japanese executives at the January 1994" - NBSP

Down to the end of development subsection. More later. FrB.TG (talk) 17:22, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, FrB.TG! All done so far. ♦ jaguar 23:07, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for addressing these. I’ll continue my review once Snuggum’s concerns have been resolved to avoid possibly repeating what he has said. FrB.TG (talk) 17:51, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Sony released the PlayStation in Japan on 3 December 1994, a week after the release of the Saturn, at a price of ¥39,800." You should probably clarify and wiki-link Sega Saturn (assuming that is what you mean) here since it's the first time you mention Saturn in the main body.
  • "The attention to the Sony conference was further bolstered by the surprise appearance of Michael Jackson and the showcase of highly anticipated games, including Wipeout (1995), Ridge Racer and Tekken." You should probably arrange the games in chronological order unless this is the order, in which they showcased the games, in which case you can leave it as is.
  • "By November it had already outsold the Saturn by three to one in the United Kingdom, where Sony had allocated a £20 million" - there should be an NBSP between 20 and million.
  • "By early 1996, the PlayStation had grossed $2,000,000,000 (equivalent to $3,500,000,000 in 2020)" - why not just $2 billion and $3.5 billion?
  • "By late 1996, sales in Europe totalled 2.2 million units, including 700,000 units sold in the UK."
  • "Approximately 400 PlayStation games were in development, compared to approximately 200 and 60 games being developed" - repetitive phrasing
  • "While the Saturn was marketed towards 18- to 34-year-olds,[108] the PlayStation was initially marketed exclusively towards teenagers." Same as above.
  • "The console was marketed with advertising slogans stylised as "LIVE IN YOUR WORLD. PLAY IN OURS" and "U R NOT E" (red E)." Why is only the colored "E" explained when there are other ones too?
  • "It was launched in June 1996 in Japan,[145] and following public interest, was released the following year in other countries." following.. following
  • "Sony still held 60 per cent of the overall video game market share in North America at the end of 1999." You should probably opt for % instead as you have used it than writing the word elsewhere throughout the article.
  • "The European and North American models of the original PlayStation controller is" - shouldn't "is" be "are" considering "models" is plural?
  • "Sony's first analogue gamepad, the PlayStation Analog Joystick (often erroneously referred to as the "Sony Flightstick"), was first released in Japan in April 1996." - NBSP between April and 1996.
  • "The Analog Joystick sold poorly in Japan, due to its high cost and cumbersome size." Not sure if the comma is necessary.
  • "after this, games will no longer load, due to data read errors" - I could be wrong but the comma is redundant here.
  • "Critically acclaimed PlayStation games included Final Fantasy VII (1997), Crash Bandicoot (1996), Spyro the Dragon (1998), Metal Gear Solid (1998), and Tekken" - overlinking of Tekken. Side-note: I used to love this game.
  • Dreamcast is repetitively linked in random order for whatever reason.
  • " In Japan, Sony published limited numbers of a large number of games" - this should be rephrased as the "limited numbers of a large number of games" part sounds almost (unintentionally) ironic.
  • "It was announced in September 2018" - NBSP
  • "Technically there is one exception to this." Comma after the introductory adverbial element (technically).

This is it on my part. Nice work. FrB.TG (talk) 20:51, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Jaguar. It appears you might’ve missed the rest of my review as it was not easily noticeable above Snuggum’s comments. Just making sure. :) FrB.TG (talk) 22:59, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies FrB.TG, I completely missed your comments! I've addressed all of them now. Thank you for taking your time to look over the article. ♦ jaguar 19:28, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose. Admirable work. If you have the time and interest, I would appreciate comments on my FAC. FrB.TG (talk) 20:07, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SNUGGUMS

[edit]
Resolved
  • Per MOS:FONTSIZE, there is no good reason to make text appear smaller than it naturally would as that just needlessly makes it harder on the eyes to read. This especially applies for places like infoboxes that already use sizes that aren't as large as regular prose.
  • "Notable" from "Notable PlayStation franchises included" is blatant POV, also I can only find support for Tomb Raider boosting console sales within the article prose
  • Within the "Background" section, "Kutaragi convinced Nintendo to use his SPC-700 sound processor in the Super Nintendo Entertainment System (SNES) through a demonstration of the processor's capabilities; his willingness to work with Nintendo derived from both his admiration of the Famicom and conviction in video game consoles becoming the main home-use entertainment systems." is quite a mouthful! I recommend separating it into two sentences by replacing the semi-colon with a period. Same goes for "The console was not marketed with Sony's name in contrast to Nintendo's consoles; according to Phil Harrison, much of Sony's upper management feared that the Sony brand would be tarnished if associated with the console, which they considered a 'toy'." under "Inception".
  • From "Development", I'm not sure "suffered underwhelming sales" is the best tone. What you really mean is they had low sales, right?
  • Another overly long sentence with "Another strategy that was effective in attracting software developers was the PlayStation's use of the CD-ROM format instead of traditional cartridges; in contrast to other disc-reading consoles such as the 3DO, the PlayStation could quickly generate and synthesise data from the CD since it was an image-generation system, rather than a data-replay system." In addition to splitting it where the misused semi-colon lies, I'd change "that was effective in attracting software developers" into something more concise like "that helped attract software developers".
  • What is "by a factor of three" from "outsold the Saturn by a factor of three in the United Kingdom" supposed to mean?
  • It's quite monotonous how almost every sentence from the first paragraph of "Technical specifications" begins with "The".
  • How come the non-Japan releases for PocketStation where cancelled?
  • Unfortunately I can't find any info on why it was never released outside Japan, and I have looked hard. Seems that it will always remain a mystery as not even contemporaries could understand why. I have expanded on the PocketStation paragraph by adding sales figures. ♦ jaguar 20:36, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Including reviews from only four publications under "Reception" doesn't feel like nearly enough for such a famous console (it's not even half of what I'd expect), and you should elaborate on "scored the console a 19 out of 40, lower than the Saturn's 24 out of 40" with comments on what the reviewer did/didn't like.
  • Famitsu scans are almost impossible to find. My reasoning for leaving the scores in was to satisfy the need for a Japanese perspective. Their scores from the same issue are likewise in the review section of the Sega Saturn article (with no context), so that further encouraged me to leave it in. While I would love to expand on the reception section (you might know I can get carried away with that sometimes), it appears that critics in those days did not critique hardware, unlike the abundance of console reviews found today. The Sega Genesis article boots an even smaller reception section owing to this scarcity. The four reviews were unfortunately all I could find by rummaging through hard-to-find scans, and their reviews are woefully minimal. The legacy section hopefully compensates for this. ♦ jaguar 20:58, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • From "Legacy", starting three sentences in a row with "The" feels repetitive, and I'd replace "citing" from "citing its sophisticated 3D capabilities" with "crediting"
  • Not only is "As a result, some third-party developers switched to the PlayStation, notably Square, whose Final Fantasy VII, and Enix (later merged with Square to form Square Enix), whose Dragon Quest VII (2000) were planned for the Nintendo 64; while others released fewer games to the Nintendo 64 (Konami, releasing only thirteen N64 games but over fifty on the PlayStation)." an excessively long sentence, but its use of "notably" is POV/inappropriate editorializing.
  • 1Up.com should have an uppercase "U" and lowercase "p"
  • "Bilbiography" is frowned upon as a vague section title that could also refer to works written by a subject

There's some work to do, but I'm sure you can get it done within a reasonable time. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 00:41, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SNUGGUMS: thank you very much for the review! I was without internet access at home for two days, otherwise I would have addressed your comments much sooner. I've hopefully addressed them all. It is a shame that there is a scarcity of console reviews otherwise you can be assured the review section would have been much more extensive. The non-release of the PocketStation is likewise a mystery. ♦ jaguar 21:06, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My pleasure :). Moving the "has often ranked among the best video game consoles" paragraph into "Reception" would be a good way to expand it as this offers stances on the system. As for the lead, I still don't see anything in the body to substatiate how any games besides Tomb Raider helped increase sales. If the others were only based on the listings of what "became established franchises" under "Game library", then that's not enough. Those lack commentary related to how much the console sold unlike "Eidos Interactive's action-adventure game Tomb Raider contributed substantially to the success of the console in 1996". There's also a duplicate "Digital Spy" listed within ref#203 ("Sony PlayStation vs Nintendo 64: Gaming's Greatest Rivalries"), which I've just noticed has an incomplete title. Just use "Digital Spy" once without italics there. Another issue that still remains is the needless inclusion of cities within citations (seemingly where works got published). SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 21:29, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@SNUGGUMS: I've removed the mention of the "helped boost sales for the console" statement from the lead. Although it is likely true, I cannot back it up on behalf of the other franchises. Ironically, it is documented that Harry Potter boosted the console's sales after 2001. I've also fleshed out the Digital Spy ref and removed italics for both cases. The "has often ranked among the best video game consoles" paragraph belongs to the legacy section as it is based on retrospective writings. Even the retrospective stuff aren't proper reviews, rather just 'list of top 10 best consoles'. I include the cities of publications for written sources/scans; I also do this academically and there's nothing in WP:CITE which prohibits it. I thought it was good practice and generally the choice of whoever is inserting the references. If you wish I could remove them from the online citations for consistency's sake? ♦ jaguar 23:03, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, removal of cities would be a good way keep the citations more consistent. Are there maybe other rankings (retrospective or not) that go into more detail on what reviewers liked on the console than what used within "Legacy"? In either case, I'd say it's worth mentioning Harry Potter served as a sales boost. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 00:44, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid not, the lists used in the "legacy" are as barebones as you would expect.[53][54]. I have expanded IGN's passage somewhat though. The mention of Harry Potter selling well is already in the game library section ("went on to sell over eight million copies late in the console's lifespan"), but I've added that it boosted sales. I've removed the use of cities from online citations. ♦ jaguar 22:23, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can now say this has improved enough for me to support it for FA. Hopefully the nomination passes! SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 22:36, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you SNUGGUMS. I'll keep an eye out if you ever submit anything at FAC! ♦ jaguar 22:45, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by from CPA

[edit]
  • I've freed up space in the inception subsection by trimming the infobox as much as I could. On my monitor there's miles of room there so I'm afraid I can't judge. I've also fixed the slight squeeze in the controller subsection. ♦ jaguar 21:11, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: I think the comments have culminated; do you think there's a consensus? ♦ jaguar 22:15, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So far as I can see it still needs a source review. A request for one has been listed. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:29, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I understood that Sleeps darkly and Snuggums combed through the sources in their reviews? ♦ jaguar 21:56, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by Amakuru - Pass

[edit]
Formatting and miscellaneous points

(this version was reviewed)

  • In the past people have asked me to insert hyphens into ISBN numbers, and I believe this may conform to the relevant ISO standard... although this discussion would suggest there isn't firm consensus for it in the MOS. I would make it consistent though. Currently we have McFarran 2015 with no hyphens (9781785461064) and Asakura 2000 with hyphens (978-0-07-135587-2).
  • Also be consistent between ISBN-10 and ISBN-13.
  • Refs 7, 66 and 188 - "Sony Computer Entertainment" was linked in all the other instances, but not this one.
  • Also in Ref 66, it says "Inc." on the end, which it doesn't in others.
  • And Ref 96 abbreviates it to "SCE"
  • Ref 150 - is there a reason this one was "Sony Computer Entertainment Europe" while the ref 4, which is also a SCEE facts and figures, was just Sony Computer Entertainment? Also consider linking.
  • Ref 29 - range should be 25–26 rather than 25–6 per the MOS, and indeed other refs in this article. Ditto #57 and #69
  • Quite a few of the refs (#51 is one example) are using archive links first and "the original" later, even though the original reference is not dead. Ideally these should have url-status=live, particularly given that such a parameter is used in other examples
  • I've combed through the sources and added url statuses for all of them. Not sure if there was a script that could do this, it would've saved a lot of time! ♦ jaguar 22:33, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refs 52/144/204 - inconsistency in (a) whether "The" is included before "New York Times" (it probably should be) and (b) whether "New York City" is included as a location
  • Edge is sometimes linked and sometimes not
  • The location of "Bath" is also sometimes given and sometimes not
  • Ref 82 - "the Guardian" is odd styling. And if other places have a location it should also have one. I'll stop mentioning locations now, but please make it consistent throughout, either omit or include.
  • Ref 94 - in what sense is this "page 3"? It just looks like a single article to me
  • Ref 130 - I got a "privacy error" in my browser when I tried following this. Maybe switch to the archived version.
Spot checks

(this version was reviewed)

  • 1 - checks out
  • 4 - the source says "November 1995" but I'm not seeing reference to the 15th specifically
  • 26 - checks out for all
  • 94 - checks out

I'll pause there, and then do another pass once some of these issues have been ironed out  — Amakuru (talk) 10:35, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Amakuru: thank you for checking over the sources! I've addressed all of them so far. I really appreciate your thorough spot checking. ♦ jaguar 22:33, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Amakuru ? Gog the Mild (talk) 11:08, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild and Jaguar: - sorry for the lengthy delay here and thanks for the amendments made so far. Continuing review with numbers as per this version.

  • Ziff Davis - some refs give its location as New York City, while others say Chicago. Some, such as 166 and 169, don't give a location at all.
  • Refs 186 and 206 don't say Tokyo, as the others do
  • Various refs, e.g. 98, 107 etc. give Imagine Media with no location, while others say it is in Bath
  • Univision is given sometimes as Los Angeles and sometimes Miami. Did it move?
  • Ref 154 - doesn't say Brighton, as the other Game Network refs do
  • Ref 200 - no publisher or location given
  • Ref 214 gives a location and publisher for "GameSpot", but 8 and 194 don't. Ref 15 gives a different location and publisher
  • Ref 197 - no location. Grapevine maybe, as per 93?
  • Ref 213 - no location for AOL. 38 says it's NYC
  • Ref 225 - no location for The Guardian
  • Ref 226 - location and publisher for Ars Technica
  • Refs 204 & 230 - Digital Spy is a website so should probably be italicised, and give a location and publisher
  • Ref 8 - Date says 24 March 2006, but when I click through the article says 23 March.
  • Ref 13 - date seems to be 5 May rather than 4 May. Also, what is this verifying? I can't see any reference to Ken Kutaragi in the linked article.
  • Ref 19 - missing date and author
More spot checks
  • 14, 16 - checks out

Sorry, I've got to go and do some errands now but I will definitely return back again later today or tomorrow. Almost there now!  — Amakuru (talk) 11:18, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Back for more 6 March 2022
  • Asakura 2000 - link McGraw-Hill
  • DeMaria etc - is there a link for Osborne?
  • "Sony Computer Entertainment America v. Bleem" ref - I don't think it's accurate to attribute this to Google Scholar. That's just an aggregation and search website. It looks like the original source is the United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit for that one. You could probably use the {{{via}}} parameter to highlight that the info was found at Google Scholar, but they are not the authors.
  • Ditto the Google Patents ref (182)
  • Ref 195 and 181 - YouTube isn't the publisher of this information, just the host. Suggest {{{via}}} again. And 181, the author/publisher is GameTrailers.
  • Ref 21 - link points to a printable version of the article, with no date, but the full version gives a date of 9 September 2010.
  • Ref 24 is credited to "IGN Staff" in the link, but you give it just as "IGN". Ref 26, however, is "Edge staff" and you credit it to "Edge staff". Be consistent one way or the other. Ref 42 just says "Edge". Ref 60 just says "MCV".
  • Ref 27 - where do you get "The Road To PS5:" from? I can't see that in the link, title just looks like "PSOne's Betrayal And Revenge Story".
  • Ref 28 - author is Brian Ashcraft
  • Ref 36 - main link seems dead to me, so suggest using archive link. Also the date looks like 10 April 2008 rather than 17 June 2008
  • Ref 38 - link is dead. Also the title should be "Original Nintendo/Sony PlayStation prototype found" with author JC Fletcher and date of 7 June 2007
  • Ref 65 - Should the title include "game content development" at the end? And date is 27 September 2005
  • Ref 102 - [55] appears to be a better archive link, pointing to the actual article in question
  • Ref 112 - link has Keith Stuart and Steve Boxer has co-authors

Will finish combing through the remainder later.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:10, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

More spot checks
  • 22 - checks out
And yet more
  • Ref 132 - date on the link says 2 March 2002. Unless it was earlier printed under the 2000 date?
  • The archived version gives the date as 5 December 2000, which is definitely correct given the article's reflection of it. I'm not sure why it now says 2002, but I've switched to the archived version to reflect the correct date. ♦ jaguar 19:57, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 183 - main link doesn't work; switch to archive link
  • Ref 193 - date 21 July 2015
  • Ref 196 - date on link says September 14, 1997 rather than August 1997
  • Ref 294 - author Mark Langshaw
  • Ref 209 - link dead
  • Ref 210 - archive link doesn't work. I assume [56] is the same article, so maybe switch URL to that and archive it again
  • Ref 211 - the page has been updated since 2014 (date stamp is 2019) so make sure it's still relevant
  • The updated article still reflects Sega's console demise, so no need to change the content or remove it. I've updated the date, in any case. ♦ jaguar 19:57, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 213 - date is 6 December 2006 I believe
  • Ref 215 - the contents of the link [57] has changed from the 30 best to the 20 best, and is now by Josh West, so make sure it's still relevant (it looks like the PS slipped from 3rd to 5th in the ranking). Otherwise make the archive url the primary and probably use a parameter of url-status=usurped on the cite template.
  • Ref 215 - it's not dead
  • Ref 219 - date is 19 September 1997
  • Ref 224 - needs an author, and also a date (if available). And is lostlevels.org confirmed to be a reliable source?
  • This must have been added in after the GAN, I don't remember seeing this... it's not listed at WP:VG/S so I've removed it. I've added two new sources [58][59] which confirm that the two games were moved to the PlayStation. ♦ jaguar 19:57, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 225 - author is Keith Stuart. And link The Guardian and provide publisher/location
  • ref 231 - original date is 27 Nov 2018 with an update date of 21 April 2020. ALso the main link is not dead
  • Anderson 1997 ref - article is on pages 54 to 57, rather than just on p56 so give that range, and amend the link to point to the start
  • Felit 2012 - why is this a short ref with publication rather than a direct long ref?

And done.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:29, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Amakuru: thank you very much for your thorough source review! I've addressed all your points. The publisher locations may have been a hassle but it was my fault for not making them completely consistent throughout all the refs. That wouldn't have been an issue if I wrote this whole article from scratch though! Anyway, I'm grateful that you've taken the time to do this. ♦ jaguar 21:05, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the speedy fixes @Jaguar:, all looks good now so happy to support on sourcing. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 15:54, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Amakuru. I'll keep an eye out if you have any FACs in the future. ♦ jaguar 16:05, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: all done here! ♦ jaguar 16:05, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Buidhe via FACBot (talk) 5 March 2022 [60].

Queen angelfish

[edit]
Nominator(s): LittleJerry (talk) 16:07, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about one of the most colorful fish in the Atlantic. As a popular ornamental it would make a nice addition to FA. Have at it. LittleJerry (talk) 16:07, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
  • Image licensing looks ok
  • File:QueenAngelfish distribution.png What is the source of the info?
Added. LittleJerry (talk) 22:00, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(t · c) buidhe 20:38, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AryKun

[edit]
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 16:38, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "as wild population" → "as the wild population"
fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 16:22, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who moved it from Chaetodon to Holocanthus and when?
Lacépède did in 1802. Clarified. LittleJerry (talk) 16:22, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • For first use of mya, use the full form.
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 16:22, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "angelfish are benthic" → Use the gloss from the lead here too.
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 16:22, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "jellyfish, and corals, plankton and algae." → Remove the first "and".
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 16:22, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "90% of the diet of adults are sponges" → "90% of the diet of adults consists of sponges"
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 16:34, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link "bryozoans".
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 16:22, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why the inconsistency in linking only the genus in some of the prey species and the entire species in others?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 16:22, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "by the IUCN, as" → If you're using the full name in the lead, use it here as well.
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 16:38, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link Croatia and Malta.
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 16:22, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Added. LittleJerry (talk) 17:19, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose. I have made a few edits rather than list my suggestions here. Graham Beards (talk) 12:33, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

Spotchecks not done. Version reviewed

  • Some of the claims made are cited to sources that are relatively old - for example, regarding the retail price for the fish. Are there no newer sources available?
There isn't very much on the species in the literature, so some of it is old. LittleJerry (talk) 16:47, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Can you elaborate on your search strategy? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:41, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Google scholar and google books. I looked though several books which ended up repeating much the same information. I think the article has a good balance of old and new sources. LittleJerry (talk) 15:54, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Formatting of FN2 is not consistent with other refs
How? LittleJerry (talk) 16:44, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is an "in" between the title and work, the work is not italicized, and there is no retrieval date. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:41, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 17:28, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes ETYFish a high-quality reliable source? Ricordea Publishing?
EYTFish is a database run by two ichthyologists and is reliable enough for what's being cited. Removed the other. LittleJerry (talk) 16:47, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Can you elaborate on why you believe it to be reliable enough? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:41, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is run by Christopher-Scharpf and Kenneth J. Lazara who are trying to create a comprehensive list of the etymology of fish names and how they relate to the species. [61] LittleJerry (talk) 15:54, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Removed. LittleJerry (talk) 16:44, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Buidhe, she doesn't give passes. As her userpage states "I rarely support on the basis of a source or image review, although I may oppose on the basis of either." LittleJerry (talk) 22:54, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not everyone has to outright "support". Gog the Mild? LittleJerry (talk) 11:55, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have any further comments on the review. I don't agree on the first point but leave it open for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:45, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Buidhe, obviously, is correct. Re Nikkimaria's point, I agree. I flagged up the same point in my review. Taking in good faith that there are no more recent sources for this I narrowly decided that I could support anyway. Probably not the easiest decision for the closing coordinator, but I think my position is clear. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:47, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the dockside Flordia price. LittleJerry (talk) 15:52, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Wretchskull

[edit]
  • There is an inconsistent use of cite dates. Some use dmy and others use mdy; also some are either month-year or year alone.
Journal articles all use just year. They don't have to be consistent with websites. The one website only gives the month and year. LittleJerry (talk) 12:48, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@LittleJerry: Okay, but mixing both dmy and mdy is not allowed. For example, one ref has the date "19 November 2021" and another ref has the access date "February 22, 2021" - they have to be consistent. There is even a "use dmy"-template at the top of the article.
They are consistent now. LittleJerry (talk) 13:06, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
They weren't, but I've taken care of that.
  • As a follow-up of the source review, I get 93 results when searching "Queen angelfish" on the Wikipedia library and sorting by "Peer-reviewed". Something to consider?
Looked through it. I ran into the same journal articles and the further you go, the less relevant they become. LittleJerry (talk) 12:48, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Alright.
Nope. LittleJerry (talk) 12:48, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No problem.

Apart from these concerns, I can't pinpoint anything to cavil about. Well done - Wretchskull (talk) 11:44, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Is that a "support"? LittleJerry (talk) 13:43, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to support - Wretchskull (talk) 19:03, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Serial #

[edit]

  • ‐Humphrey Appleby: Know anything about fish?
  • -Desmond Glazebrook: Err, I eat it?

Placeholder for review. SN54129 19:53, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Serial Number 54129? LittleJerry (talk) 15:09, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reminder, LittleJerry  :) @FAC coordinators: does this page really need another review?! It's looking pretty promotable... OK, I'll do it! SN54129 15:40, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Range of the queen angelfish " -- does it only hug the coast of the Gulf of Mexico or swim throughout?
Look at the map. LittleJerry (talk) 17:02, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is not me that will be looking at the map, it is the WP:READER, to whom you have dedicated your Wiki-service. At at least one point the orange almost meets itself.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 17:44, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "has been described as like it was "painted by someone trying..." -- quotes should be attributed inline.
Not if the person isn't well known. LittleJerry (talk) 17:02, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you; please point to where in the following pages (WP:MOS and WP:SUBSTANTIATE) that is supported.
Changed. LittleJerry (talk) 17:44, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is "pughead" a quote? Coiuld be defined in someway, especially as I couldn't find a link.
It's in the paper. It's not a familiar term so i added quotations. LittleJerry (talk) 17:02, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead is pretty definitive that the QA breeds during the full moon. But under #Life cycle, this has been reduced to "sometime..." (also, should that be "sometimes?)
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 17:02, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • It sounds like the dockside price was from the 90s while the commercial price is of the present day?
Aleast at the time of the writing of the book. LittleJerry (talk) 17:02, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "not harvested too much" -- could be tightened to "not overfished".
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 17:02, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Serial Number 54129 is that a support? LittleJerry (talk) 21:22, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't no, but grudgingly, it is niow  :) good work. SN54129 16:04, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

[edit]

Recusing to review.

  • "has been a particularly common exported species in Brazil." Perhaps 'has been a particularly common exported species from Brazil'?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:18, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and weighs" → 'and weight of'.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:18, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "They occur from ... Its range extends ... They are" Perhaps standardise on "They"?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:18, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "as the proportion of prey in their diet does not match that of the benthic community they inhabit." This doesn't seem to make sense. Or I am being slow - entirely possible. Could you paraphrase what you are trying to communicate for my benefit? Thanks.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:18, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "highly selective feeders". Highly? The source definitely says this? 30 different prey species would seem to argue differently. Not to mention the omnivorous "Queen angelfish feed on sponges, tunicates, jellyfish, corals, plankton and algae".
They are selective because they don't just eat the most commonly available food items. LittleJerry (talk) 23:18, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Umderstood. It is the "highly" I am questioning. Is it solidly supported in a consensus of sources? If not (and possibly even if so) it may be best to drop the word as a little peacocky.
Removed. LittleJerry (talk) 21:35, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "both before and after a full moon." As written that would seem to cover the entire month.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:18, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "ascends the water column". What is a water column?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:18, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "swimming among gorgonians." Could gorgonians be explained in line or a more readily understood term used.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:18, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "have a higher extended survival rate". What does "extended" add to this?
Removed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:18, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which have a more specialized diet." Do you mean 'which require a more specialized diet'?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:18, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Throughout the 1990s". This is Wikipedia, do we not have more up to date figures?
Nope. LittleJerry (talk) 23:18, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1995, the queen and French angelfish were nearly 75% of marine ornamental fish traded." Globally or at Fortaleza?
Fortaleza, fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:18, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the wild population appears to be stable." "appears" → appeared'.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:18, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "raising concerns that it could infect native fish". And why would this be bad?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:18, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Disease-carrying or disease-causing?
Changed. LittleJerry (talk) 21:35, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild (talk) 20:40, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild, finished. LittleJerry (talk) 17:18, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Looking good. Two come backs from me above. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:22, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nice article. Supporting. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:47, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Buidhe, anymore? LittleJerry (talk) 22:06, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

HF

[edit]

I was giving this a read-through for potential promotion and decided I probably have enough questions I need to recuse.

  • "The retail price for the species may range from US$60 to $130" - the source here is fairly old for pricing information. If there's nothing newer that can be provided, I would recommend removing the pricing information entirely.
Removed. LittleJerry (talk) 21:39, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The queen angelfish is the most frequently exported angelfish species from Brazil." - I understand that this may not be something commonly discussed in the literature, but I just want to double-check that this is the most recent figure
It is. But I phrased it differently. LittleJerry (talk) 21:39, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 2015, an aquarium-introduced angelfish was caught in the Red Sea at Eilat's Coral Beach, Israel. The disease-causing bacterium Photobacterium damselae piscicida, which was not previously documented in Red Sea fish, was isolated from its kidney, raising concerns that it could infect native fish" - has anything come of this?
I found no further papers. LittleJerry (talk) 21:39, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's it from me. This one looks to be in good shape. Hog Farm Talk 19:17, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hog Farm, finished. LittleJerry (talk) 23:30, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No objections to promotion - I didn't read the article close enough to give a support declaration, but my questions have all been answered satisfactorily. Hog Farm Talk 20:28, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: : Over a month and there's five supports and an image/source review. Are we ready? LittleJerry (talk) 23:41, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look at this later today. (t · c) buidhe 00:00, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 2 March 2022 [62].

Sjafruddin Prawiranegara

[edit]
Nominator(s): Juxlos (talk) 04:56, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Sjafruddin Prawiranegara, an Indonesian politician/economist who debatably was the country's head of state for a few months (see Emergency Government of the Republic of Indonesia). A fairly influential person throughout the Sukarno period, and had a big say on Indonesian economic policy 1950-1959. He also led the Revolutionary Government of the Republic of Indonesia after that - his two most notable actions are basically fighting a guerrila war first to conserve the Indonesian government, then fighting another one against it 10 years later.

This is my first ever FA nomination, and I had extended the article from something like a C-class to its current state, with some contributions from BarrelProof and The man from Gianyar. Feels like since a certain someone stopped editing a few years back, WP:Indonesia has been losing out on getting new FAs, so figured might as well. Juxlos (talk) 04:56, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Buidhe

[edit]
Image review—pass

Welcome to FAC! Unfortunately, there are some issues with the image licensing.

  • File:Mr. Syafrudin Prawiranegara.jpg, File:Sjafruddin Prawiranegara base PDRI.jpg, File:Sjafruddin Prawiranegara with Sukarno in Yogyakarta, 1949.jpg — the license tag asserts that there was a publication at least 50 years ago, but no such publication is cited in the image description
  • The first one I'm actually not sure of, so I replaced it with one from Dutch archives (fairly sure it's from a Republican poster of the period, but I digress). The second one is an image from the Indonesian military pamphlet (PD-IDGov, not the 50 year thing). 3rd one is from the Indonesian National Archives - the Indonesian Press Photo Service 1949. Juxlos (talk) 12:18, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the third image, is it known if it was actually published in 1949 (or any time before 1971)? Many photo agencies take photographs that were never published. (t · c) buidhe 07:11, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Gunting Sjafruddin Poster.jpg File:Indonesia 1951 250s o.jpg need a US license tag, (possibly {{PD-1996}} but only if it was in the public domain in Indonesia on 1 January 1996.) This also applies to the other images mentioned under the first bullet.

Is it known if he had any opinion on the Indonesian mass killings of 1965–66? (t · c) buidhe 05:15, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Other comments
  • "he continued to be a vocal critic of the New Order government for its utilization of Pancasila"—neither in the lead or the body is there a good explanation of this or what Sjafruddin's position on it was. From the "Post rebellion" section it seems he wasn't against Pancasila itself but it's use "as a political weapon". But it's not really explained how it was used as a political weapon
  • I removed the quotebox in the Emergency Government section. I think that it was a bit confusing as it was out of chronological order (his position on the agreement is explained in the next paragraph) and duplicates what is said there.

(t · c) buidhe 07:31, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]


I'm not convinced that the article is fully comprehensive. I'm able to find information in various sources that looks like it should be included in the article.

  • Thee, Kian Wie (2012). Indonesia's Economy Since Independence. Institute of Southeast Asian Studies. ISBN 978-981-4379-63-2. — this book has a lot of information about Sjafruddin's role in Indonesian economic policy. It is probably better to cite this book than the Ministry of Finance's history as the latter is not an independent source.
  • Added - I happened to use it extensively while writing Sumitro Djojohadikusumo a while after writing this one. The Ministry of Finance source I think I will keep since I mostly used it for specific statements that don't really show up in macroeconomic analysis (like the timing of certain policies, etc.).
  • Added. Missed this specific source as on skim-read it was quite similar to Islam and Politics in Indonesia, so I missed some details. I decided to expand an extra sentence which isn't Sjafruddin by himself per se but feels quite relevant.
  • Latif, Yudi (2008). Indonesian Muslim Intelligentsia and Power. Institute of Southeast Asian Studies. ISBN 978-981-230-471-1. — explains Sjafruddin's position on Pancasila and his reasons for opposing the New Order

The above resources are all accessible via WP:The Wikipedia Library under De Gruyter

  • Thuỷ, Phạm Văn (2019). Beyond Political Skin: Colonial to National Economies in Indonesia and Vietnam (1910s-1960s). Springer. ISBN 978-981-13-3711-6. — has more specifics on Sjafruddin's views on economic policy and why he opposed the nationalization in 1957
  • Looking at the source, I think the Thee Kian Wie one covers it in more detail, down to personal views of Sjafruddin, while Thuy covers it in a somewhat generalist viewpoint. I might skip this one.
  • Fogg, Kevin W. (2019). Indonesia's Islamic Revolution. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-1-108-48787-0. — this one has some more info on the revolutionary period
  • Added - thanks for this, it explicitly states why he joined Masyumi which is something I missed so far.

If you can't access these via Google Books, you can ask for specific chapters or page ranges at WP:RX

  • That was an extensive thesis. Added quite a few things out of it and split out a "Views" section, but in the interest of WP:DUE I limited how much theological-doctrinal thing I included. Plus I'm not too comfortable in my knowledge to write extensively on Islamic theology.

I'm not saying you have to cite all the above works but as it is the article seems to be lacking comprehensiveness in some areas. (t · c) buidhe 08:30, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comments from Sdkb

[edit]

I won't be doing a thorough enough review to !vote, but looking at the lead and skimming the rest, here are some thoughts:

  • Per WP:INFONAT, I'm not sure how necessary it is to have |nationality= in the infobox. On the one hand, the birth place being Dutch East Indies adds a bit of potential confusion, as some readers may not know that's the predecessor state, but on the other hand, everything about his biography is Indonesia-related (it's not like he was a duel citizen or something), so I'm not sure it's necessary to mention it in yet another place. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 01:08, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The decision to wikilink Indonesia in the infobox is perhaps an WP:OVERLINK, but it helps with consistency, so I'm fine with it if it's your preference. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 01:08, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the first sentence, "statesman" vs. "politician" is always a loaded terminology choice. Which do you think is best, and could you speak to why? {{u|Sdkb}}

 talk 01:08, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Consider changing a predecessor to the Indonesian to a predecessor currency to the Indonesian, as I had to hover over the wikilink to figure out you're talking about currency in that sentence. Also, Indonesian rupiah doesn't capitalize "rupiah"—should it be capitalized there or lowercased here? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 01:08, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The personal life section doesn't have any information about any hobbies. Would it be possible to add anything about what he liked to do in his free time? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 01:08, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Best wishes with this FAC! If it passes it'll be a good counter to some of the systemic bias in FAs toward Western topics. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} talk 01:08, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note

[edit]

Regrettably this is more than three weeks in with little sign of a consensus to promote forming. If there is not significantly further interest over the next three or four days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:41, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Juxlos, good to see your FAC ticking along, but do you think that, per the instructions on the FAC main page, you could avoid using the tick and cross templates? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:29, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Serial Support

[edit]

Firmly in the knowledge that I know nothing of the people, politics or history of this part of the world, my review can only be one of the prose with a sprinkling of MOS: placeholder. SN54129 19:27, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Mostly suggestions, also in the knowledge that my review will be based on Briteng, so apologies in advance if this contradicts a regional version!
Lead
  • and became engaged in nationalist movements -- perhaps the simpler "and joined several...", if he did?
  • Done. Can't really say "several movements", but "joined the nationalist movement" sounds right
  • Due to his work and closeness to Sutan Sjahrir -- "Due to his proximity to the revolutionary leader Sutan". I think that they worked together probably speaks for itself.
  • Done.
  • he became involved in the Republican government as a finance minister -- "he was appointed finance minister in the Republican government". Senior political post, denotes more than involvement.
  • Done.
  • Following the Roem–Van Roijen Agreement, despite his personal opposition, he -- "Roem–Van Roijen Agreement—which had opposed—he".
  • Done.
  • he returned his governing mandate to Sukarno in July 1949. -- Does this mean he resigned his office? If so, no "however" needed, as you've already said he was opposed to the treaty.
  • Yeah. Removed.
  • In a fully independent Indonesia -- "With Indonesia now independent..."
  • Done.
  • continued his work as finance minister -- was reappointed?
  • Done.
  • Done.
  • along with events in late 1957 -- I would either touch on what kind of events these were (I.E., how they affected his opposition), or just omit mention
  • Done. "Dutch-Indonesian tensions" pretty much describes it.
  • and Sjafruddin surrendered to the government by 1961 -- either "had surrendered" or "in 1961"
  • Done.
  • he continued to become a vocal critic -- "to be"; he had already become
  • Done.
Early life
  • Done.
  • What is ? why "Kuding"?
  • Uhhh... source stated it as a fact without explanation. Probably best removed.
  • who originated from a family of officials -- just "from a family"? (Also loses a duplicate "was")
  • Done.
  • who was exiled to Banten -- "who had been exiled"
  • Done.
  • Per MOS:ACRO1STUSE, are acronyms needed if they're spelt out the first time and only used once?
  • Done.
  • Perhimpoenan Peladjar-Peladjar -- is going to need a bit of explaining, as it's the only time it's mentioned and is currently left hanging.
  • A translation suffice?
  • from 1940 until 1941, he was the chairman -- "from 1940 until (to?) 1941 he was the chairman"
  • Done.
  • During the occupation period -- During the occupation
  • Done.
  • and was regarded by some -- {{who}} will be slapped here  :)
  • The source described an interview with the article subject where he said "others might regard [him] as a Sjahrir follower". Maybe a reword - "and according to Sjafruddin, he was regarded as a member of Sjahrir's non-cooperative resistance despite his denial."
  • he also organized a number of educational courses which were directed against the occupation policy. -- "he organized a number of educational courses directed against the occupation."
  • Done. Kept the "policy" since it was against specific things, not the occupation itself per se
Nat. Rev.
  • His war years are glossed over a bit; nothing else to say?
  • I couldn't find too much about what he did between 1946-1948. Guessing mostly "boring" legwork, being a civilian and all that.
  • "Indonesian National Committee" -- is this a quote? If it's a title, no quote marks are necessary
  • Done.
  • Three committees in ~20 words! We should address this repetition, if possible.
  • Unfortunate, but blame the Indonesian revolutionaries for repetitive diction for that
  • he joined Masjumi, the Islamic political party -- "political" is unnecessary, as we know what kind of parties you are discussing this point. Was it the only Islamic political party? If not, "an" rather than "the".
  • Done.
  • he noted that some considered him a follower of Sjahrir... He was close to Sjahrir -- I understand that a follower =/= closeness, but there is a tension between these two statements, particularly so close to each other.
  • Done. A little rewording, maybe? "His proximity to Sjahrir..."
  • as well as being Minister of Prosperity -- "and Minister of Prosperity" since it is subsequent to earlier jobs
  • Done.
  • for Sjahrir's third cabinet -- "his third cabinet" (also his first cabinet), as repetition
  • Done.
  • Which espoused militancy and downplayed the lack of equipment of the Indonesian military -- could you clarify the relevance of their lack of technology? It doesn't seem directly connected to e.g. what Lenin and Stalin thought.
  • Not done Sjafruddin wanted to paint Lenin/Stalin as realists compared to the unrealistic expectations of the military in this case. Any advice?
  • Per WP:INTEXT "In-text attribution should be used with direct speech", re. the quote about Hatta's hanging.
  • Done.
  • that the Indonesian revolutionaries were communists -- might be personalized, such as "that the Indonesian revolution was communist"?
  • Not done I cite the source as "His discussions with other delegates led him to understand that he and his Indonesian colleagues were perceived by many to be communist". I suppose that's the same, but not sure.
Emergency
  • "who deemed that the Republican power " -- "who deemed the Republican power"
  • Done
  • Funny place to link hatta, after so many previous mentions; tricky. Thoughts?
  • Moved the linking ahead, but kept the context as defense minister (and VP)
  • "In November 1948, he brought" -- "then, in November"?
  • Done
  • "in Yogyakarta fell on that day" -- " in Yogyakarta fell the same day"
  • Done
  • "would fall so quickly" -- perhaps "collapse", to avoid repetitive "fall"
  • Done
  • "the formation of a commissariat in Java, which were to be" -- "was to be" if there was only one.
  • Done
  • "During his time in Bidar Alam" --while in?
  • Done
  • "the PDRI critically allowed the Indonesian fighters to continue having a unifying authority" -- sorry, don't understand; do you mean "at this critical time, the PDRI acted as a united front for republican forces"?
  • In this context, it's more that "the Republican forces can refer to the PDRI as their 'government'." Maybe "the PDRI gave the Indonesian fighters an unified authority during this critical time."
  • "a strong bargaining position" -- how?
  • Maybe like that? In the source it's that Sjafruddin had the ability to actually tell the negotiators what to do (plus military improvements)
  • "considered the legal representation" -- I know what you mean; "represent the legitimate government" perhaps?
  • Done
  • "Hatta had also went to meet Sjafruddin" -- "Hatta had gone to"
  • Done
  • "coming along with Natsir's delegation, he left his hideout" -- who did? I assume S., but Hatta is the last man you mention.
  • Done
  • "an united Indonesian front" -- Indonesian?! (Also I think "a united", even though it's a vowel.)
  • Done - changed to "a united Republican front".
Post war
  • "During the PDRI period" -- when is this?
  • Source only gives 1949 - which doesn't really pinpoint much considering that's like 80% of the PRRI period. Added anyways.
  • "force majeure" -- italicise per MOS:FOREIGNITALICS
  • Done
  • "himself calmed down the situation" -- "calmed the situation"
  • Done
  • "Additionally, Sjafruddin also " -- These mean the same thing; one of them is redundant.
  • Done
  • "a post which he would later retain in the succeeding Natsir Cabinet" -- relevant? (I assume you deal with this later.)
  • Yeah, a lot of the policies mentioned is in the Natsir period which is somewhat longer anyways.
  • "create a uniform currency system" -- "create a uniform legal tender" perhaps, to avoid repetition of "currency".
  • Done
  • "Claims from De Javasche Bank stated that the policy" -- perhaps "De Javasche Bank claimed that the policy"
  • Done
  • Did S. or his govt respond to these claims?
  • Nothing I could find in the source in question.
  • lose "hence"
  • Done
  • Mentioning the improved situation during the Korean War a little premature?
  • I think this is fine - I put it there in the context of increased spending policy from Sumitro and Sjafruddin's strictness which follows.
  • "Despite the better financial situation" -- "Despite the improving financial situation"?
  • Done
  • "Sjafruddin maintained the government budget strictly, maintaining an unpopular" -- "Sjafruddin maintained strict budgetary controls, retaining an unpopular..." Also in this sentence, you shift from the past ("maintained") to the present ()"refusing")
  • Done. A "by" there good?
  • "This was compounded by a number of Dutch officials he maintained within the finance ministry who held significant powers" -- clarify what was being compounded, and what the Duitch officials had to do with it?
  • Done. In the context, political unpopularity.
  • "considered more accommodating than his contemporaries" -- meaning, "considered more accommodating than those of his contemporaries"
  • Done
  • "With regards to his" -- "due to his". So he did not see interest as usury? Perhaps phrase slightly for clarity, something like "S. did not agree that bank interest could be considered riba"?
  • If anything, I think it should be despite - common "religious" view at that time was that interest is usury.
  • "During 1952, a split occurred in Masyumi etc" -- "By 1952, Masyumi had divided between modernist politicians (etc) and traditional Islamist members, who broke off to form/join the..."?
  • Maybe the current version?
  • Done
  • "S. opposed the nationalization on the grounds" -- "opposed this"
  • Done
  • "such as his belief in the lack of necessity to nationalize the bank" -- simplify: "such as his opposition to". In any case, yes, but not for the same reasons? He because the economy was young, them because it would be an act of decolonisation?
  • Done
  • "While in his tenure, Sjafruddin criticized the" -- "while in office"
  • Done
PRRI Rebellion
  • " The general public opinion" -- "Public opinion"
  • Done
  • "Sjafruddin's position" -- "Sjafruddin's policy of"
  • Done
  • "Sentiments against the Netherlands rose significantly following" - "Anti-Dutch sentiment increased after the Dutch successfully blocked"
  • Done
  • "Sjafruddin himself alongside other Masyumi leaders" -- "S. sand other"
  • Done
  • "some of the assassins" -- assaillants
  • Done
  • "being complicit in the assassination" -- surely, "attempted assassination"?
  • Done
  • "Sjafruddin refused to sign the declaration" -- of Independence?
  • PRRI's declaration of formation. Clarified.
  • "with Sjafruddin being named as its prime minister.[73][74] He also doubled as the minister of finance in the PRRI government" -- "with Sjafruddin being named as both prime minister and finance minister[73][74]"
  • Done
  • "from the United States, the military aid was soon withdrawn" -- "from the United States, military aid was soon withdrawn"
  • Done
  • Done
  • "In the proclaimed state" -- "In the proclamation"?
  • Done
  • "but little other details beyond the state's constitution was prepared" -- "but little else beyond the state's constitution was announced"
  • Done
  • "In April and May 1961, PRRI's troops began surrendering" -- "In April and May 1961, they began surrendering", as you finish the previous sentence on the PRRI (and, indeed, begin the next with it also)
  • Done
  • "leaving the civilian leaders little options" -- "few options"
  • Done
  • "29 kilograms (64 lb) of gold" per MOS:CONVERSIONS
  • Done
Post rebellion
  • "and he tended" -- and tended"
  • Done
  • Done
  • So he supported people under Suharto, but preached against Suharto himself?
  • He supported the macroeconomic policies but criticized corruption - I don't think those two sentences contradict each other?
  • Eh, sure
  • "300 pilgrims being abandoned" -- they were abandoned in Mecca with no way of getting home?
  • Yeah. Clarified
  • "detained for a time starting in April 1978" -- "detained for a short period in April 1978"
  • Done
  • "he further lead the" -- "he lead the"
  • Done
  • "Additionally, between 1974 and 1982" -- It's not additional your point, it's fundamental... suggest recasting to something like "the petition questioned the conduct of the Indonesian National Armed Forces and Suharto's use of Pancasila as a political weapon,[92] which from 1974 (and until 1982), had been gradually pushed as the sole guiding principle"
  • Done. Also reworded the next sentence a bit for his 1983 letter.
  • Incidentally, why did the petition question the IAF at that point?
  • General human rights violations - no singular incident in the late 1970s that I can recall.
  • "to protest against the provision" -- "protesting the provision"
  • Done
Personal life
  • "He married Tengku" -- "S. married Tengku"
  • Done
  • "whom he met" -- "whom he had met"?
  • Done
  • "During Sjafruddin's imprisonment" -- should clarify when, as he was imprisoned several times?
  • Done
Death & Legacy
  • "He died in Jakarta" -- "S. died"
  • Done
  • "Having suffered from bronchitis, at around" -- had he recently recovered from Bronchitis or was he still ill with it?
  • He was still with it. Reworded.
  • "he had become more frail" -- "he had grown trailer"
  • Done
  • Do we know when in 1988 he wrote to Kahin?
  • Not clarified in the source, unfortunately, only "1988". One can infer that it's at the earliest in October, so it's definitely a late 1988 letter, but no details on the month. Nevermind, it is in the source.
  • "idealist, and despite his" -- "idealist, who despite his"
  • Done
  • "Indonesia was being colonized by itself" -- this is an extremely interesting idea. Could you clarify briefly what he meant in a footnote?
  • Not much to be said here - the words were mentioned to Rosihan Anwar on S.'s deathbed, and he probably didn't clarify. Maybe I can add Anwar's commentary instead?
  • "He was made" -- "S. was made"
  • Done
  • "after being rejected twice" -- why?
  • Clarified
  • Whaddya know, found a source that describes the controversy. Added a sentence there.
  • "that comprise the Bank Indonesia headquarters" -- perhaps "that comprise Bank Indonesia's headquarters"
  • Done

CMD

[edit]

Enjoying reading through this article. My initial comment on the lead is that there may be some room for tweaks to reach a broader audience. One point that comes to mind is that "Republic of Indonesia" had different meanings during this period, referring to both the de facto (and at points de jure) Java/Sumatra revolutionary entity, and to the larger Indonesia as a whole. A bit of clarity on this, and therefore the reach of the Emergency Government, would be helpful. Another lead area that could use work is the area around "By 1948, due to risks of a Dutch assault, Mohammad Hatta placed him in Bukittinggi". This text feels reasonably inscrutable for someone unfamiliar with the situation at the time. Rather than mention Hatta and Bukittingi, a brief summary of the resumption of hostilities and the capture of Sukarno would be better context to understand how Sjafruddin came to be the head of government, and explain the later mention of handing power back to Sukarno. CMD (talk) 00:19, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Chipmunkdavis: I added some additional context to the first paragraph and to the handover. There isn't much to say about the handover event itself, though. Better? Juxlos (talk) 02:04, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
...Oh, and the lead. I forgot about that earlier. Juxlos (talk) 02:14, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. For coorindators, I believe the changes have alleviated my lead concern (although perhaps someone with less familiarity with that period may be able to offer a better perspective). CMD (talk) 09:46, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria

[edit]

Source review - spotchecks not done, and with the disclaimer that I do not speak Indonesian. Version reviewed

  • Looking at the guideline, I'll remove the ordinal for the Minister of Prosperity (the title changes a lot in the period). Kept the ordinals for the Bank Indonesia and Finance Minister one - BI is explicitly stated. The Finance Minister one can be seen here but I'm not sure how I would put this source in the body of the article. Any suggestions?
  • ...I forgot he had non consecutive terms. Probably best to just remove the ordinal for simplicity.
  • The start date for his term as bank governor in the infobox doesn't match what's in the article text
  • Article text is wrong - corrected.
  • Not seeing the end date for the bank governorship in text. Generally, check that infobox info matches body and is either in the body or cited directly in the infobox
  • Changed, and fixed (was wrong apparently, basing it now on the date of firing).
  • @Nikkimaria: All the infobox items are now in the body - a couple are removed in the "Minister of Prosperity" one - couldn't find an explicit source for that unless I dig for something like "full list of Indonesian cabinets" or something. It's probably his least significant tenure and a post that got renamed like 5x already anyway. Juxlos (talk) 12:11, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Buidhe: On a sidenote - I (mostly) reverted them since looking at a sample of a dozen FAs of politicians, pretty much all of them has filled infoboxes. Not mandatory, yes, but feels pretty much like a MOS thing so I'd prefer to keep them in. Juxlos (talk) 12:12, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ditto for content in the lead
  • Do you have anything specific? So far I've not spotted the lead having any noticeable differences from the body in content.
  • Notes also should be cited - looking particularly at note d
  • May be easier to remove that note specifically. The statement is regarding continuity of government - I based it off the article on the First Hatta Cabinet which cites a source saying that it wasn't legally dissolved, but I can't access the offline source personally so maybe best not to say it.
  • Retrieval dates aren't needed for GBooks links
  • Fixed
  • What makes Pustaka Al Kautsar a high-quality reliable source? Bulan Bintang? Kepustakaan Populer Gramedia?
  • Individually:
  • Bulan Bintang is a primary source - Sjafruddin Prawiranegara's own writing. Too primary?
  • The Kepustakaan Populer Gramedia source is by Remy Madinier, the same author as Islam and Politics in Indonesia book by NUS Press. Author is an authority in the subject.
  • Pustaka Al Kautsar is a little iffy, I agree. It cites Sjafruddin's 1986 autobiography by Ajip Rosidi ([65]) which I couldn't get access to. Maybe I could replace that source with one of the newspaper sources like the Republika one which states the same fact citing the same autobiography?
  • Al Kautsar source supports the part about Minangkabau nobility and the thing about Pagaruyung kingdom - the Minangkabau part is supported by the Kahin source. Also the part about his middle school (MULO) in Madiun (Kahin source skips it, but it must have been somewhere). Juxlos (talk) 05:12, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • How are you ordering Sources?
  • Alphabetical last name, excepting those by institutional publications which I made its own "category".
  • Be consistent in when/if you include publication location.
  • Fixed

Nikkimaria (talk) 02:47, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie

[edit]

I've copyedited; please revert anything you disagree with.

  • "he made contacts with dissident army officers and began attacking the government": I'm not clear what "attacking" refers to. This is in the lead; in the body, he writes an open letter to Sukarno but nothing else is mentioned until the civil war starts.
  • "Criticizing" is probably a better term, if a bit soft, but he didn't exactly lob grenades at buildings or something. Changed/
  • "On the other hand, his great-grandfather": not quite idiomatic. I think you mean something like "in contrast", but if you want to see that I think you need a parenthetical explanation of what his father's membership in Sarekat Islam and Budi Utomo implies about his political beliefs.
  • No contrast whatsoever - just removed the idiom and went straight to the fact.
  • "Soetardjo Kartohadikusumo, the sponsor of Soeara Timur": what does sponsor mean here? Owner? Financial benefactor?
  • "in 1940 refused to join the Stadswacht militia": I'd guess this is some form of Dutch-sponsored local militia formed in response to World War II, but it needs to be clearer both what it is and what his refusal implies. Making it "in 1940 refused to join the Stadswacht, the Dutch colonial militia", would probably be enough, if that interpretation is correct.
  • Added.
  • "During the occupation, Sjafruddin developed a feeling of necessity regarding immediate Indonesian independence, and hence he became active in the underground independence movement." A bit clumsily phrased: how about "During the occupation, Sjafruddin became convinced that immediate Indonesian independence was necessary, and became active in the underground independence movement." There's no need for "hence"; the connection is obvious.
  • Changed
  • "He often visited Sutan Sjahrir due to this, and according to Sjafruddin, he was regarded as a member of Sjahrir's non-cooperative resistance despite his denial." This the first time Sutan Sjahrir has been mentioned in the body so a bit more explanation is needed. The second half of the sentence needs some clarification too -- if this means Sjafruddin's denial, are we saying that he never felt he was part of Sjahrir's resistance, but others thought he was? At the time, or later, or both?
  • Added a half-sentence about Sjahrir. And regarding the denial, it's what you said, yeah, and both. I tried to clarify, good enough?
  • "a number of educational courses directed against the occupation policy": does this refer to the Japanese occupation? That seems implausible; for a start it was more an act of war than a policy, but I also find it hard to believe the Japanese would permit anti-Japanese courses to be openly given.
  • Discreet courses - I'll add it. I'll just say against the occupation then - same thing.
  • "In a later interview, he noted that some considered him a follower of Sjahrir within the group, but he did not." Does this refer to the same thing as the denial I asked about above?
  • Yes. I'll remove this one. Bit awkward anyways.
  • "According to Sjafruddin, the KNIP's Working Committee worked to create a democratic government, in part to prevent the international community from perceiving the Republic of Indonesia as a Japanese creation": Is this opinion of Sjafruddin's in agreement with that of historians and his contemporaries, or does it represent a difference of opinion? If the former I don't think we need to say it's his opinion, and in fact we may not need to mention it at all -- this is an article about Sjafruddin, not about the entire independence process. If the latter, then we need to know how his opinion differed, and with whom.
  • It's in agreement. Fair enough.
  • "In 1946, he joined Masjumi, an Islamic party, despite previously having no experience within Islamic organizations": I take it he was raised in Islam, but the article doesn't say so; I would add this to the paragraphs on his early life.
  • "he criticized the Pemuda groups": we need a link or a gloss here.
  • Added
  • "despite himself being a Muslim": why is his religion relevant to the positions he states in the article?
  • It is presented as relevant in the source, but I guess to the reader it might not be. Removed.
  • "a response to Sudirman's speech": who is Sudirman? He's linked, which is better than nothing, but two or three words such as "one of the leaders of the revolutionary military" would help the reader understand the disagreement.
  • Clarified
  • I think bambu runcing needs to be explained inline; in fact the name isn't that important -- it sounds like "spears" would do here, perhaps with a footnote if the particular name has some cultural resonance I'm not aware of. And I'm afraid I know nothing about Indonesian independence, so this is probably an ignorant question, but was it really "Allied forces" that would have been fought? Wasn't the independence fight against the Dutch?
  • Translated the thing - it being bamboo is culturally relevant but not really back then. In 1945-1946, the British took part - Battle of Surabaya is probably the big thing in that specific time.
  • "and the split groups followed up in the following weeks": can we avoid two uses of "follow" in a short space? Perhaps "and the split groups joined him in the following weeks"?
  • "caught up"?
  • "He was given extensive powers in this position, due to tenuous control and communication that the Republican government had on Sumatra." I think this could be phrased more cleanly. How about "He was given extensive powers in this position, since the Republican government had poor communications with Sumatra and only tenuous control."?
  • Changed
  • "In the Masyumi-heavy cabinets between December 1949 and June 1953 (at the end of the Wilopo Cabinet)": why are we mentioning the Wilopo Cabinet here? Following the link I see it refers only to the last year of this four-year period. Do you mean that the Masyumi-heavy cabinets lasted until the end of the Wilopo Cabinet? If we need to make that clear (and I don't understand why it would matter) I would phrase it as "In the Masyumi-heavy cabinets between December 1949 and the end of the Wilopo Cabinet in June 1953". But why do you want to mention it?
  • It's not really necessary to mention, but it's more giving the reader the exact thing instead of the dates. Changed to that/
  • "Sjafruddin being Masyumi's primary outlet of economic policy": if I understand this correctly, I would rephrase it as "Sjafruddin's role being the main way in which Masyumi's economic policy influenced the government".
  • It's more that he's the main spokesperson/policymaker regarding economics in Masyumi. Changed.
  • "...primary outlet of economic policy. One policy of Sjarifuddin was a foreign exchange certificate policy...": can we avoid saying "policy" three times in a short space?
  • Changed
  • "...which granted such certificates at half of the nominal value of exports. This could in turn be sold to importers, who would have to present the certificate with a face value equivalent to the nominal value of their imports." I don't understand this. Can you explain the mechanism?
  • Simplified - it's a bit weird anyways.
  • "Both policies resulted in significant criticism": does "both" refer to the paper money cut and the bank account cut? If so I would make that clearer -- the phrase in the previous paragraph that 'the same "cut" also applied to bank accounts' made me think that the term "Sjafruddin Cut" applied to both, but that can't be the case because you say "This was especially the case with the Sjafruddin Cut".
  • The cut and the certificate system. Clarified.
  • "to develop import substitution industries": what does this mean? "to reduce imports by developing Indonesian industries that could supply substitute goods"? If so I would use that phrasing.
  • An economic term. Added a wikilink.
  • "His unpopularity was compounded by a number of Dutch officials he maintained within the finance ministry who held significant powers": a little awkwardly phrased; suggest "His unpopularity was compounded by his insistence on retaining a number of Dutch officials within the finance ministry who held significant powers", if the sources will support "insistence".
  • I couldn't find "insist" per se, so I'll just use "retention".
  • "After his replacement by fellow Masyumi member Jusuf Wibisono": we haven't said that his tenure ended.
  • Added, and restructured the next sentence.
  • "However, the internal dispute of Masyumi flared once more": I'm not sure what "the internal dispute of Masyumi" refers to. We've talked about disagreements within the government, but not about disagreements within Masyumi. Why is the emphasis here on Masyumi, not the government? And is the second half of this paragraph necessary in an article about Sjafruddin? You don't mention Sjafruddin's position on the Mutual Security Act agreement or in the subsequent dispute.
  • The source strongly implies that Sjafruddin was part of the camp opposing it, but fair enough, it's not explicit. Removed.
  • "and according to Sjafruddin's claim, Houwink agreed with his selection": what does "his selection" mean? Staff? Policies? And we don't need both "according to" and "claim"; either by itself establishes that this is Sjafruddin's own assertion.
  • Sjafruddin being appointed. New wording more clear?
  • "and the reserve requirement failed to fulfill its intended purpose": what was its intended purpose?
  • To be honest, the source doesn't explain in full. Removed that statement - maybe it's obvious to people with solid understanding of monetary theory, which isn't me.
  • Is it "PRRI" or "the PRRI"? I see both.
  • Should be without the "the".
  • "the rehabilitation of both Masyumi and the PSI": what is the PSI?
  • The Indonesian Socialist Party - abbreviation was given a little while back in the "Early national revolution" subsection. Too far away? I extended it then.
  • In the post-rebellion section, the paragraph on Pancasila never defines it; there's a link, but I think something inline is needed.
  • As an Indonesian I didn't even think about defining it, but fair enough. Added.

Overall this is in excellent shape; the list above is long but mostly these are minor points. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:56, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support. All issues resolved. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:00, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

[edit]
  • "a shadow government set up in opposition to the central government of Indonesia". central government of Indonesia links to government of Indonesia. A link to the specific government would be more helpful.
  • There were multiple governments during the era - might be easier to remove the wikilink.
  • "during the Japanese occupation". The dates of the occupation would be helpful.
  • Added
  • "Due to his proximity to revolutionary leader Sutan Sjahrir". Proximity is usually only used as meaning nearness in space. I think "closeness" would be better.
  • Changed
  • "he returned his governing mandate to Sukarno in July 1949." The wording implies that you have previously mentioned that he succeeded Sukarno. This should be stated above.
  • Added
  • "His "Sjafruddin Cut" policy aimed to reduce money supply by physically cutting Dutch-issued banknotes in half." I do not understand this.
  • Better now?
  • "based his views on a liberal Islamic interpretation, although he remained staunchy opposed to communism." Why "although"? You have already made clear he was not a communist.
  • Reworded
  • "Imprisoned until 1966, he continued to be a vocal critic of the New Order government". This wrongly implies continuity before and after 1966. You should make clear that in later years he was opposing the right wing Suharto.
  • Reworded
  • "He wished to continue his studies in Leiden". I would say in the Netherlands for clarity.
  • Sure, added
  • "until the Japanese occupation of the Dutch East Indies". When?
  • Added
  • "Due to this he often visited Sutan Sjahrir". I would leave out "Due to this". It does not logically follow.
  • Fair enough
  • "and according to Sjafruddin, he was then often regarded as a member of Sjahrir's movement despite his denial". A bit clumsy. Maybe "and Sjafruddin stated that he was often wrongly regarded as a member of Sjahrir's movement".
  • That's the way. Changed.
  • In the lead you describe him as an economist, but you only mention legal training. How did he get his knowledge of economics?
  • Experience at the tax office. Regardless, a bunch of sources describe him as one without being very clear about where he got economics training specifically.
  • "Shortly after the proclamation of Indonesian independence, on 24 August 1945". I assumed at first you meant legal independence. You should clarify the position between 1945 and 1949.
  • I think I would keep it - the "proclamation" doesn't really mean much legally for everyone else (in Indonesia it's very much entrenched as the legal date), but it's the proclamation, not the independence. Not sure what I would clarify there.
  • "before his replacement with Alexander Andries Maramis". "replacement by"
  • Changed
  • " Sjafruddin also denounced a number of leaders which called for pemuda to fight". "who called for".
  • Changed
  • "Sjafruddin also denounced" " Sjafruddin also persuaded" Repetition of "also".
  • Changed
  • "In 1947, he participated in Economic Council for Asia and the Far East" "the Economic Council".
  • Changed
  • "with both Sukarno and Hatta". This is the first mention of Sukarno in the main text, yet in the infobox you say he took over from Sukarno as head of the emergency government. You should explain Sukarno's status and position.
  • Huh. Explained.
  • "Dutch ambush at the dawn of 15 January." "at dawn on 15 January".
  • Changed
  • "Shortly after the proclamation of Indonesian independence, he became a member the Indonesian National Committee of the Priangan region on 24 August 1945". I think the article would be easier to follow if you explained the positions of Sukarno and Sjahrir at this point. How about "Indonesian independence was proclaimed in August 1945, with Sukarno as president and Sjahrir as prime minister. On 24 August Prawiranegara became a member the Indonesian National Committee of the Priangan region". Dudley Miles (talk) 16:46, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "was eventually shot down in exchange for an implicit promise". Shot down means compelled, not in return for a promise. Maybe "dropped".
  • Good point, changed
  • "minister of trade and industry Sumitro Djojohadikusumo, to Sjafruddin's opposition", against Sjafruddin's opposition.
  • Changed
  • "After his tenure ended, he was replaced by fellow Masyumi member Jusuf Wibisono in the Sukiman Cabinet. He was a critic of the cabinet's economic policies". "It is unclear who "He" is. I assume you mean that Sjafruddin criticised the policies followed after he lost office, but you should clarify this.
  • Clarified
  • "Sjafruddin also in Palembang and held discussions". I am not sure what you are saying here. While in Palembang? He went to Palembang to hold discussions?
  • I think I messed it up while CE-ing something else. Changed to "also went to Palembang"
  • "He was eventually released on 26 July 1966." You should mention the complete change in political system in 1965.
  • Added
  • " to go to Mekkah". Better Mecca for English speaking readers.
  • Fair enough
  • "Thee Kian Wie". It would be helpful to describe him - The economist Thee Kian Wie"?
  • "Indonesian economist" to be precise.
  • "Thee Kian Wie described Sjafruddin as a pragmatic policymaker along with several contemporaries such as Sumitro and Hatta,[111] although generally Sjafruddin's policies and views were considered more accommodating than those of his contemporaries". Why "although"?
  • Sjafruddin was contrasted to Sumitro and Hatta in this case. Maybe the new sentence is better?
  • He was mentioned in the "PRRI" section along with Hatta. Added his main position at the time as Sultan (his political position was complicated).

Overall

[edit]

@FAC coordinators: Do you think the consensus to promote is there? Juxlos (talk) 04:15, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I only see two general supports; a closing coordinator would want three as a minimum. They would also want a pass from Nikkimaria for the source review. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:37, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Buidhe: and @Nikkimaria: are more or less done, but their call. Juxlos (talk) 15:58, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have anything else to add at this point. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:53, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@FAC coordinators: Good now? Juxlos (talk) 23:28, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Hog Farm via FACBot (talk) 2 March 2022 [67].

Walter Donaldson (snooker player)

[edit]
Nominator(s): BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 13:14, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the second-ever world snooker champion, who later converted his snooker room into a cowshed and used the slate from his billiard table for paving. I had fun digging out sources for the article; it's had a copyedit since getting GA status last year. Thanks in advance for any impovement suggestions. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 13:14, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from ChrisTheDude

[edit]
  • "Davis won the following two championships, with Donaldson taking the next, and then being runner-up to Davis for the next four years" => "Davis won the following two championships, with Donaldson taking the next and then being runner-up to Davis for the next four years"
  • "Donaldson then retired from World Championship competition, although continued to play in the News of the World Snooker Tournament until 1959." => "Donaldson then retired from World Championship competition, although he continued to play in the News of the World Snooker Tournament until 1959."
  • "Having returned to Rotherham after winning the Scottish titles," - is this necessary? There's no suggestion that he actually moved house to Glasgow to compete in the tournaments, so it's only logical that he went back home after they ended.
  • "Fred Davis reflected he had probably been" => "Fred Davis reflected that he had probably been"
  • "In the 1948 World Snooker Championship held only six months after the 1947 tournament," => "In the 1948 World Snooker Championship, held only six months after the 1947 tournament,"
  • "Davis wrote he had consciously" => "Davis wrote that he had consciously"
  • "The Billiard Player magazine identified Donaldson's success to" - "identify....to" isn't really a valid usage, so I would change "identified" to "attributed"
  • "The 1953 World Professional Match-play Championship final in March saw the players even at 6–6 after the first day" - which players?
  • "After the 1954 World Match-play final, Donaldson announced he would not be playing" => "After the 1954 World Match-play final, Donaldson announced that he would not be playing"
  • "Donaldson was married to Ida, who he met" => "Donaldson was married to Ida, whom he met"
  • "whilst noting his aversion to applying side" => "whilst noting that his aversion to applying side"
  • The WSC finals table shows Donaldson's score first for every final except 1951
  • Refs against second billiards final are not in numerical order
  • That's what I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:58, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Lee Vilenski

[edit]

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

Lede
Perhaps the article should say he contested the final between those dates and then mention that he won two of the events? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:34, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Amended. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 11:15, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Could probably merge the first and third paras together. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:34, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 11:15, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
British Junior English Billiards Championship (Under-16 section) - could we prose-ify this? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:34, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Amended. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 11:15, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
several times, can we be more specific? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:34, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Amended to "six". BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 11:15, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Worth linking World War 2? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:34, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Linked. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 11:15, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Prose

--- Up to World championship finals and later professional career --

Additional comments

Additionally, if you liked this review, or are looking for items to review, I have some at my nominations list. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:27, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie

[edit]

I've copyedited a little; please revert anything you disagree with.

  • "In a two-week final against Fred Davis": Suggest saying the final is over 145 frames; without that most readers won't understand whether a score of 35-19 is insurmountably close to victory or just a big lead. When this changes -- e.g. in 1950 it was 97 frames -- let the reader know.
  • I'm not convinced that the day-by-day frame score changes are worth it. The account of the 1950 world final, for example, is
    Davis led 8–4 after the first day,[37] and 14–10 after the second.[38] On the third day, Donaldson won eight of the twelve frames played, to level the match at 18–18, including five of the last six after he was 13–17 behind.[39] He won eight of twelve frames the following day, to lead 26–22.[40] He maintained his four-frame lead at 32–28 after each player took six frames on the fifth day,[41] and again at 38–34 after the sixth day,[42] before extending it to six frames at 45–39 on the penultimate day.[43] Donaldson's victory was confirmed on the last day when the score was 49–32, with the match ending at 51–46
    Would the reader really miss much if we simplified it to this:
    Davis led 8–4 after the first day, but after two more days Donaldson levelled the match at 18–18, including winning five of the last six that day. He took a four-frame lead the following day, and maintained it for several days, eventually extending it to six frames at 45–39 on the penultimate day. Donaldson's victory was confirmed on the last day when the score was 49–32, with the match ending at 51–46."?
    I think something like this should be done elsewhere -- convert the daily scores into more of a narrative.

Other than that this is looking in good shape. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:05, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Benny, how's this going? Gog the Mild (talk) 14:51, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Gog the Mild, I'm not at home for a few days and don't have access to all sources until I return, but should be able address these and the outstanding itens from Nikkimaria in the next few days (unlikely before 23rd). Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 09:56, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I think that's an improvement. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:40, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

Spotchecks not done. Version reviewed

  • I see the article specifies that he died in an ambulance on the way to hospital from his home in Newport Pagnell - do sources confirm that the actual location of death was Newport Pagnell?
  • I see that the text confirms he had an aversion to use of side, but is there a source for him being known for that aversion?
  • FN1: neither link appears to be working
  • Be consistent in when you include publisher - eg FNs 73 and 74 are the same publication but one has it and the other doesn't
  • Why do some The Billiard Player refs include number and others not?
  • Be consistent in when you include location
  • What makes Kobyhadrian Books a high-quality reliable source? Partridge Press?
  • Retrieval dates aren't needed for GBooks links
  • I don't see that FN25 supports the claim being cited to it?
  • What kind of source is FN31?
Hi Nikkimaria, any further thoughts on this one? Gog the Mild (talk) 14:50, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Point 4 (inconsistent use of publisher) and 6 (locations) are still pending. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:38, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nikkimaria. Many thanks for the review. Hopefully I've fixed the issues with inconsistent publisher and location details. I'm happy to provide extracts from the offline sources via Wikipedia email if there's anything you would like to check. Let me know if more is neeed. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:21, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Could you explain in what cases you're intended to include publisher and location? I'm having trouble discerning a pattern. (Also looks like there's a citation error in FN3). Nikkimaria (talk) 13:27, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nikkimaria. My intention was to include publisher for websites, books and magazines, but not newspapers. I tried to include location only for books (except the one where no location is given). Happy to make this more standard across types of source by adding more details if necessary. Regards. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:16, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay - are locations sometimes included within publisher name? Eg Mirus. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:55, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The company publishing Pot Black was Mirus (UK) Limited, so I think the "(UK)" should probably be retained. I've also retained the "Sydney" after Tatterall's Club (and wikilinked it) as that appears to be distinct from the Melbourne Tattersalls Club and others. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 14:11, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Should be good to go here then. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:08, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Featured_log/March_2022&oldid=1080380629"